Does performing other audit tasks affect going-concern judgments?

Accounting Review

Volumn 74, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 493-508

  Rau, Stephen E ^a   Moser, Donald V ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Attention; Going concern judgments; Memory; SAS No. 59

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033236340     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.1999.74.4.493     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1988. The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. Anderson, C., B. New, and J. Speer. 1985. Argument availability as a mediator of social theory perseverance. Social Cognition 3: 235-249.
3. Asare, S. 1990. The auditor's going-concern decision: A review and implications for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature 9: 39-64.
4. -. 1992. The auditor's going-concern decision: Interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review 67: 379-393.
5. Bargh, J. 1984. Automatic and conscious processing of social information. In Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol. 3, edited by R. Wyer, and T. Srull. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Chen, K., and B. Church. 1992. Default on debt obligations and the issuance of going-concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11: 30-49.
7. Choo, F., and K. Trotman. 1991. The relationship between knowledge structure and judgments for experienced and inexperienced auditors. The Accounting Review 66: 464-485.
8. Chow, C., A. McNamee, and R. Plumlee. 1987. Practitioners' perceptions of audit step difficulty and criticalness: Implications for audit research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 6: 123-133.
9. Davis, E., and R. Ashton. 1995. Going concern evaluation: Auditors' derived substantial doubt thresholds. Working paper, Duke University.
10. Emby, C., and M. Gibbins. 1988. Good judgment in public accounting: Quality and justification. Contemporary Accounting Research 4 (Spring): 287-313.
11. Fazio, R. 1986. How do attitudes guide behavior? In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, edited by R. Sorrentino, and E. Higgins. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
12. -. 1990. Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative framework. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 23, edited by M. Zanna. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.
13. Gibbins, M. 1984. Propositions about the psychology of professional judgment in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research 22: 103-125.
14. Greenwald, A. G. 1968. Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, edited by A. Greenwald, T. Brock, and T. Ostrom. New York, NY: Academic Press.
15. Hastie, R., and B. Park. 1986. The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review 93: 258-268.
16. -, and N. Pennington. 1989. Notes on the distinction between memory-based vs. on-line judgments. In On-line Cognition in Person Perception, edited by J. N. Bassili. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Heiman, V. 1990. Auditors' assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in analytical review. The Accounting Review 65: 875-890.
18. Hirst, D., and L. Koonce. 1996. Audit analytical procedures: A field investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 13: 457-486.
19. Hoch, S. 1984. Availability and interference in predictive judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10: 649-662.
20. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 51: 231-245.
21. -. 1995. Debiasing the curse of knowledge in audit judgment. The Accounting Review 70: 249-273.
22. Kida, T. 1984. The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' use of judgment data. Journal of Accounting Research 22: 332-340.
23. Koonce, L., U. Anderson, and G. Marchant. 1995. Justification of decisions in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 33: 369-384.
24. Langer, E. 1978. Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In New Directions in Attribution Research, Vol. 2, edited by J. Harvey, W. Ickes, and R. Kidd. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. 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: 559-574.
26. Lingle, J., and T. Ostrom. 1979. Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 180-194.
27. Louwers, T. 1998. The relation between going-concern opinions and the auditors' loss function. Journal of Accounting Research 36: 143-156.
28. McKeown, J., J. Mutchler, and W. Hopwood. 1991. Towards an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinions of bankrupt companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Supplement): 1-13.
29. Moeckel, C., and R. Plumlee. 1989. Auditors' confidence in recognition of audit evidence. The Accounting Review 64: 653-666.
30. Moser, D. 1989. The effects of interference, availability, and accounting information on investors' predictive judgments. The Accounting Review 64 (October): 433-448.
31. -. 1992. Does memory affect judgment? Self-generated vs. recall memory measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62: 555-563.
32. Raghunandan, K., and D. Rama. 1995. Audit reports for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 14: 50-63.
33. Ricchiute, D. 1992. Working-paper order effects and auditors' going-concern decisions. The Accounting Review 67: 46-58.
34. -. 1999. The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 24 (February): 155-171.
35. Rich, J., I. Solomon, and K. Trotman. 1997a. The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (5): 481-505.
36. -, -, and -. 1997b. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: A decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 86-126.
37. Schneider, W., and R. Shiffrin. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, research, and attention. Psychological Review 84: 1-66.
38. Shedler, J., and M. Manis. 1986. Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 26-36.
39. Sherman, S., K. Zehner, J. Johnson, and E. Hirt. 1983. Social explanation: The role of timing, set, and recall on subjective likelihood estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 1127-1143.
40. Smith, J., and T. Kida. 1991. Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin 109: 472-489.
41. Sprinkle, G., and R. Tubbs. 1998. The effects of audit risk and information importance on auditor memory during working paper review. The Accounting Review 73 (October): 475-502.
42. Tan, H. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33: 113-135.
43. Trotman, K., and J. Sng. 1989. The effect of hypothesis framing, prior expectations and cue diagnosticity on auditor's information choice. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14: 565-576.
44. Wyer, R., and T. Srull. 1989. Memory and Cognition in its Social Context, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.