The effect of experience and complexity on order and recency bias in decision making by professional accountants

Accounting and Finance

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 109-134

  Arnold, Vicky ^a   Collier, Philip A ^b   Leech, Stewart A ^c   Sutton, Steve G ^a  

^a OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Belief Adjustment Model; Decision making; Going concern judgments; Insolvency judgments; Order and recency bias

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745443109     PISSN: 08105391     EISSN: 1467629X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-629X.00039     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Arnold, V., 1997, Judgment and decision making, part I: the impact of environmental factors, in: V. Arnold and S. G. Sutton, eds., Behavioral Accounting Research: Foundations and Frontiers, (American Accounting Association, Sarasota, Florida) 49-88.
2. Arnold, V. and S. G. Sutton, 1996-97, Order and recency effects in complex decision making: Implications for the design of audit-oriented IDSS, Accounting Forum (December-March) 225-250.
3. Asare, S. K. 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, A. H. and R. H. Ashton, 1988, Sequential belief revision in auditing, The Accounting Review 63, 623-641.
5. Butt, J. and T. L. Campbell, 1989, The effects of information order and hypothesis testing strategies on auditor's judgments, Accounting, Organizations and Society 14, 471-479.
6. Cushing, B. E. and S. Ahlawat, 1996, Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: the effect of documentation, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 15, 110-122.
7. Dillard, J. F., N. L. Kauffman, and E. E. Spires, 1991, Evidence order and belief revision in management accounting decisions, Accounting Organizations and Society 7, 619-633.
8. Hogarth, R. M. and H. J. Einhorn, 1992, Order effects in belief updating: the belief adjustment model, Cognitive Psychology 24, 1-55.
9. Kennedy, J., 1993, Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results, Journal of Accounting Research 31, 231-245.
10. Krull, G., Jr., P. M. J. Reckers, and B. Wong-On-Wing, 1993, The effect of experience, fraudulent signals and information presentation order on auditor's beliefs, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 12, 143-153.
11. Messier, W. F., Jr. and R. M. Tubbs, 1994, Recency effects in belief revision: the impact of audit experience and the review process, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 13, 57-72.
12. Pei, B. K. W., P. M. J. Reckers, and R. W. Wyndelts, 1990, The influence of information presentation order on professional tax judgment, Journal of Economic Psychology 11, 119-146.
13. Pei, B. K. W., P. M. J. Reckers, and R. W. Wyndelts, 1992a, Tax professionals belief revision: the effects of information presentation sequence, client preference, and domain experience, Decision Sciences 23, 175-199.
14. Pei, B. K. W., S. Reed, and B. Koch, 1992b, Auditor belief revisions in a performance auditing setting: An application of the belief-adjustment model, Accounting, Organizations and Society 17, 169-183.
15. Trotman, K. T., 1998, Audit judgment research-Issues addressed, research methods and future directions, Accounting and Finance 38, 115-156.
16. Trotman, K. T., and A. Wright, 1996, Recency effects: task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience, Behavioral Research in Accounting 8, 175-193.
17. Tubbs, R. M., W. F. Messier, and W. R. Knechel, 1990, Recency effects in the auditor's belief revision process, The Accounting Review 65, 452-460.