Order effects and recency: Where do we go from here?

Accounting and Finance

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 169-182

  Trotman, Ken T ^a   Wright, Arnold ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditor judgments; Evidence; Experience; Recency; Task complexity

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141495892     PISSN: 08105391     EISSN: 1467629X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-629X.00042     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Adelman, L., M. Tolcott, and T. Bresnick, 1993, Examining the effect of information order on expert judgment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56, 348-369.
2. Anderson, B. R. and M. J. Maletta, 1999, Primacy effects on the role of risk in auditor belief-revision processes, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 18, 75-90.
3. Arnold V., P. Collier, S. A. Leech, and S. Sutton, 2000, The effect of experience on order and recency bias in decision making by professional accountants, Accounting and Finance 40, 107-132.
4. Asare, S. K., 1992, The auditor's going concern opinion decision: interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence, The Accounting Review 67, 379-393.
5. Ashton, A. H. and R. H. Ashton, 1988, Sequential belief revision in auditing, The Accounting Review 63, 623-641.
6. Butt, J. and T. L. Campbell, 1989, The effects of information order and hypothesis testing strategies on auditor's judgments, Accounting, Organisations and Society 7, 471-479.
7. Cushing, B. E. and S. Ahlawat, 1996, Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: the effect of documentation, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 15, 110-22.
8. Einhorn, H. and R. Hogarth, 1985, A contrast/surprise model for updating belief, Unpublished Manuscript, (University of Chicago, Chicago, US).
9. Einhorn, H. and R. Hogarth, 1987, Adaptation and inertia in belief updating: the contrast-inertia model, Working Paper, (University of Chicago, US.).
10. Hogarth, R. and H. Einhorn, 1992, Order effects in belief updating: the belief adjustment model, Cognitive Psychology 24, 1-55.
11. Hunter, J. E., F. L. Schmidt, and J. B. Jackson, 1982, Meta analysis: cumulating research findings across studies (Beverly Hills, California Sage Publishers.)
12. Kennedy, J., 1993, Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: a framework and experimental results, Journal of Accounting Research 31, 231-245.
13. Krull, G., Jr., P. M. J. Reckers, and B. Wong-on-Wing, 1993, The effect of experience, fraudulent signals and information presentation order on auditor's beliefs, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 12, 143-153.
14. Messier Jr, W. F. and R. M. Tubbs, 1994, Recency effects in belief revision: the impact of audit experience and the review process, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13, 57-72.
15. Messier, Jr. W. F., 1992, The sequencing of audit evidence: its impact on the extent of audit testing and report formulation, Accounting and Business Research 22, 143-50.
16. Monroe, G. S. and J. Ng, 2000, An examination of order effects in auditors' inherent risk assessments, Accounting and Finance 40, 151-166.
17. Pei, B. K. W., S. Reed, and B. Koch, 1992, Auditor belief revision in a performance auditing setting: an application of the belief adjustment model, Accounting Organizations and Society 17, 169-183.
18. Reckers, P. and G. Schultz, 1993, The effects of fraud signals, evidence order and group assisted council on independent auditor judgment, Behavioral Research in Accounting 5, 124-144.
19. Tolcott, M., F. Marvin, and P. Lehner, 1989, Expert decision making in evolving situations, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 19, 606-615.
20. Trotman, K. T. and A. Wright, 1996, Recency effects: task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience, Behavioural Research in Accounting 8, 175-193.
21. Trotman, K. T. and R. Wood, 1991, A meta-analysis of studies on internal control judgments, Journal of Accounting Research 29, 180-192.
22. Tubbs, R. M., W. F. Messier, and W. R. Knechel, 1990, Recency effects in the auditor's belief-revision process, The Accounting Review 65, 452-460.