IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v46y2015icp44-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Rasso, Jason Tyler

Abstract

This study investigates the use of audit evidence documentation instructions that promote the collection and processing of evidence with high-level construals (broad, abstract interpretations of the evidence). Abstraction can help a person piece together individual pieces of information or evidence and better enable a person to see the big picture of what the collective information portends. The results of an experiment suggest that auditors think and act with more professional skepticism when using the documentation instructions that promote high-level construals as compared with auditors using documentation instructions promoting low-level construals (specific, detailed interpretations of the evidence, akin to current audit practice) and with auditors not given documentation instructions. Further, the high-level construals foster better processing of the collected evidence. The study also provides preliminary evidence that task complexity could interfere with professional skepticism.

Suggested Citation

  • Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:46:y:2015:i:c:p:44-55
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2015.03.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368215000306
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2015.03.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Unknown, 2012. "Summaries-List III," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(3), pages 1-4.
    2. W. Robert Knechel & William F. Messier, 1990. "Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 386-406, March.
    3. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous & Donald Young, 2015. "Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 49-77, March.
    4. Gibbins, M, 1984. "Propositions About The Psychology Of Professional Judgment In Public Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 103-125.
    5. Unknown, 2012. "Summaries-List II," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(3), pages 1-2.
    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. Christopher Koch & Annette Koehler & Kristina Yankova, 2016. "Professional Skepticism and Auditor Judgment: Does Trait Skepticism Mitigate the Recency Bias?," Working Papers 1623, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 2016.
    2. Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    3. 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.
    4. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    5. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    6. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    7. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    8. Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021. "Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
    9. Chambers, Valerie A. & Reckers, Philip M.J., 2022. "Auditor interventions that reduce auditor liability judgments," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    10. Stephen Kuselias, 2020. "Follow the Crowd: How Social Information and Social Identity Influence Investing Decisions," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(3), pages 407-435, September.
    11. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Ben W. Van Landuyt, 2017. "Prompting the Benefit of the Doubt: The Joint Effect of Auditor‐Client Social Bonds and Measurement Uncertainty on Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 963-994, September.
    12. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    13. Platt, William, 2015. "A practitioners perspective: 2014 AOS Conference on Accounting Estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 5-7.
    14. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    15. Hunt, Nicholas C. & Curtis, Mary B. & Rixom, Jessica M., 2022. "Financial priming, psychological distance, and recognizing financial misreporting as an ethical issue: The role of financial reporting responsibility," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2016. "Accounting Students’ Planning, Writing, and Performance on a Time‐Constrained Case Analysis: Effects of Self‐Talk and Prior Achievement," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 311-329, December.
    17. Sami El Omari & Mohamed Taieb Hamadi & Wafa Khlif, 2016. "La diversité des sources d'interprétation et d'application des normes comptables internationales ; un frein à la convergence de la pratique," Post-Print hal-01900554, HAL.
    18. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    19. Joseph A. Johnson & Patrick R. Martin & Bryan Stikeleather & Donald Young, 2022. "Investigating the Interactive Effects of Prosocial Actions, Construal, and Moral Identity on the Extent of Employee Reporting Dishonesty," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 721-743, December.

    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. Christopher Koch & Annette Koehler & Kristina Yankova, 2016. "Professional Skepticism and Auditor Judgment: Does Trait Skepticism Mitigate the Recency Bias?," Working Papers 1623, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 2016.
    2. D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce, 1996. "Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 457-486, September.
    3. Johnson, Eric N., 1995. "Effects of information order, group assistance, and experience on auditors' sequential belief revision," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 137-160, March.
    4. Alexander Gelardi, 2010. "Information Quantity and Order in Students’ Tax Research Judgements," Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, Macrothink Institute, vol. 2(1), pages 2546-2546, December.
    5. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    6. Zhang, Xu & Qi, Tian-yu & Ou, Xun-min & Zhang, Xi-liang, 2017. "The role of multi-region integrated emissions trading scheme: A computable general equilibrium analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 185(P2), pages 1860-1868.
    7. Cindy Moeckel, 1991. "Two factors affecting an auditor's ability to integrate audit evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 270-292, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    10. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    11. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    12. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    13. Mario J. Maletta, 1993. "An Examination of Auditors' Decisions to Use Internal Auditors as Assistants: The Effect of Inherent Risk," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 508-525, March.
    14. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.
    15. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    16. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    17. Paul Danos & John W. Eichenseher & Doris L. Holt, 1989. "Specialized knowledge and its communication in auditing," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 91-109, September.
    18. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Olsen, Carmen & Gold, Anna, 2018. "Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 127-141.
    20. Ruhnke, Klaus, 2023. "Empirical research frameworks in a changing world: The case of audit data analytics," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    21. Hurley, Patrick J., 2019. "Ego depletion and auditors’ JDM quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-1.

    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:46:y:2015:i:c:p:44-55. 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.