Are Reviewers' Judgements Influenced by Memo Structure and Conclusions Documented in Audit Workpapers?

Contemporary Accounting Research

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 663-678

  Tan, Hun Tong ^a   Yip Ow, Jackson ^b  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b IOEC Private Limited

Author keywords

Audit workpapers; Memo structure; Preparer's conclusion; Review process

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038066962     PISSN: 08239150     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1506/UG8M-8H3D-1GA2-7BYK     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Arens, A. A., and J. K. Loebbecke. 1999. Auditing: An integrated approach. 8th ed. New York: Prentice-Hall.
2. Ashton, A., and R. Ashton. 1988. Sequential belief revision in auditing. Accounting Review 63 (October): 623-41.
3. Chapman, G. J. B., and E. J. Johnson. 1999. Anchoring, activation and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 79 (August): 115-53.
4. Friestad, P. M., and P. Wright. 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (June): 1-31.
5. Gibbins, M. 1984. Propositions about the psychology of professional judgment in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Spring): 103-25.
6. Hirst, D. E. 1994. Auditors' sensitivity to source reliability. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Spring): 113-26.
7. Kida, T. 1984. The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' use of judgment data. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Spring): 332-40.
8. Libby, K. R., and K. T. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control of differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (August): 559-74.
9. Mayper, A. G., U. Anderson, G., and B. G. Kirkpatrick. 1999. Tax workpaper review: The impact of staff conclusions and argument presentation. Advances in Taxation 11: 145-67.
10. Messier, W. F., and M. R. M. Tubbs. 1994. Recency effects in belief revision: Impact of audit experience and the review process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13 (Spring): 57-72.
11. Mussweiler, T., and F. Strack. 1999. Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessability model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 (March): 136-64.
12. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. 1976. Research opportunities in auditing. New York: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
13. Ramsay, R. 1994. Senior/manager differences in audit workpaper review performance. Journal of Accounting Research 32 (Spring): 127-35.
14. Ricchiute, D. N. 1999. The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 24 (February): 155-71.
15. Rich, J. R. 1999. An experimental investigation of the review process from a persuasive perspective. Unpublished working paper. University of Connecticut.
16. Rich, J. R., I. Solomon, and K. T. Trotman. 1997a. The audit review process: A cognitive characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 25 (July): 481-505.
17. _. 1997b. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: A decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature 16: 481-505.
18. Solomon, I. 1987. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research. Journal of Accounting Literature 6: 1-25.
19. Smith, J., and T. Kida. 1991. Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin 109 (May): 472-89.
20. Trotman, K. T. 1985. The review process and the accuracy of auditor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 740-52.
21. Trotman, K. T., and P. Yetton. 1985. The effect of the review process on auditor judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (Spring): 256-67.
22. Wilson, T. D., N. C. E. Houston, K. M. Eitling, and N. Brekke. 1996. A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 125 (December): 387-402.
23. Yip-Ow, J., and H. T. Tan. 2000. Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 24 (February): 203-15.