Using game theory and strategic reasoning concepts to prevent and detect fraud

Accounting Horizons

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 173-184

  Jeffrey Wilks, T ^a   Zimbelman, Mark F ^a  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit judgment; Audit planning; Fraud; Game theory; Risk assessment; Strategic reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 17744397659     PISSN: 08887993     EISSN: 15587975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/acch.2004.18.3.173     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Albrecht, W. S., G. W. Wernz, and T. L. Williams. 1995. Fraud: Bringing Light to the Dark Side of Business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1988. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 53. New York: AICPA.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1997. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 82. New York: AICPA.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York: AICPA.
5. Asare, S., and A. Wright. 2004. The effectiveness of alternative risk assessment and program planning tools in a fraud setting. Contemporary Accounting Research (Summer): 325-352.
6. Bedard, J. 1989. Archival investigation of audit program planning. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 57-71.
7. Bedard, J., T. Mock, and A. Wright. 1999. Evidential planning in auditing: A review of the empirical research. Journal of Accounting Literature 18: 96-142.
8. Bell, T., F. Marrs, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas. 1997. Auditing Organizations Through a Strategic-Systems Lens: The KPMG Business Measurement Process. Montvale, NJ: KPMG Peat Marwick LLP.
9. Bloomfield, R. J. 1995. Strategic dependence and inherent risk assessments. The Accounting Review 70: 71-90.
10. Bloomfield, R. J. 1997. Strategic dependence and the assessment of fraud risk: A laboratory study. The Accounting Review 72: 517-538.
11. Braun, R. L. 2000. The effect of time pressure on auditor attention to qualitative aspects of misstatements indicative of potential fraudulent financial reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25: 243-259.
12. Camerer, C. 1990. Behavioral game theory. In Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, edited by R. M. Hogarth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Camerer, C. 1997. Progress in behavioral game theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives (Fall): 167-188.
14. Eilifsen, A., W. R. Knechel, and P. Wallage. 2001. Application of the business risk audit model: A field study. Accounting Horizons (September): 193-207.
15. Elliott, R. K. 2002. Twenty-first century assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory March: 139-146.
16. Erickson, M., B. W. Mayhew, and W. L. Felix. 2000. Why do audits fail? Evidence from Lincoln Savings and Loan. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 165-194.
17. Fellingham, J. C., and D. P. Newman. 1985. Strategic considerations in auditing. The Accounting Review (October): 634-650.
18. Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, J. J. Schultz, Jr., and M. F. Zimbelman. 2003. A comparison of audit planning decisions in response to increased fraud risk: Before and after SAS No. 82. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (September): 237-251.
19. Hackenbrack, K. 1992. Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment. Journal of Accounting Research (Spring): 126-136.
20. Heiman-Hoffman, V. B., K. P. Morgan, and J. M. Patton. 1996. The warning signs of fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Accountancy (October): 75-77.
21. Hoffman, V. B., and J. M. Patton. 1997. Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research (Fall): 227-238.
22. Jamal, K., P. E. Johnson, and R. G. Berryman. 1995. Detecting framing effects in financial statements. Contemporary Accounting Research 12: 85-105.
23. Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
24. Jiambalvo, J., and W. Waller. 1984. Decomposition and assessments of audit risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 3 (Spring): 80-88.
25. Jonas, G. 2001. Remarks given at the American Accounting Association National Meeting, August 14, Atlanta, Georgia.
26. Jones, E. E. 1990. Interpersonal Perception. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Co.
27. Joyce, E., and G. Biddle. 1981. Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 19: 120-45.
28. Kinney, W. R. 1988. Attestation research opportunities: 1987. Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring): 416-425.
29. Knapp, C. A., and M. C. Knapp. 2001. The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26: 25-37.
30. Lemon, W. M., K. W. Tatum, and W. S. Turley. 2000. Developments in the Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms. London, U.K.: Auditing Practices Board.
31. Loebbecke, J. K., M. M. Eining, and J. J. Willingham. 1989. Auditors' experience with material irregularities: Frequency, nature, and detectability. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 1-28.
32. Morgenstern, O. 1976. Perfect foresight and economic equilibrium. In Selected Writings of Oskar Morgenstern, edited by A. Schotter, 169-183. New York, NY: New York University Press. Originally published in 1935.
33. Nieschwietz, R. J., J. J. Schultz, Jr., and M. F. Zimbelman. 2000. Empirical research on external auditors' detection of financial statement fraud. Journal of Accounting Literature 19: 190-246.
34. Nisbett, R. E., H. Zukier, and R. E. Lemley. 1981. The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology (April): 248-277.
35. Pincus, K. 1989. The efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14: 153-163.
36. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37. Shelton, S. W., O. R. Whittington, and D. Landsittel. 2001. Auditing firms' fraud risk assessment practices. Accounting Horizons (March): 19-33.
38. Shibano, T. 1990. Assessing audit risk from errors and irregularities. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 110-140.
39. Sunder, S. 2002. Knowing what others know: Common knowledge, accounting and capital markets. Accounting Horizons (December): 305-318.
40. Wall Street Journal. 2002. Accounting woes roil stock markets as nervous investors stampede exits. (January 30). Interactive Edition.
41. Waller, W. S., and W. F. Felix. 1984. The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 9: 383-406.
42. Waller, W. S., and W. F. Felix and M. F. Zimbelman. 2003. A cognitive footprint in archival data: Generalizing the dilution effect from laboratory to field settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (July): 254-268.
43. Wells, J. T. 1992. Fraud assessment questioning. Internal Auditor (August): 24-29.
44. Wilks, T. J. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review (January): 51-72.
45. Wilks, T. J.and M. F. Zimbelman. 2004. Decomposition of fraud risk assessments and auditors' sensitivity to fraud cues. Contemporary Accounting Research (forthcoming).
46. Winograd, B. N., J. S. Gerson, and B. L. Berlin. 2000. Audit practices of PricewaterhouseCoopers. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall): 175-182.
47. 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): 75-97.
48. Zimbelman, M. F. and W. S. Waller. 1999. An experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity. Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 135-155.