IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Does repetition impair auditors' judgments?

Listed author(s):
  • Wendy Green
Registered author(s):

    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the repetition effect bias noted in prior psychology literature impacts auditor judgments. Were auditors to succumb to this bias, repeated statements would be perceived to have higher validity than single exposure to the same statement, potentially impairing subsequent judgments, including audit opinions and thereby undermining audit quality. Design/methodology/approach - Multiple explanatory hypotheses, including repeated explanations, were evaluated by audit seniors in an experimental analytical procedures setting where the nature (error or non-error) and number (six or ten) of explanations was varied. Findings - Auditors were not found to exhibit a repetition effect (measured as an absolute increase in perceived validity) however differences did occur in their judgments owing to both the nature and number of explanations considered. Consistently the likelihood for repeated items on short lists was increased and on longer it was decreased, while for non-errors it was increased and for errors it was decreased. Practical implications - These results suggest that audit quality could be impaired if auditors do not consider a broad set of plausible explanations, particularly where they receive repeated non-error explanations. Originality/value - No prior study has addressed this issue in this context.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Emerald Group Publishing in its journal Managerial Auditing Journal.

    Volume (Year): 23 (2008)
    Issue (Month): 8 (September)
    Pages: 724-743

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:v:23:y:2008:i:8:p:724-743
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK
    Web: Email:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Hawkins, Scott A & Hoch, Stephen J, 1992. " Low-Involvement Learning: Memory without Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 212-225, September.
    2. Ismail, Zubaidah & Trotman, Ken T., 1995. "The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 345-357, July.
    3. repec:bla:joares:v:23:y:1985:i:2:p:648-667 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Asare, Stephen K. & Wright, Arnold, 1995. "Normative and Substantive Expertise in Multiple Hypotheses Evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 171-184, November.
    5. Asare, S. K. & Wright, A., 1997. "Hypothesis revision strategies in conducting analytical procedures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(8), pages 737-755, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:v:23:y:2008:i:8:p:724-743. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.