Do strategic reasoning and brainstorming help auditors change their standard audit procedures in response to fraud risk?

Accounting Review

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 811-837

  Hoffman, Vicky B ^a   Zimbelman, Mark F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit planning; Brainstorming; Fraud risk; Nature of audit procedures; Strategic reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650754431     PISSN: 00014826     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/accr.2009.84.3.811     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abualsamh, R. A., B. Carlin, and R. R. McDaniel. 1990. Problem structuring heuristics in strategic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45: 159-174.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2002. Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. Armstrong, J. S., W. Denniston, Jr., and M. Gordon. 1975. The use of the decomposition principle in making judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 14: 257-263.
4. Asare, S. K., and A. M. Wright. 2004. The effectiveness of alternative risk assessment and program planning tools in a fraud setting. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (2): 325-352.
5. Ashton, R. H., and A. H. Ashton, eds. 1995. Judgment and Decision Making Research in Accounting and Auditing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Beasley, M. S., J. Carcello, and D. Hermanson. 1999. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: 1987-1997, An Analysis of U.S. Public Companies. A monograph published by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. NY, NY: COSO.
7. Bedard, J. C. 1989. Archival investigation of audit program planning. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &Theory 8 (Fall): 57-71.
8. -, S. F. Biggs, and J. J. Maroney. 1998. Sources of process gain and loss from group interaction in performance of analytical procedures. Behavioral Research in Accounting 10 (Supplement): 207-233.
9. -, T. J. Mock, and A. M. Wright. 1999. Evidential planning in auditing: A review of the empirical research. Journal of Accounting Literature 18: 96-142.
10. Bloomfield, R. 1995. Strategic dependence and inherent risk assessments. The Accounting Review 70: 71-90.
11. Brazel, J. F., T. D. Carpenter, and J. G. Jenkins. 2007. A field investigation of auditors' use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud. Working paper, North Carolina State University.
12. Buckless, F. R., and S. P. Ravenscroft. 1990. Contrast coding: A refinement of ANOVA in behavioral analysis. The Accounting Review 65 (October): 933-945.
13. Camerer, C. F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Carpenter, T. D. 2007. Audit team brainstorming, fraud risk identification, and fraud risk assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99. The Accounting Review 82 (5): 1119-1140.
15. 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 (2): 263-276.
16. Cushing, B., and J. K. Loebbecke. 1986. Comparison of Audit Methodologies of Large Accounting Firms. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
17. Diehl, M., and W. Stroebe. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53: 497-509.
18. Fellingham, J., and D. P. Newman. 1985. Strategic considerations in auditing. The Accounting Review: 634-650.
19. Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, J. J. Schultz, Jr., and M. F. Zimbelman. 2003. A test of changes in
20. auditors' fraud-related planning judgments since the issuance of SAS No. 82. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22 (2): 237-251.
21. Heiman-Hoffman, V. B., D. V. Moser, and J. A. Joseph. 1995. The impact of an auditor's initial hypothesis on subsequent performance at identifying actual errors. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (2): 763-779.
22. Hoffman, V. B., J. R. Joe, and D. V. Moser. 2003. The effect of constrained processing on auditors' judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (7-8): 699-714.
23. Jiambalvo, J., and W. S. Waller. 1984. Decomposition and assessments of audit risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 3 (1): 80-88.
24. Kachelmeier, S. J., and R. R. King. 2002. Using laboratory experiments to evaluate accounting policy issues. Accounting Horizons 16 (3): 219-232.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. -, R. Bloomfield, and M. W. Nelson. 2002. Experimental research in financial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 27 (8): 775-810.
28. Mullen, B., C. Johnson, and E. Salas. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12: 3-23.
29. Nieschweitz, 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.
30. Osborn, A. F. 1957. Applied Imagination. New York, NY: Scribner.
31. Paulus, P. B., and M. T. Dzindolet. 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64: 575-586.
32. Peecher, M. E., R. Schwartz, and I. Solomon. 2007. It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society 32: 463-485.
33. Pincus, K. V. 1989. The efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14 (1-2): 153-163.
34. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2007. Observations on Auditors'Implementation of PCAOB Standards Relating to Auditors' Responsibilities with Respect to Fraud. Release No. 2007-01, January 22. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
35. Rowatt, W C, K. P. Nesselroade, J. K. Beggan, and S. T. Allison. 1997. Perceptions of brainstorming in groups: The quality over quantity hypothesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior 31: 131-150.
36. Shibano, T. 1990. Assessing audit risk from errors and irregularities. Journal of Accounting Research 28 (Supplement): 110-147.
37. Sutton, R. I., and A. Hargadon. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 685-718.
38. Todd, P., and I. Benbasat. 1992. The use of information in decision making: An experimental investigation of the impact of computer-based decision aids. MIS Quarterly 16 (3): 373-393.
39. Wilks, T. J., and M. F. Zimbelman. 2004a. Using game theory and strategic-reasoning concepts to prevent and detect fraud. Accounting Horizons (September): 173-184.
40. -, and-. 2004b. Decomposition of fraud risk assessments and auditors' sensitivity to fraud cues. Contemporary Accounting Research (Fall): 719-745.
41. 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 35 (Supplement): 75-97.
42. -, and W. S. Waller. 1999. An experimental investigation of auditor-auditee interaction under ambiguity. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Supplement): 135-155.