IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v18y1993i6p559-574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Libby, Robert
  • Trotman, Ken T.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:18:y:1993:i:6:p:559-574
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0361-3682(93)90003-O
    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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kida, T. & Smith, J. F. & Maletta, M., 1998. "The effects of encoded memory traces for numerical data on accounting decision making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 451-466.
    4. E. Michael Bamber & Robert J. Ramsay, 1997. "An Investigation of the Effects of Specialization in Audit Workpaper Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 501-513, September.
    5. Peter Goldschmidt, 2007. "Managing the false alarms: A framework for assurance and verification of surveillance monitoring," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 541-556, November.
    6. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    7. Thierry Bergès, 2002. "Les Nouvelles Technologies De L'Information Et De La Communication : Un Nouveau Paradigme Technologique Pour Les Auditeurs Financiers ?," Post-Print halshs-00584435, HAL.
    8. 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.
    9. Alecia Nagy & Fred Phillips, 2014. "Developing Students' Technical Knowledge and Case‐Based Reasoning Skills: Three Short Cases in Financial Accounting," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 149-158, June.
    10. Beaulieu, Philip R., 1996. "A note on the role of memory in commercial loan officers' use of accounting and character information," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 515-528, August.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. El-Hussein E. El-Masry, 2008. "Factors affecting auditors' utilization of evidential cues," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(1), pages 26-50, January.
    14. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    15. Hurley, Patrick J., 2015. "Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 47-76.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Ricchiute, David N., 1997. "Effects of Judgment on Memory: Experiments in Recognition Bias and Process Dissociation in a Professional Judgment Task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 27-39, April.
    20. 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.
    21. Griffith, Emily E. & Kadous, Kathryn & Proell, Chad A., 2020. "Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    22. 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.
    23. Yip-Ow, Jackson & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2000. "Effects of the preparer's justification on the reviewer's hypothesis generation and judgment in analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 203-215, February.
    24. Manthei, Kathrin & Sliwka, Dirk & Vogelsang, Timo, 2021. "Information Provision, Incentives, and Attention: A Field Experiment on Facilitating and Influencing Managers' Decisions," IZA Discussion Papers 14199, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    25. Noel Harding & Ken T. Trotman, 1999. "Hierarchical Differences in Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 671-684, December.

    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:18:y:1993:i:6:p:559-574. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.