Why do auditors over-rely on weak analytical procedures? The role of outcome and precision

Auditing

Volumn 24, Issue SUPPL., 2005, Pages 197-220

  Glover, Steven M ^a   Prawitt, Douglas F ^a   Wilks, T Jeffrey ^a  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditor judgment; Evidence assessment; Evidence quality; Financial statement analysis; Outcome; Over reliance; Substantive analytical procedures

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645744624     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.supplement.197     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (50)

1. Ameen, E., and J. Strawser. 1994. Investigating the use of analytical procedures: An update and extension. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13 (Fall): 69-76.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1988. Analytical Procedures. Statements on Auditing Standards No. 56. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 2002a. Consideration of Internal Control in a Financial Statement Audit. AU Section 319. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. _. 2002b. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statements on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Anderson, J. C., S. E. Kaplan, and P. M. J. Reckers. 1992. The effects of output interference on analytical procedures judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 11 (Fall): 1-13.
6. _, M. Jennings, D. J. Lowe, and P. Reckers. 1997. The mitigation of hindsight bias in judges' evaluation of auditor decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 16 (Fall): 20-39.
7. Anderson, U., and L. Koonce. 1995. Explanation as a method for evaluating client-suggested causes in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 14 (Fall): 124-132.
8. Bamber, M. E. 1983. Expert judgment in the audit team: A source reliability approach. Journal of Accounting Research 21 (Fall): 396-413.
9. Baron, J., and J. Hershey. 1988. Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (4): 569-579.
10. Bedard, J., and S. Biggs. 1991. The effects of domain-specific experience on evaluation of management representations in analytical procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 10 (Supplement): 77-95.
11. 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.
12. Blocher, E., and G. Patterson, Jr. 1996. The use of analytical procedures. Journal of Accountancy 181 (February): 53-55.
13. Caster, P., and K. Pincus. 1996. An empirical test of Bentham's theory of the persuasiveness of evidence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 15 (Supplement): 1-22.
14. Clarkson, P., C. Emby, and V. Watt. 2002. Debiasing the outcome effect: The role of instructions in an audit litigation setting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21 (Fall): 7-20.
15. Elster, J. 1999. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
16. Emby, C., A. Gelardi, and D. J. Lowe. 2002. A research note on the influence of outcome knowledge on audit partners' judgments. Behavioral Research in Accounting 14: 87-103.
17. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein. 1978. Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 4 (May): 330-344.
18. Frederick, D. M. 1991. Auditors' representation and retrieval of internal control knowledge. The Accounting Review 66 (April): 464-485.
19. Glover, S., J. Jiambalvo, and J. Kennedy. 2000. Analytical procedures and audit planning decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19 (Fall): 27-46.
20. Gruppen, L., J. Margolin, K. Wisdom, and C. Grum. 1994. Outcome bias and cognitive dissonance in evaluating treatment decisions. Academic Medicine 69 (10): S57-S59.
21. Hastie, R. 1984. Causes and effects of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (1): 44-56.
22. Hawkins, S., and R. Hastie. 1990. Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin 107 (3): 311-327.
23. Heiman, V. B. 1990. Auditor's assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in analytical review. The Accounting Review 65 (October): 875-891.
24. Hirst, E. 1994. Auditors' sensitivity to earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Fall): 405-422.
25. _, and L. Koonce. 1996. Audit analytical procedures: A field investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 13 (Fall): 457-486.
26. Kadous, K. 2001. Improving jurors' evaluations of auditors in negligence cases. Contemporary Accounting Research 18 (Fall): 425-444.
27. Kinney, W. Jr. 1987. Attention-directing analytical reviews using accounting ratios: A case study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 6 (Spring): 59-73.
28. _, and L. McDaniel. 1996. How to improve effectiveness of substantive analytical procedures. The CPA Journal 66 (April): 52-54.
29. _. 2000. Information Quality Assurance and Internal Control for Management Decision Making. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
30. Koonce, L. 1992. Explanation and counterexplanation during audit analytical review. The Accounting Review 67 (January): 59-77.
31. Kreutzfeldt, R., and W. Wallace. 1986. Error characteristics in audit populations: Their profile and relationship to environmental factors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 5 (Fall): 20-43.
32. Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480-498.
33. Libby, R., and D. Frederick. 1990. Experience and the ability to explain audit findings. Journal of Accounting Research 1 (Autumn): 348-367.
34. _, and J. Luft. 1993. Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society 18 (5): 425-450
35. Lipe, M. G. 1993. Analyzing the variance investigation decision: The effects of outcomes, mental accounting, and framing. The Accounting Review 68 (October): 748-764.
36. McDaniel, L., and W. Kinney, Jr. 1995. Expectation-formation guidance in the auditor's review of interim financial information. Journal of Accounting Research 33 (Spring): 59-76.
37. _, and L. E. Simmons. 2004. Auditors' assessment and incorporation of expectation precision in evidential analytical procedures. Working paper, University of Kentucky.
38. Mehle, T., C. Gettys, C. Manning, S. Baca, and S. Fisher. 1981. The availability explanation of excessive plausibility assessments. Acta Psychologica 49 (November): 127-140.
39. _. 1982. Hypothesis generation in an automobile malfunction inference task. Acta Psychologica 52 (November): 87-106.
40. Messier, W. Jr., S. Glover, and D. Prawitt. 2006. Auditing & Assurance Services: A Systematic Approach. Fourth Edition, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
41. Moser, D. 1989. The effects of output interference, availability, and accounting information on investors' predictive judgments. The Accounting Review 64 (July): 433-448.
42. Mowen, J., and T. Stone. 1992. An empirical analysis of outcome biases in constituent evaluations of public policy decision makers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 11 (1): 24-32.
43. Petty, R., and J. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19, edited by L. Berkowitz, 123-205. New York, NY: Academic Press.
44. Prawitt, D. 1995. Staffing assignments for judgment-oriented audit tasks: The effects of structured audit technology and environment. The Accounting Review 70 (July): 443-465.
45. Public Oversight Board (POB), Panel on Audit Effectiveness. 2000. Report and Recommendations. Stamford, CT: POB.
46. Pyszczynski, T., and J. Greenberg. 1987. Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 20, edited by L. Berkowitz, 297-340. New York, NY: Academic Press.
47. Rose, J. M. 2004. Performance evaluations based on financial information: How do managers use situational information? Managerial Finance 30 (6): 46.
48. Swann, W., and I. Giuliano. 1987. Confirmatory search strategies in social interaction: How, when, why, and with what consequences? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 5: 511-524.
49. Tan, H. T., and M. G. Lipe. 1998. Outcome effects: The impact of decision process and outcome controllability. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10 (4): 315-325.
50. Wright, A., and R. H. Ashton. 1989. Identifying audit adjustments with attention-directing procedures. The Accounting Review 64 (October): 710-728.