The effects of decision aid orientation on risk factor identification and audit test planning

Auditing

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 39-56

  Bedard, Jean C ^a   Graham, Lynford E ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Audit planning; Audit risk; Client business risk; Decision aid design; Risk identification

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040074632     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2002.21.2.39     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abdolmohammadi, M., and A. Wright. 1987. An examination of experience and task complexity on audit judgments. The Accounting Review 62 (January): 1-13.
2. Aiken, L., and S. West. 1992. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
3. Alba, J., and L. Hasher. 1983. Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin 93 (2): 203-231.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1983. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 47. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. _. 1988. Consideration of the Internal Control Structure in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 55. New York, NY: AICPA.
6. _. 1994. Acceptance and Continuation of Audit Clients. Practice Alert No. 94-3. New York, NY: AICPA.
7. _. 1997. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82. New York, NY: AICPA.
8. Anderson, B., and M. Maletta. 1994. Auditor attention to negative and positive information: The effect of experience-related differences. Behavioral Research in Accounting 6: 1-20.
9. _, and _. 1999. Primacy effects and the role of risk in auditor belief-revision processes. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (Spring): 75-89.
10. Ayers, S., and S. Kaplan. 1993. An examination of the effects of hypothesis framing on auditors' information choices in an analytical procedures task. Abacus 29 (September): 113-130.
11. Bedard, J. C., and L. Graham. 1994. Auditors' knowledge organization: Observations from audit practice and their implications. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (Spring): 73-83.
12. Bedard, J., and S. Biggs. 1991. Pattern recognition, hypothesis generation, and auditor performance of analytical procedures. The Accounting Review 66 (July): 635-655.
13. _, T. Mock, and A. Wright. 1999. Evidential planning in auditing: A review of the empirical research. Journal of Accounting Literature 18: 96-142.
14. Biggs, S., M. Selfridge, and G. Krupka. 1993. A computational model of auditor knowledge and reasoning processes in the going-concern judgment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (Supplement): 82-99.
15. Bonner, S., and B. Lewis. 1990. Determinants of auditor expertise. Journal of Accounting Research 31 (Supplement): 1-20.
16. Colbert, J. 1988. Inherent risk: An investigation of auditors' judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (2): 111-122.
17. Dunegan, K. J. 1993. Framing, cognitive modes and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full. Journal of Applied Psychology 5: 491-503.
18. Eining, M., D. Jones, and J. Loebbecke. 1997. Reliance on decision aids: An examination of auditors' assessment of management fraud. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 16 (Fall): 1-20.
19. Frederick, D., V. Heiman-Hoffman, and R. Libby. 1994. The structure of auditors' knowledge of financial statement errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (Spring): 1-21.
20. Gibbins, M., and R. Swieringa. 1995. Twenty years of judgment research in accounting and auditing. In Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing, edited by R. H. Ashton, and A. H. Ashton, 231-249. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. SM: An expert system for risk identification. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Spring): 69-96.
22. Green, P., D. S. Tull, and G. Albaum. 1988. Research for Marketing Decisions. Fifth edition. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
23. Highhouse, S., P. Paese, and T. Leatherberry. 1996. Contrast effects in strategic issue framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65 (2): 95-105.
24. Hirst, D. E., and L. Koonce. 1996. Audit analytical procedures: A field investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (Fall): 457-486.
25. Houston, R., M. Peters, and J. Pratt. 1999. The audit risk model, business risk and audit planning decisions. The Accounting Review 74 (July): 281-298.
26. Johnstone, K. 2000. Client acceptance decisions: Simultaneous effects of client business risk, auditor business risk, and risk adaptation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (Spring): 1-26.
27. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1984. Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist 39: 340-350.
28. Kaplan, S., and P. Reckers. 1989. An examination of information search during initial audit planning. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14 (5/6): 539-550.
29. Kida, T. 1984. The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' use of judgment data. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Spring): 332-340.
30. _, and J. Smith. 1995. The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development. Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (October/November): 585-610.
31. Klayman, J., and Y. Ha. 1987. Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review 94: 211-228.
32. Koonce, L. 1993. A cognitive characterization of analytical review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (Supplement): 57-76.
33. Maletta, M. 1993. An examination of auditors' decisions to use internal auditors as assistants: The effect of inherent risk. Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring): 508-525.
34. McDaniel, L., and W. Kinney. 1995. Expectation-formation guidance in the auditor's review of interim financial information. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Spring): 59-76.
35. Mittal, V., and W. Ross. 1998. The impact of positive and negative affect and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (3): 298-324.
36. Nelson, M., R. Libby, and S. Bonner. 1995. Knowledge structures and the estimation of conditional probabilities in audit planning. The Accounting Review 70 (January): 27-48.
37. Neter, J., W. Wasserman, C. Nachtsheim, and M. Kutner. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
38. Peters, J. 1990. A cognitive computational model of risk hypothesis generation. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 83-103.
39. Public Oversight Board (POB). 2000. Panel on Audit Effectiveness Report and Recommendations. August 31. Stamford, CT: POB.
40. Smith, J., and T. Kida. 1991. Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin: 472-489.
41. Snyder, M., and W. Swann. 1978. Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14: 148-182.
42. Sprinkle, G., and R. Tubbs. 1998. The effects of audit risk and information importance on audit memory during working paper review. The Accounting Review 73 (October): 475-502.
43. Stangor, C., and D. McMillan. 1992. Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social development literatures. Psychological Bulletin 113: 42-61.
44. Tan, H-T. 1995. Effects of expectations, prior involvement, and review awareness on memory for audit evidence and judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Spring): 113-134.
45. Trotman, K., and J. Sng. 1989. The effect of hypothesis framing, prior expectations and cue diagnosticity on auditors' information choice. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14 (5/6): 565-576.
46. Walo, J. 1995. The effect of client characteristics on audit scope. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 14 (Spring): 115-124.
47. Wofford, J., and C. Goodwin. 1990. Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and choice of decision style. Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 603-612.