The persuasiveness of audit evidence: The case of accounting policy decisions

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 573-587

  Salterio, S ^a   Koonce, L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031205959     PISSN: 03613682     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00002-0     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anderson, U., & Koonce, L. (1995). Explanation as a method for evaluating client-suggested causes in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14, 124-132.
2. Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology and Marketing, 7, 195-214.
3. Bedford, N. (1973). Extensions in accounting disclosure. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
4. Caster, P., & Pincus, K. (in press). An empirical test of Bentham's theory of the persuasiveness of evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory.
5. Danos, P., Eichenseher, J., & Holt, D. (1989). Specialized knowledge and its communication in auditing. Contemporary Accounting Research, 6, 91-109.
6. Gibbins, M., & Mason, A. K. (1988). Professional judgment in financial reporting. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Toronto, Canada.
7. Gick, M., & Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306-355.
8. Harkins, S., & Petty, R. (1981). Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 401-413.
9. Harkins, S., & Petty, R. (1983). Social context effects in persuasion: The effects of multiple sources and multiple targets. In P. Paulus, (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 149-175). New York: Springer-Verlag.
10. Harkins, S., & Petty, R. (1987). Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 260-268.
11. Hirst, E. (1994). Auditors' sensitivity to source reliability. Journal of Accounting Research, 32, 113-126.
12. Johnson, L. (1993). An empirical investigation of the effects of advocacy on preparers' evaluations of judicial evidence. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 15, 1-22.
13. Johnson, P., Jamal, K., & Berryman, G. (1991). Effects of framing on auditor decisions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 75-105.
14. Joyce, E., & Biddle, G. (1981). Are auditing judgments sufficiently regressive? Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 323-349.
15. Lochner, P. (1993). Accountants' legal liability: A crisis that must be addressed. Accounting Horizons, 7, 92-96.
16. Marchant, G. (1989). Analogical reasoning and hypothesis generation in auditing. The Accounting Review, 64, 500-513.
17. Marchant, G., Robinson, J., Anderson, U., & Schadewald, M. (1991). Analogical transfer and expertise in legal reasoning. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 48, 272-290.
18. Marchant, G., Robinson, J., Anderson, U., & Schadewald, M. (1993). The use of analogy in legal argument: Problem similarity, precedent and expertise. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 55, 95-119.
19. Mason, A. K., & Gibbins, M. (1991). Judgment and U.S. accounting standards. Accounting Horizons, 5, 14-24.
20. Mautz, R. K., & Sharaf, H. A. (1961). The philosophy of auditing. Menasha, WI: American Accounting Association.
21. Palmrose, Z. (1988). An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63, 55-73.
22. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
23. Salterio, S. (1993). The search for and use of precedents in making financial accounting policy judgments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
24. Salterio, S. (1994). Researching accounting precedents: Learning, efficiency, and effectiveness. Contemporary Accounting Research, 11, 515-542.
25. Salterio, S. (1996). Effect of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21, 467-486.
26. Schuetze, W. (1994). A mountain or a molehill? Remarks by Walter P. Schuetze to American Institute of Certified Public Accountants: Twenty-First Annual National Conference on SEC Developments. Reprinted in Accounting Horizons, 8, 69-75.
27. Schum, D. (1989). Knowledge, probability, and credibility. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 39-62.
28. Shafer, G., & Srivastava, R. (1990). The bayesian and belief-function formalisms: A general perspective for auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 9 (suppl.), 110-148.
29. Shah, A. (1996). Creative compliance in financial reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21, 23-41.
30. Skinner, R. M. (1987). Accounting standards in evolution. Toronto, Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
31. Toba, Y. (1975). A general theory of evidence as the conceptual foundation in auditing theory. The Accounting Review, 50, 7-24.
32. Tomassini, L., Solomon, I., Romney, M., & Krogstad, J. (1982). Calibration of auditors' probabilistic judgments: Some empirical evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 391-406.
33. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
34. Watts, R., & Zimmerman, J. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.