An examination of memory conjunction errors in multiple client audit environments

Auditing

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 127-141

  Lindberg, Deborah L ^a   Maletta, Mario M ^b  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit risk; Memory conjunction errors; Reconstruction of memory; Schemata

Indexed keywords

EID: 3142617976     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2003.22.1.127     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Anderson, B. H., and M. Maletta. 1994. Auditor attendance to negative and positive information: The effect of experience-related differences. Behavioral Research in Accounting 6: 1-20.
2. Arkes, H. R., and M. R. Freedman. 1984. A demonstration of the costs and benefits of expertise in recognition memory. Memory and Cognition 12 (1): 84-89.
3. Ashton, R. H., D. N. Kleinmuntz, J. B. Sullivan, and L. A. Tomassini. 1988. Audit decision making. In Research Opportunities in Auditing: The Second Decade, edited by A. Rashad Abdel-khalik, and I. Solomon, 95-132. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
4. Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bedard, J. C., and S. F. Biggs. 1991. Pattern recognition, hypotheses generation, and auditor performance in an analytical task. The Accounting Review 66 (3): 622-642.
6. Bierstaker, J. L., J. C. Bedard, and S. F. Biggs. 1999. The role of problem representation shifts on auditor decision processes in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 18 (1): 18-36.
7. Bransford, J. D., and J. J. Franks. 1971. The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology 2: 331-350.
8. Busey, T. A., and J. L. Tunnicliff. 1999. Accounts of blending, distinctiveness, and typicality in the false recognition effaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology 25: 1210-1235.
9. Chase, W. G., and H. A. Simon. 1973a. The mind's eye in chess. In Visual Information Processing, edited by W. G. Chase. New York, NY: Academic Press.
10. _, and _. 1973b. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology 4: 55-81.
11. Choo, F., and K. T. Trotman. 1991. The relationship between knowledge structure and judgments for experienced and inexperienced auditors. The Accounting Review 66 (3): 464-485.
12. Davis, L. R., M. D. Dwyer, and G. M. Trompeter. 1997. A note on cross-sectional tests for knowledge differences. Behavioral Research in Accounting 9: 46-59.
13. Egan, J. P. 1958. Recognition Memory and the Operating Characteristic. Technical Note AFCR-TN-58-51. Bloomington, IN: Hearing and Communication Laboratory, Indiana University.
14. Frederick, D., and R. Libby. 1986. Expertise and auditors' judgments of conjunctive events. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 270-290.
15. Gardiner, J. M., and A. J. Parkin. 1990. Attention and recollective experience in recognition memory. Memory and Cognition 18 (6): 579-583.
16. Gibbins, M. 1988. Knowledge structures and experienced auditor judgment. In Auditor Productivity in the Year 2000: 1987 Proceedings of the Arthur Young Professors' Roundtable, edited by A. D. Bailey, 51-73. Reston, VA: Council of Arthur Young Professors.
17. Green, D. M., and J. A. Swets. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York, NY: Robert E. Kreiger Publishing.
18. Hanno, D. M. 1990. The use of information in the sequential evaluation of audit evidence. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
19. Kroll, N. E., R. T. Knight, J. Metcalfe, E. S. Wolfe, and E. Tulving. 1996. Cohesion failure as a source of memory illusions. Journal of Memory and Language 35:176-196.
20. 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 12 (2): 143-153.
21. 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.
22. McClelland, J. L., and D. E. Rumelhart. 1985. Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 114: 159-188.
23. _, and D. E. Rumelhart. 1986. A distributed model of human learning and memory. In Parallel Distributed Processing, edited by J. L. McClelland, and D. E. Rumelhart, 170-215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2.
24. _, and L. E. Nystrom. 1988. Trace synthesis in memory: Blend errors in cued recall. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL, November.
25. _. 1995. Constructive memory and memory distortions: A parallel-distributed processing approach. In Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past, edited by D. L. Schacter, 69-90. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Metcalfe, J. 1990. Composite holographic associative recall model (charm) and blended memories in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 119:145-160.
27. Moeckel, C. L., and R. D. Plumlee. 1989. Auditors' confidence in recognition of audit evidence. The Accounting Review 64 (4): 653-666.
28. _. 1990. The effect of experience on auditors' memory errors. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (2): 368-387.
29. Moser, D. V. 1989. The effects of output interference, availability, and accounting information on investors' predictive judgments. The Accounting Review 64 (3): 433-448.
30. Murdock, B. B., Jr. 1965. Signal-detection theory and short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 70 (5): 443-447.
31. Nelson, M. W., R. Libby, and S. E. Bonner. 1995. Knowledge structures and the estimation of conditional probabilities in audit planning. The Accounting Review 70 (1): 27-48.
32. Plumlee, R. D. 1985. The standard of objectivity for internal auditors: Memory and bias effects. Journal of Accounting Research 23 (2): 683-699.
33. Prinzmetal, W., D. E. Presti, and M. L Posner. 1986. Does attention affect visual feature integration? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 12: 361-369.
34. Reinitz, M. T., W. J. Lammers, and B. P. Cochran. 1992. Memory-conjunction errors: Miscombinations of stored stimulus features can produce illusions of memory. Memory & Cognition 20 (1): 1-11.
35. _, J. Morrissey, and J. B. Demb. 1994. The role of attention in face encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20 (1): 161-168.
36. Schacter, D. L. 1995. Memory distortion: History and current status. In Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past, edited by D. L. Schacter, 1-43. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Schooler, J. W., and J. W. Tanaka. 1991. Composites, compromises, and CHARM: What is the evidence for blend memory representations? Journal Experimental Psychology: General 120: 96-100.
38. Sprinkle, G. B., and R. M. Tubbs. 1998. The effects of audit risk and information importance on auditor memory during working paper review. The Accounting Review (October): 475-502.
39. Thorndyke, P. W., and B. Hayes-Roth. 1979. The use of schemata in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognitive Psychology 11: 82-106.
40. Treisman, A., and H. Schmidt. 1982. Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology 14: 107-141.
41. Underwood, B. J. 1969. Attributes of memory. Psychological Review 76: 559-573.
42. Waller, W. S., and W. L. Felix, Jr. 1984. Cognition and the auditors' opinion formulation process: A schematic model of interactions between memory and current audit evidence. In Decision Making and Accounting: Current Research, edited by S. Moriarity, and E. Joyce, 27-48. Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma.
43. Welford, A. T. 1986. Two comparisons of recognition and recall by signal detection measures. British Journal of Psychology 77: 237-242.
44. Wolfe, J. M., K. R. Cave, and S. L. Franzel. 1989. Guided search: An alternative to the feature-integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15: 419-433.
45. 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.