Final answer:
When conducting substantive procedures, auditors should be cautious of confirmation bias, which may affect their judgment. Auditors must maintain professional skepticism to avoid this bias while considering the impact of audit engagement deadlines and weak internal controls.
Step-by-step explanation:
When analyzing the results of substantive procedures, auditors need to be wary of c) confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. This bias may cause auditors to give undue weight to evidence that supports their initial impressions and insufficient scrutiny to evidence that contradicts it. Thus, it is crucial for auditors to maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit process to ensure they are not unwittingly influenced by confirmation bias, while also being cognizant of external factors such as audit engagement deadlines and the presence of weak internal controls.
Moreover, auditors should remember that case studies have limitations, including the inability to generalize findings to a wider population and issues with inter-rater reliability, which can add to audit uncertainty along with measurement device limitations and the measurer's skill level inaccuracies. Similarly, preconceived expert opinions can detect possible mistakes, but may also introduce bias if not re-examined with a rigorous approach. Lastly, survey responses can be affected by response inaccuracies, such as individuals misrepresenting their behavior to appear in a more favorable light, adding yet another layer to the considerations an auditor must factor into their analysis.