IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v30y2005i6p537-553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of feedback type on auditor judgment performance for configural and non-configural tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Leung, Patrick W.
  • Trotman, Ken T.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Leung, Patrick W. & Trotman, Ken T., 2005. "The effects of feedback type on auditor judgment performance for configural and non-configural tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 537-553, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:30:y:2005:i:6:p:537-553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361-3682(04)00096-0
    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. Balzer, William K. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E. & Birchenough, Todd R. & Martens, Sandra Parham & Raymark, Patrick H., 1994. "Effects of Cognitive Feedback Components, Display Format, and Elaboration on Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 369-385, June.
    2. Reilly, Barbara A. & Doherty, Michael E., 1992. "The assessment of self-insight in judgment policies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 285-309, December.
    3. Balzer, William K. & Sulsky, Lorne M. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E., 1992. "Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-54, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Remus, William & O'Conner, Marcus & Griggs, Kenneth, 1996. "Does Feedback Improve the Accuracy of Recurrent Judgmental Forecasts?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 22-30, April.
    6. Ashton, Rh, 1974. "Experimental Study Of Internal Control Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 143-157.
    7. Zhu, Shu-Hong & Anderson, Norman H., 1991. "Self-estimation of weight parameter in multiattribute analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 36-54, February.
    8. McKenzie, Craig R. M., 1997. "Underweighting Alternatives and Overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 141-160, August.
    9. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    10. Bonner, Sarah E., 1994. "A model of the effects of audit task complexity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 213-234, April.
    11. Luckett, Peter F. & Eggleton, Ian R., 1991. "Feedback and management accounting: A review of research into behavioural consequences," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 371-394.
    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. Nicole Nikiforow & Sebastian Wagener, 2021. "The contextual effect of completion on the effectiveness of performance feedback," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 61-90, February.
    2. Patrick W. Leung & Ken T. Trotman, 2008. "Effect of different types of feedback on the level of auditors’ configural information processing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(2), pages 301-318, June.
    3. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    4. Weetman, Pauline, 2006. "Discovering the ‘international’ in accounting and finance," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 351-370.
    5. Ken T. Trotman & Roger Simnett & Amna Khalifa, 2009. "Impact of the Type of Audit Team Discussions on Auditors' Generation of Material Frauds," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1115-1142, December.
    6. Krumwiede, Kip R. & Swain, Monte R. & Thornock, Todd A. & Eggett, Dennis L., 2013. "The effects of task outcome feedback and broad domain evaluation experience on the use of unique scorecard measures," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 205-217.
    7. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    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. Patrick W. Leung & Ken T. Trotman, 2008. "Effect of different types of feedback on the level of auditors’ configural information processing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(2), pages 301-318, June.
    2. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    3. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    4. Stone, Eric R. & Opel, Ryan B., 2000. "Training to Improve Calibration and Discrimination: The Effects of Performance and Environmental Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 282-309, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Rianne Legerstee & Philip Hans Franses, 2014. "Do Experts’ SKU Forecasts Improve after Feedback?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 69-79, January.
    8. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    9. J. Michael Haynie & Dean A. Shepherd & Holger Patzelt, 2012. "Cognitive Adaptability and an Entrepreneurial Task: The Role of Metacognitive Ability and Feedback," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(2), pages 237-265, March.
    10. Sengupta, K., 1995. "Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 125-143, April.
    11. Hun†Tong Tan & Karim Jamal, 2006. "Managing Perceptions of Technical Competence: How Well Do Auditors Know How Others View Them?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 761-787, September.
    12. Steven M. Glover & Mark H. Taylor & Yi‐Jing Wu & Ken T. Trotman, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Why Do Experts Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting Complex Fair Value Measurements?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1417-1460, September.
    13. Phillips, Jean M., 1999. "Antecedents of Leader Utilization of Staff Input in Decision-Making Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 215-242, March.
    14. Van Ittersum, Koert & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Wansink, Brian & van Trijp, Hans C.M., 2007. "The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(11), pages 1177-1190, November.
    15. Fischer, Ilan & Harvey, Nigel, 1999. "Combining forecasts: What information do judges need to outperform the simple average?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 227-246, July.
    16. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    17. Fábio T. F. Silva & Alexandre Szklo & Amanda Vinhoza & Ana Célia Nogueira & André F. P. Lucena & Antônio Marcos Mendonça & Camilla Marcolino & Felipe Nunes & Francielle M. Carvalho & Isabela Tagomori , 2022. "Inter-sectoral prioritization of climate technologies: insights from a Technology Needs Assessment for mitigation in Brazil," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 1-39, October.
    18. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Böhm, Robert & Letmathe, Peter & Schinner, Matthias, 2023. "The monetary value of competencies: A novel method and case study in smart manufacturing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    20. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.

    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:30:y:2005:i:6:p:537-553. 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.