The halo effect in business risk audits: Can strategic risk assessment bias auditor judgment about accounting details?

Accounting Review

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 921-939

  O'Donnell, Ed ^a   Schultz Jr , Joseph J ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23244461577     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2005.80.3.921     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2001. Professional Standards. Volume 1. U.S. auditing standards as of June 1, 2001. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. _. 2002. Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement. Exposure draft for proposed statements on auditing standards issued by the Auditing Standards Board on December 2, 2002. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. Ballou, B., and D. Heitger. 2004. A cognitive characterization of audit analytical procedures under strategic systems auditing. Working paper, Miami University.
4. Balzer, W., and L. Slusky. 1992. Halo and performance appraisal research: A critical examination. Journal of Applied Psychology 77: 975-985.
5. Bamber, M., and J. Bylinski. 1987. The effects of planning memorandum, time pressure, and individual auditor characteristics on audit managers' review time judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research 4 (Spring): 127-143.
6. Bedard, J., and S. Biggs. 1991. Pattern recognition, hypothesis generation and auditor performance in an analytical task. The Accounting Review 66 (July): 622-642.
7. Bell, T., F. Marrs, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas. 1997. Auditing Organizations Through a Strategic-Systems Lens. New York, NY: KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP.
8. _, M. Peecher, and I. Solomon. 2002. The strategic-systems approach to auditing. In Cases in Strategic-Systems Auditing, edited by T. Bell, and I. Solomon, 1-34. New York, NY: KPMG, LLP.
9. Birnberg, J., and M. Shields. 1984. The role of attention and memory in accounting decisions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 9 (3-4): 365-383.
10. Bonner, S., and B. Lewis. 1990. Determinants of auditor expertise. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 1-20.
11. Cohen, J., and T. Kida. 1989. The impact of analytical review results, internal control reliability, and experience on auditors use of analytical review. Journal of Accounting Research 27 (Autumn): 263-276.
12. Devine, P., E. Hirt, and E. Gehrke. 1990. Diagnostic and confirmation strategies in trait hypothesis testing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (6): 952-963.
13. Eilifsen, A., R. Knechel, and P. Wallage. 2001. Application of the business risk audit model: A field study. Accounting Horizons 15 (September): 193-208.
14. Finucane, M., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. Johnson. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (1): 1-17.
15. Glater, J., and K. Eichenwald. 2002. Turmoil at WorldCom: The accounting. New York Times (June 28).
16. Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, M. F. Zimbelman, and J. J. Schultz, Jr. 2003. A test of changes in auditors' fraud-related planning judgments since the issuance of SAS No. 82. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22 (September): 237-252.
17. Greenwood, R., and S. Salterio. 2002. Loblaw Companies, Ltd. In Cases in Strategic-Systems Auditing, edited by T. Bell and I. Solomon, 165-210. New York, NY: KPMG, LLP.
18. Kaplan, R., and D. Kiron. 2004. Accounting Fraud at WorldCom. Business School Case #9-104-071. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Kinney, W. R., Jr., and W. L. Felix. 1993. Implementing SAS No. 55: An interim report. In The Expectation Gap Standards: Progress, Implementation Issues, Research Opportunities. New York, NY: AICPA.
20. Knapp, C., and M. Knapp. 2001. The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations and Society 26 (1): 25-37.
21. Koonce, L. 1993. A cognitive characterization of audit analytical review. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 12 (Supplement): 57-76.
22. Lance, C. J. LaPointe, and S. Fisicaro. 1994. Tests of three causal models of halo rater error. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance 57: 83-96.
23. Lemon, M., K. Tatum, and W. Turley. 2000. Developments in the Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms. London, U.K.: ABG Professional Information.
24. Libby, R., and K. T. Trotman. 1993. The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (6): 559-574.
25. 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.
26. Murphy, K., R. Jako, and R. Anhalt. 1993. Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (2): 218-225.
27. Nisbett, R., and T. Wilson. 1977. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 250-256.
28. O'Donnell, E., and J. J. Schultz, Jr. 2003. The influence of business-process-focused audit support software on analytical procedures judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22 (September): 265-280.
29. Phillips, F. 1999. Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Spring): 167-190.
30. Ricchiute, D. 1992. Working-paper order effects and auditors' going-concern decisions. The Accounting Review 67 (January): 46-58.
31. Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. MacGregor. 2002. Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio- Economics 31: 329-342.
32. Thorndike, E. 1920. A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology 4: 25-29.
33. Wilks, T. 2002. Predecisional distortion of evidence as a consequence of real-time audit review. The Accounting Review 77 (January): 51-71.