Primacy effects and the role of risk in auditor belief-revision processes

Auditing

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 75-89

  Anderson, Brenda H ^a   Maletta, Mario J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Order effects; Primacy; Recency; Risk

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040520947     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.1999.18.1.75     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abdolmohammadi, M., and A. Wright. 1987. An examination of experience and task complexity on audit judgments. The Accounting Review (January): 1-13.
2. 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.
3. _. 1988. The Auditor's Responsibility to Detect and Report Errors and Irregularities. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 53. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. Anderson, B. H., and M. Maletta. 1994. Auditor attendance to negative and positive information: The effect of experience-related differences. Behavioral Research in Accounting: 1-20.
5. Anderson, N. H., and S. Hubert. 1963. Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior: 379-391.
6. _. 1981. Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.
7. Arens, A. A., and J. K. Loebbecke. 1991. Auditing: An Integrated Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8. Asare, S. K. 1992. The auditor's going concern opinion decision: Interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review (April): 379-393.
9. Ashton, A., and R. Ashton. 1988. Sequential belief revision in auditing. The Accounting Review (October): 623-641.
10. Ashton, R., and A. Ashton. 1990. Evidence-responsiveness in professional judgment: Effects of positive versus negative evidence and presentation mode. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (June): 1-19.
11. Beach, L. R., and T. R. Mitchell. 1978. A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review: 439-449.
12. Bonner, S. 1990. Experience effects in auditing: The role of task specific knowledge. The Accounting Review (January): 72-92.
13. Butt, J. L., and T. L. Campbell. 1989. The effects of information order and hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society: 471-479.
14. Bybee, C. R. 1978. Testing a process model involvement. Communication Research: 413-435.
15. Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (November): 752-756.
16. Crano, W. D. 1977. Primacy versus recency in retention of information and opinion change. The Journal of Social Psychology: 87-96.
17. Cushing, B. E., and S. H. Ahlawat. 1996. Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: The effect of documentation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 110-122.
18. Fiske, S. T., D. R. Kinder, and W. M. Larter. 1983. The novice and the expert: Knowledge-based strategies in political cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: 381-400.
19. Gabrenya, W., and R. M. Arkin. 1979. The effect of commitment on expectancy value and expectancy weight in social decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: 86-90.
20. Hagafors, R., and B. Brehmer. 1983. Does having to justify one's judgments change the nature of the judgment process? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (April): 223-232.
21. Hendrick, C., and A. F. Constantini. 1970. Effects of varying trait inconsistency and response requirements on the primacy effect in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 58-164.
22. Heslin, R., B. Blake, and J. Rotton. 1972. Information search as a function of stimulus uncertainty and the importance of the response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 333-339.
23. Hogarth, R. M., and H. J. Einhorn. 1992. Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology (January): 1-55.
24. Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 231-245.
25. Kida, T. 1984. The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditor's use of judgment data. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 332-340.
26. Knechel, W. R., and W. F. Messier. 1990. Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation. Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring): 386-406.
27. Krull, G., Jr., P. M. J. Reckers, and B. Wong-On-Wing. 1993. The effect of experience, fraudulent signals and information presentation order on auditors' beliefs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 143-153.
28. Libby, R., J. T. Artman, and J. J. Willingham. 1985. Process susceptibility, control risk, and audit planning. The Accounting Review (April): 212-230.
29. 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.
30. _, and T. Kida. 1993. The effect of risk factors on auditors' configural information processing. The Accounting Review (July): 681-691.
31. McMillan, J. J., and R. A. White. 1993. Auditors' belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation bias, and professional skepticism. The Accounting Review (July): 443-465.
32. Messier, W. F. 1992. The sequencing of audit evidence: The impact on the extent of audit testing and report formulation. Accounting and Business Research (Spring): 143-150.
33. _, and R. M. Tubbs. 1994. Recency effects in belief revision: The impact of audit experience and the review process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring): 57-72.
34. Murnighan, J. K., and T. K. Leung. 1976. The effects of leadership involvement and the importance of the task on subordinates' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes: 299-310.
35. Payne, J. W. 1982. Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin: 382-402.
36. Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1984. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 69-81.
37. Reckers, P. M. J., and J. J. Schultz, Jr. 1993. The effects of fraud signals, evidence order, and group-assisted counsel on independent auditor judgment. Behavioral Research in Accounting: 124-144.
38. Smith, J., and T. Kida. 1991. Heuristic and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin (May): 472-489.
39. Trotman, K. T., and J. Sng. 1989. The effect of hypothesis framing, prior expectations and cue diagnosticity on auditors' information choice. Accounting, Organizations and Society: 565-576.
40. _, and A. Wright. 1996. Recency effects: Task complexity decision mode, and task-specific experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting.
41. Tubbs, R. M., W. F. Messier, Jr., and W. R. Knechel. 1990. Recency and presentation mode effects in the auditor's belief revision process. The Accounting Review (April): 452-460.
42. Wallace, W. A. 1991. Auditing. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent.
43. Zimbelman, M. F. 1997. The effects of SAS No. 82 on auditors' attention to fraud risk factors and audit planning decisions. Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 75-104.