Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures

Accounting, Organizations and Society

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 737-755

  Asare, S K ^a   Wright, A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031281060     PISSN: 03613682     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(97)00022-6     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Abdolmohammadi, M. J. (1990). A taxonomy of audit task complexity and experience requirement in auditing: implications for audit research and practice. Working paper, Bentley College, Boston, MA.
2. Abdolmohammadi, M. J., & Wright, A. (1987). An examination of the effects of experience and task complexity on audit judgments. The Accounting Review, 62, 1-13.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1988). Analytical Procedures: Statement on Auditing Standards No. 56. New York: AICPA.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, (1993). AICPA Professional Standards, Volume 1: U.S. Auditing Standards. New York: AICPA.
5. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York, Academic Press.
6. Asare, S. K., & Wright, A. (forthcoming). Evaluation of competing hypotheses in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory.
7. Ashton, A. H. (1991). Experience and error frequency knowledge as potential determinants of audit expertise. The Accounting Review, 66, 218-239.
8. Ashton, R. H., & Ashton, A. H. (1990). Evidence responsiveness in professional judgment: effects of positive versus negative evidence and presentation mode. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 1-19.
9. Bedard, J. C., & Biggs, S. F. (1991a). The effect of domain-specific experience on evaluation of management representations in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 11, 77-90
10. Bedard, J. C., & Biggs, S. F. (1991b). Pattern recognition, hypotheses generation, and auditor performance in an analytical task. The Accounting Review, 66, 622-642
11. Bedard, J. C., & Wright, A. (1996). Decision processes associated with auditors' evidential planning strategies. Working paper, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
12. Blocher, E., & Willingham J. (1988). Analytical Review: A Guide to Performing Analytical Procedures. New York: McGraw Hill.
13. Cohen, J., & Kida, T. (1989). The impact of analytical review results, internal control reliability and experience on auditors' use of analytical review. Journal of Accounting Research, 27, 263-276.
14. Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
15. Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 193-242.
16. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 3-19.
17. Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978). Medical Problem Solving. An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Emby, C. (1992). Completeness, complementarity, and eliminations & resuscitations: the effects of linear scale and pie chart response formats on auditors' performance of a sequential probability estimation task. Working paper, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
19. Frederick, D., Heiman-Hoffman, V., & Libby, R. (1994). The structure of auditors' knowledge of financial statement errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (Spring), 1-21.
20. Gaeth, G. J., & Shanteau, J. (1984). Reducing the influence of irrelevant information on experienced decision makers. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 263-282.
21. Gavanski, I., & Hui, C. (1992). Natural sample spaces and uncertain belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 766-780.
22. Hackenbrack, K. (1992). Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment. Journal of Accounting Research, 30, 125-135.
23. Heiman, V. (1990). Auditors' assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in analytical review. The Accounting Review (October), 875-890.
24. Hirst, E., & Koonce, L. (1996). Audit analytical procedures: a field investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13, 457-486.
25. Houghton, C., & Fogarty, J. (1991). Inherent risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 10, 1-21.
26. Hylas, R., & Ashton, R. (1982). Audit detection of financial statement errors. The Accounting Review, 57, 751-765.
27. Johnson, P. E., Jamal, K., & Berryman, R. G. (1991). Effects of framing on auditor decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 75-105.
28. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
29. Kinney, W. (1987). Attention-directing analytical review using accounting ratios: a case study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 6, 59-73.
30. Kinney, W., & Haynes, C. M. (1990). Analytical procedure results as substantive evidence. In R. P. Srivastava, (Ed.), University of Kansas Auditing Symposium X. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
31. Koonce, L. (1993). A cognitive characterization of audit analytical review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 12, 57-76.
32. Kreutzfeld, R., & Wallace, W. (1986). Error characteristics in audit populations: their profile and relationships to environmental factors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 6, 20-43.
33. Libby, R. (1981). Accounting and Human Information Processing: Theory and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
34. Libby, R. (1985). Availability and the generation of hypotheses in analytical review. Journal of Accounting Research, 23, 648-667.
35. Libby, R., & Frederick, D. (1990). Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of Accounting Research, 28, 348-367.
36. Nelson, M., Libby, R., & Bonner, S. (1995). Knowledge structures and the estimation of conditional probabilities in audit planning. The Accounting Review, 70, 27-48.
37. Robinson, L., & Hastie, R. (1985). Revision of beliefs when a hypothesis is eliminated from consideration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 443-456.
38. Salmon, W. (1988). Dynamic rationality: Propensity, probability, and credence. In Fetzer, J. (Ed.), Probability and Causality (pp. 3-40). D. Reidel Publishing Co., New York.
39. Schum, D., & Martin, W. (1980). Probabilistic opinion revision on the basis of evidence at trial: a baconian or a pascalian process? Technical Report No. 80-02, Rice University, Houston, TX.
40. SEC Accounting Series Releases (SEC/ASR) (1981). SEC vs. Anderson, A. and Co. : Re Mattel, Inc., Release No. 292.
41. SEC Accounting Series Releases (SEC/ASR) (1984). SEC vs. Goodman & Company: Re Doughtie's Foods, Inc., Release No. 30.
42. Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43. Shafer, G., & Srivastava, R. (1990). The bayesian and belief-function formalisms: a general perspective for auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 9, 110-137.
44. Shenoy, P., & Shafer, G. (1990). Axioms for probability and belief-function propagation. In G. Shafer & J. Pearl (Eds), Readings in uncertainty reasoning (pp. 575-610). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., New York.
45. Sherman, S., McMullen, M., & Gavanski, I. (1992). Natural sample spaces and the inversion of conditional judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 401-421.
46. Simnett, R. (1996). The effect of information selection, information processing and task complexity on predictive accuracy of auditors. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21, 699-719.
47. Srivastava, R., & Shafer, G. (1992), Belief-function formulas for audit risk. The Accounting Review, 67, 249-283.
48. Tiegen, K. H. (1974). Overestimation of subjective probabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 15, 56-62.
49. Tiegen, K. H. (1983). Studies in subjective probability III: the unimportance of alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 24, 97-105.
50. Tiegen, K. H. (1988). When are low-probability events judged to be probable? Effects of outcome-set characteristics on verbal probability estimates. Acta Psychologica, 68, 157-174.
51. Tubbs, R. M. (1992). The effect of experience on the auditor's organization and amount of knowledge. The Accounting Review, 67, 783-801.
52. Van Wallendael, L. R., & Hastie, R. (1990). Tracing the footsteps of Sherlock Holmes: cognitive representations of hypothesis testing. Memory and Cognition, 18, 240-250.
53. von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
54. Winkler, R. L., & Murphy, A. H. (1968). "Good" probability assessors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 751-758.
55. Wright, A., & Ashton, R. (1989). Identifying audit adjustments with attention-directing procedures. The Accounting Review, 64, 710-719.
56. Wright, G., & Whalley, P. (1983). The supra-additivity of subjective probability. In B. P. Stignum & F. Wenstop (Eds), Foundations of Utility and Risk Theory with Applications. London: Reidel.