IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v28y2003i7-8p699-714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of constrained processing on auditors' judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Hoffman, Vicky B.
  • Joe, Jennifer R.
  • Moser, Donald V.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoffman, Vicky B. & Joe, Jennifer R. & Moser, Donald V., 2003. "The effect of constrained processing on auditors' judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 699-714.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:28:y:2003:i:7-8:p:699-714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361-3682(02)00068-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bonner, Se & Lewis, Bl, 1990. "Determinants Of Auditor Expertise," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 1-20.
    2. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    3. Kaplan, Steven E. & Reckers, Philip M. J., 1989. "An examination of information search during initial audit planning," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 539-550, October.
    4. Anderson, Matthew J., 1988. "A comparative analysis of information search and evaluation behavior of professional and non-professional financial analysts," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 431-446, August.
    5. Libby, Robert & Trotman, Ken T., 1993. "The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 559-574, August.
    6. Frederick, Dm & Libby, R, 1986. "Expertise And Auditors Judgments Of Conjunctive Events," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 270-290.
    7. Cuccia, AD & Mc Gill, GA, 2000. "The role of decision strategies in understanding professionals' susceptibility to judgment biases," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 419-435.
    8. Bouwman, Marinus J. & Frishkoff, Patricia A. & Frishkoff, Paul, 1987. "How do financial analysts make decisions? A process model of the investment screening decision," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, January.
    9. Marchant, G, 1990. "Determinants Of Auditor Expertise - Discussion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 21-28.
    10. Phillips, F, 1999. "Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 167-189.
    11. Tan, Ht, 1995. "Effects Of Expectations, Prior Involvement, And Review Awareness On Memory For Audit Evidence And Judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 113-135.
    12. Swieringa, Rj & Weick, Ke, 1982. "An Assessment Of Laboratory Experiments In Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20, pages 56-101.
    13. Waller, William S. & Felix, William Jr., 1984. "The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(3-4), pages 383-406, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    2. Minelli, Eliana & Rebora, Gianfranco & Turri, Matteo, 2009. "Why do controls fail? Results of an Italian survey," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(8), pages 933-943.
    3. Kaplan, Steven E. & Williams, David D., 2012. "The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 322-341.
    4. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    5. Hurley, Patrick J., 2019. "Ego depletion and auditors’ JDM quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    7. Frank, Michele L. & Hoffman, Vicky B., 2015. "Discussion of construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 56-58.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    2. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    3. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    4. Ye, Kangtao & Cheng, Yingli & Gao, Jingyu, 2014. "How individual auditor characteristics impact the likelihood of audit failure: Evidence from China," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 394-401.
    5. Kida, Thomas & Smith, James F., 1995. "The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 585-610.
    6. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    8. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    9. Choo, Freddie, 1996. "Auditors' knowledge content and judgment performance: A cognitive script approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 339-359, May.
    10. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    11. Dilla, William N. & Janvrin, Diane J. & Jeffrey, Cynthia, 2014. "Pro forma accounting disclosures: The effect of reconciliations and financial reporting knowledge on nonprofessional investors' judgments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 43-54.
    12. Hunton, James E. & Wier, Benson & Stone, Dan N., 2000. "Succeeding in managerial accounting. Part 2: a structural equations analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 751-762, November.
    13. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    14. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    15. Bamber, E. Michael & Ramsay, Robert J. & Tubbs, Richard M., 1997. "An examination of the descriptive validity of the belief-adjustment model and alternative attitudes to evidence in auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(3-4), pages 249-268.
    16. Nonna Martinov-Bennie & Gary Pflugrath, 2009. "The Strength of an Accounting Firm’s Ethical Environment and the Quality of Auditors’ Judgments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 237-253, June.
    17. Ricchiute, David N., 1999. "The effect of audit seniors' decisions on working paper documentation and on partners' decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 155-171, April.
    18. Libby, Robert & Bloomfield, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2002. "Experimental research in financial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 775-810, November.
    19. Clement, Michael B. & Koonce, Lisa & Lopez, Thomas J., 2007. "The roles of task-specific forecasting experience and innate ability in understanding analyst forecasting performance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 378-398, December.
    20. Lau, Yeng Wai, 2014. "Aggregated or disaggregated information first?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2376-2384.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:28:y:2003:i:7-8:p:699-714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.