IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v19y2002i4p595-614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Differential Use of Information by Experienced and Novice Auditors in the Performance of Ill†Structured Audit Tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Christine E. Earley

Abstract

The experiment reported in this paper tests a theoretical model of experienced and novice auditors' information use. The model, based on social cognition research, posits that when judgements are sequential, the information encountered first affects the processing of subsequent information. Specifically, initial information that is in line with expectations results in more superficial processing of subsequent information than initial information that violates expectations. The judgements of 13 experienced and 26 novice auditors were analyzed to determine whether the model is descriptive of auditors' judgements in an ill†structured task setting (real estate valuation). Results lend support for the model. The implications of the results and the model's impact on audit effectiveness are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine E. Earley, 2002. "The Differential Use of Information by Experienced and Novice Auditors in the Performance of Ill†Structured Audit Tasks," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 595-614, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:19:y:2002:i:4:p:595-614
    DOI: 10.1506/XWDP-PHRH-Q3J9-XLXL
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/XWDP-PHRH-Q3J9-XLXL
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/XWDP-PHRH-Q3J9-XLXL?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lau, Yeng Wai, 2014. "Aggregated or disaggregated information first?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2376-2384.
    2. 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.
    3. Evi Maria & Yayuk Ariyani, 2014. "E-Commerce Impact: The Impact of E-Audit Implementation on the Auditor’s Performance (Empirical Study of the Public Accountant Firms in Semarang, Indonesia)," Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, Educational Research Multimedia & Publications,India, vol. 5(3), pages 01-07, September.
    4. Ulf Mohrmann & Jan Riepe & Ulrike Stefani, 2013. "Are Extensive Audits 'Good News'? Market Perceptions of Abnormal Audit Fees and Fair Value Disclosures," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2013-08, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    5. Lisa M. Gaynor & Andrea S. Kelton, 2014. "The effects of analyst forecasts and earnings trends on perceptions of management forecast credibility," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 54(1), pages 189-210, March.
    6. James Whyte & Roxanne Pickett‐Hauber & Maria D. Whyte, 2016. "Option generation in the treatment of unstable patients: An experienced‐novice comparison study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 370-378, September.
    7. Tamara A. Lambert & Marietta Peytcheva, 2020. "When Is the Averaging Effect Present in Auditor Judgments?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 277-296, March.
    8. Sarah Bonner & Tracie Majors & Stacey Ritter, 2018. "Prepopulating Audit Workpapers with Prior Year Assessments: Default Option Effects on Risk Rating Accuracy," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(5), pages 1453-1481, 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:wly:coacre:v:19:y:2002:i:4:p:595-614. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.