Eliminating Recency with Self-Review: The Case of Auditors' 'Going Concern' Judgments

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 221-231

  Ashton, Robert H ^a   Kennedy, Jane ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Auditing; Debiasing; Recency bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 0142055281     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.412     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Ahlawat SS. 1999. Order effects and memory for evidence in individual versus group decision making in auditing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12: 71-88.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 1988. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59: The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. New York: AICPA.
3. Asare SK. 1992. The auditor's going concern decision: interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review, 67: 379-393.
4. Ashton RH. 1990. Pressure and performance in accounting decision settings: paradoxical effects of incentives, feedback, and justification. Journal of Accounting Research, 28(Suppl.): 148-180.
5. Ashton AH, Ashton RH. 1988. Sequential belief revision in auditing. The Accounting Review, 63: 623-641.
6. Bamber EM, Ramsay RJ, Tubbs RM. 1997. An examination of the descriptive validity of the belief-adjustment model and alternative attitudes to evidence in auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22: 249-268.
7. Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K. 1995. The individual versus the aggregate. In Judgment and Decision Making Research in Accounting and Auditing, Ashton RH, Ashton AH (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Butler SA. 1985. Application of a decision aid in the judgmental evaluation of substantive test of details samples. Journal of Accounting Research, 23: 513-526.
9. Butt J, Campbell T. 1989. The effect of information order and hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15: 471-479.
10. Camerer C. 1992. The rationality of prices and volume in experimental markets. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51: 237-272.
11. Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Weber M. 1989. The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97: 1232-1254.
12. Chow CW, McNamee AH, Plumlee RD. 1987. Practitioners' perceptions of audit step difficulty and criticalness: implications for audit research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 6: 123-133.
13. Coupey E. 1994. Restructuring: constructive processing of information displays in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 21: 83-99.
14. Curley SP, Yates JF, Abrahms RA. 1986. Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38: 230-256.
15. Cushing BE, Ahlawat SS. 1996. Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: the effect of documentation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 15: 110-122.
16. Davis EB, Ashton RH. 2001. Threshold adjustment in response to asymmetric loss functions: the case of auditors' 'substantial doubt' thresholds. Working Paper, Baylor University and Duke University.
17. Ganguly AR, Kagel JH, Moser DV. 1994. The effects of biases in probability judgments on market prices. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19: 675-700.
18. Gibbins M. 1984. Propositions about the psychology of professional judgment in public accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 22: 103-125.
19. Heiman VB. 1990. Auditors' assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in analytical review. The Accounting Review, 65: 875-890.
20. Hogarth RM. 1981. Beyond discrete biases: functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 90: 197-217.
21. Hogarth RM, Einhorn HJ. 1992. Order effects in belief updating: the belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24: 1-55.
22. Kahneman D, Lovallo D. 1993. Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39: 17-31.
23. Kennedy J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: a framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research, 31: 231-245.
24. Kennedy J, Peecher ME. 1997. Judging auditors' technical knowledge. Journal of Accounting Research, 35: 279-293.
25. Koonce L. 1992. Explanation and counterexplanation during audit analytical review. The Accounting Review, 67: 59-76.
26. Krull G, Reckers PMJ, Wong-On-Wing B. 1993. The effect of experience, fraudulent signals and information presentation order on auditors' beliefs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 12: 143-153.
27. Messier WF. 1992. The sequencing of audit evidence: its impact on the extent of audit testing and report formulation. Accounting and Business Research, 22: 143-150.
28. Messier WF, Tubbs RM. 1994. Recency effects in belief revision: the impact of audit experience and the review process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13: 57-72.
29. Montgomery H. 1983. Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: towards a process model of decision making. In Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes, Humphreys P, Svenson O, Vari A (eds). North-Holland: Amsterdam.
30. Pei BKW, Reed SA, Koch BS. 1992. Auditor belief revisions in a performance auditing setting: an application of the belief-adjustment model. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17: 169-183.
31. Reckers PMJ, Schultz JJ. 1993. The effects of fraud signals, evidence order, and group-assisted counsel on independent auditor judgment. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 5: 124-144.
32. Ricchiute DN. 1998. Evidence, memory, and causal order in a complex audit decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4: 3-15.
33. Ricchiute DN. 1999. The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24: 155-171.
34. Rich JS, Solomon I, Trotman KT. 1997a. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research: a decade later. Journal of Accounting Literature, 16: 86-126.
35. Rich JS, Solomon I, Trotman KT. 1997b. The audit review process: a characterization from the persuasion perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22: 481-505.
36. Rutledge RW. 1995. The ability to moderate recency effects through framing of management accounting information. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7: 27-40.
37. Selart M. 1996. Structure compatibility and restructuring in judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65: 106-116.
38. Smith JF, Kida T. 1991. Heuristics and biases: expertise and task realism in auditing. Psychological Bulletin, 109: 472-489.
39. Solomon I. 1987. Multi-auditor judgment/decision making research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 6: 1-25.
40. Tetlock PE. 1985. Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. In Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 7), Cummings L, Staw BM (eds). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT.
41. Tetlock PE, Boettger R. 1989. Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 388-398.
42. Tetlock PE, Boettger R. 1994. Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7: 1-23.
43. Trotman KT, Wright A. 1996. Recency effects: task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8: 175-193.
44. Tubbs RM, Messier WF, Knechel WR. 1990. Recency effects in the auditor's belief-revision process. The Accounting Review, 65: 452-460.
45. Tuttle B, Coller M, Burton FG. 1997. An examination of market efficiency: information order effects in a laboratory market. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22: 89-103.