Audit risk assessments using belief versus probability

Auditing

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 75-99

  Fukukawa, Hironori ^a   Mock, Theodore J ^b  

^a HITOTSUBASHI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assertion framing effects; Auditors' risk assessments; Belief functions; Probability

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960623172     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: 15587991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2011.30.1.75     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1983. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. SAS No. 47. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006a. Audit Evidence. SAS No. 106. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006b. Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. SAS No. 107. New York, NY: AICPA.
4. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 2006c. Performing Audit Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks and Evaluating the Audit Evidence Obtained. SAS No. 110. New York, NY: AICPA.
5. Asare, S. K. 1992. The auditor's going-concern decision: Interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review 67 (April): 379-393.
6. Asare, S. K, and A. M. Wright. 1997. Evaluation of competing hypotheses in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 16 (March): 1-13.
7. Ashton, A. H., and R. H. Ashton. 1988. Sequential belief revision in auditing. The Accounting Review 63 (October): 623-641.
8. Ashton, R. H., and A. H. Ashton. 1995. Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bamber, E. M., R. J. Ramsay, and R. M. Tubbs. 1997. An examination of the descriptive validity of the belief-adjustment model and alternative attitudes to evidence in auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22 (April-May): 249-268.
10. Bell, T. B., and A. M. Wright, eds. 1995. Audit Practice, Research and Education: A Productive Collaboration. New York, NY: AICPA.
11. Bell, T. B., and A. M. Wright, F. Marrs, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas. 1997. Auditing Organizations through a Strategic-Systems Lens. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and KPMG Peat Marwick. Available at: http://www.business.illinois.edu/kpmg-uiuccases/monograph.PDF.
12. Bell, T. B., and A. M. Wright, F. Marrs, I. Solomon, and H. Thomas, M. E. Peecher, and I. Solomon. 2005. The 21st Century Public Company Audit. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and KPMG Peat Marwick. Available at: http://www.business.illinois.edu/kpmg-uiuccases/monograph2.pdf.
13. Brown, C. E., M. E. Peecher, and I. Solomon. 1999. Auditors' hypothesis testing in diagnostic inference tasks. Journal of Accounting Research 37 (Spring): 1-26.
14. Camerer, C., and M. Weber. 1992. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 325-370.
15. Cobb, B. R., and P. P. Shenoy. 2003a. A comparison of Bayesian and belief function reasoning. Information Systems Frontiers 5 (December): 345-358.
16. Cobb, B. R., and P. P. Shenoy. 2003b. A comparison of methods for transforming of belief function models to probability models. In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence No. 2711, edited by Nielsen, T. D. and N. L. Zhang, 255-266. Berlin: Springer- Verlag.
17. Cobb, B. R., and P. P. Shenoy. 2006. On the plausibility transformation method for translating belief function models to probability models. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 41 (3): 314-330.
18. Curley, S. P., and F. J. Yates. 1985. The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36: 272-287.
19. Dusenbury, R., J. Reimers, and S. Wheeler. 1996. An empirical study of belief-based revision and probability-based specifications of audit risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 15 (Fall): 12-28.
20. Einhorn, H. J., and R. M. Hogarth. 1986. Decision making under ambiguity. The Journal of Business 59 (4): 225-250.
21. Ellsberg, D. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 (November): 643-669.
22. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2006a. Planning an Audit of Financial Statement. International Standard on Auditing 300. New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants.
23. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB. 2006b. Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement through Understanding the Entity and Its Environment. International Standard on Auditing 315. New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants.
24. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB. 2006c. The Auditor's Responses to Assessed Risks. International Standard on Auditing 330. New York, NY: International Federation of Accountants.
25. Kida, T. 1984. The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' use of judgment data. Journal of Accounting Research 22 (Spring): 332-340.
26. Klayman, J. 1995. Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 32: 385-418.
27. Knight, F. H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Hart, Schaffner and Marx Prize Essays, No. 31. Boston, MA, and New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
28. Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider, and G. J. Gaeth. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76 (November):149-188.
29. Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider, G. J. Gaeth, J. Schreiber, and M. Lauriola. 2002. A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88 (May): 411-429.
30. McMillan, J. J., and R. A. White. 1993. Auditors' belief revisions and evidence search: The effect of hypothesis frame, confirmation bias, and professional skepticism. The Accounting Review 68 (July): 443-465.
31. Mock, T. J., and I. Vertinsky. 1985. Risk Assessment in Accounting and Auditing. Research Monograph No. 10. Vancouver, B.C.: The Canadian Certified General Accountants' Research Foundation.
32. Monroe, G., and J. Ng. 2002. The descriptive ability of models of audit risk. In Belief Functions in Business Decisions, edited by Srivastava, R. P., and T. J. Mock, 113-138. New York, NY: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.
33. Nelson, M., and H-T. Tan. 2005. Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement): 41-71.
34. Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2 (June): 175-220.
35. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2007. An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting that is Integrated with an Audit of Financial Statements. Auditing Standards No. 5. Washington, D.C.: PCAOB.
36. Roberts, D. M. 1978. Statistical Auditing. New York, NY: AICPA.
37. Shafer, G. 1976. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38. Srivastava, R. P., and G. Shafer. 1992. Belief-function formulas for audit risk. The Accounting Review 67 (April): 249-283.
39. Srivastava, R. P., and G. Shafer, and T. J. Mock. 2002. Introduction to belief functions. In Belief Functions in Business Decisions, edited by Srivastava, R. P., and T. J. Mock, 1-16. New York, NY: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.
40. Trotman, K. T., and J. Sng. 1989. The effect of hypothesis framing, prior expectation and cue diagnosticity on auditors' information choice. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14 (October-December): 565-576.
41. Trotman, K. T. 1996. Research Methods for Judgment and Decision Making Research in Auditing. Monograph No. 3. Melbourne, Australia: Coopers & Lybrand and Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand.
42. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211 (January): 453-458.
43. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1986. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business 59 (4): 251-278.
44. Vasarhelyi, M. A., M. Alles, and A. Kogan. 2004. Principles of analytic monitoring for continuous assurance. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 1 (1): 1-21.
45. Von Winterfeldt, D., and W. Edwards. 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
46. Yates, F. J., and L. G. Zukowski. 1976. Characterization of ambiguity in decision making. Behavioral Science 21: 19-25.
47. Yates, F. J., and L. G. Zukowski. 1990. Judgments and Decision Making. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.