Effects of Exposure to Subsequently Invalidated Evidence on Judgements of Audit Workpaper Preparers and Reviewers*
2008; Wiley; Volume: 25; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1506/car.25.3.10
ISSN1911-3846
Autores Tópico(s)Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
ResumoContemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 25, Issue 3 p. 921-946 Effects of Exposure to Subsequently Invalidated Evidence on Judgements of Audit Workpaper Preparers and Reviewers* Seet-Koh Tan, Seet-Koh Tan Nanyang Technological UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorHun-Tong Tan, Hun-Tong Tan Nanyang Technological UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Seet-Koh Tan, Seet-Koh Tan Nanyang Technological UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorHun-Tong Tan, Hun-Tong Tan Nanyang Technological UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 January 2010 https://doi.org/10.1506/car.25.3.10Citations: 26 * Accepted by Steven Salterio. We appreciate the support of the participating auditors from the two Big 4 accounting firms. We thank Steven Salterio (associate editor) and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. We also thank Amit Das, Karim Jamal, Terence Ng, Asheq Razaur Rahman, Ken Trotman, and Nanyang Technological University colleagues for helpful comments. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Anderson, C. A., M. R. Lepper, and L. Ross. 1980. Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (6): 1037–49. Arkin, R. M., and J. A. Sheppard. 1989. Self-presentational styles in organizations. In Impression Management in the Organization, eds. R. A. Giacalone and P. Rosenfeld, 125–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bierstaker, J. L., P. Burnaby, and J. Thibodeau. 2001. The impact of information technology on the audit process: An assessment of the state of the art and implications for the future. Managerial Auditing Journal 16 (3): 159–64. Frost, C. A. 1991. Loss contingency reports and stock prices: A replication and extension of Banks and Kinney. Journal of Accounting Research 29 (1): 157–69. Gardner, W. 1992. Lessons in organizational dramaturgy: The art of impression management. Organizational Dynamics 21 (1): 33–46. Hackenbrack, K. 1992. Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 30 (1): 126–36. Horstmann, C. A. 2005. Playing a leadership role in international convergence. Journal of Accountancy 200 (4): 98–100. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2004. International Standard on Auditing 500: Audit evidence. New York: International Federation of Accountants. Joe, J. R. 2003. Why press coverage of a client influences the audit opinion. Journal of Accounting Research 41 (1): 109–33. Johnson, H. M., and C. M. Seifert. 1994. Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20 (6): 1420–36. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (2): 231–45. Kenny, D. A., D. A. Kashy, and N. Bolger. 1998. Data analysis in social psychology. In The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 1, eds. D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, 233–65. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (2): 369–84. Lavigne, A. 1998. Work better †Electronically. CA Magazine 131 (5): 37–8. Lepper, M. R., L. Ross, and R. R. Lau. 1986. Persistence of inaccurate beliefs about the self: Perseverance effects in the classroom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (3): 482–91. Libby, R., and K. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (6): 559–74. MacKinnon, D. P., C. M. Lockwood, J. M. Hoffman, S. G. West, and V. Sheets. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods 7 (1): 83–104. Manson, S., S. McCartney, and M. Sherer. 2001. Audit automation as control within audit firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 14 (1): 109–30. Mutchler, J. F., W. Hopwood, and J. M. Mckeown. 1997. The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (2): 295–310. Nisbett, R. E., H. Zukier, and R. E. Lemley. 1981. The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology 13 (2): 248–77. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2003. Interim auditing standards. Washington, DC: PCAOB. Public Oversight Board (POB). 2000. The panel on audit effectiveness: Report and recommendations. Stamford, CT: POB. Ramsay, R. J. 1994. Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performance. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (1): 127–35. Reimers, J. L., and M. G. Fennema. 1999. The audit review process and sensitivity to information source objectivity. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (1): 117–23. Ricchiute, D. N. 1999. The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (1): 155–71. Rich, J. S., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: A decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 86–126. Ross, L., and C. A. Anderson. 1982. Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, eds. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, 129–52. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ross, L., M. R. Lepper, and M. Hubbard. 1975. Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (5): 880–92. Seifert, C. M. 2002. The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective? In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, vol. 41, ed. B. H. Ross, 265–92. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Shrout, P. E., and N. Bolger. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7 (4): 422–45. Tan, H. T., and K. Jamal. 2006. Managing perceptions of technical competence: How well do auditors know how others view them Contemporary Accounting Research 23 (3): 761–87. Tan, H. T., and R. Libby. 1997. Tacit managerial versus technical knowledge as determinants of audit expertise in the field. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (1): 97–113. Tan, H. T., and S. K. Tan. 2007. Investors' reactions to management disclosure corrections: Does presentation format matter? Working paper, Nanyang Technological University. Tetlock, P. E., and J. I. Kim. 1987. Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (4): 700–9. Tie, R. 2006. The new world of auditing standards. Journal of Accountancy 201 (5): 59–62. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124–31. Turner, E. 2006. The new direction. CA Magazine 139 (3): 41–9. Wagner, R. K., and R. J. Sternberg. 1985. Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49 (2): 436–58. Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (1): 51–71. Citing Literature Volume25, Issue3Fall 2008Pages 921-946 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)