IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v7y1991i2p513-534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence

Author

Listed:
  • BRYAN K. CHURCH

Abstract

. Research findings by Ashton and Ashton (1988, 1990) and Tubbs et al. (1990) suggest that auditors will readily revise their beliefs in response to new evidence and that they are particularly sensitive to disconfirming evidence. In sharp contrast, research findings in behavioral decision making suggest just the opposite. The prior studies in auditing, however, have not investigated situations in which auditors are likely to become committed to their hypotheses. Auditors who are strongly committed to their hypotheses may be motivated to evaluate mixed (confirming and disconfirming) evidence as being consistent with their hypotheses. The results of a laboratory experiment indicate that level of commitment affected auditors' overall evaluations of mixed evidence. Auditors who were strongly committed to their hypotheses attached more importance to confirming evidence than did auditors who were not strongly committed. Neither group, however, attached significantly different degrees of importance to disconfirming evidence. Résumé. Selon les résultats des travaux d'Ashton et Ashton (1988, 1990) et de Tubbs et al. (1990), les vérificacteurs révisent facilement leur position en réponse aux faits nouveaux et sont particulièrement sensibles aux faits qui viennent infirmer leurs convictions. Ces résultats contrastent beaucoup avec ceux des recherches en comportement décisionnel qui sont parfaitement contraires. Les études précédentes en vérification n'ont cependant pas porté sur les cas dans lesquels les vérificateurs sont susceptibles d'étre liés par leurs hypothèses. Les vérificateurs qui sont fortement liés par leurs hypothèses risquent d'avoir tendance à interpréter les fait mixtes (c'est†à †dire les faits qui confirment et infirment leurs convictions) comme étant conformes à leurs hypothèses. Les résultats d'une expérience en laboratoire ont révélé que l'intensité du lien avait une incidence sur l'interprétation globale de faits mixtes par les vérificateurs. Ceux qui étaient fortement liés par leurs hypothèses attachaient davantage d'importance aux faits qui confirmaient leurs hypothèses que ceux qui n'étaient pas fortement liés. Aucun des deux groupes n'attachait une importance très différente aux faits qui infirmaient ses hypothèses.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryan K. Church, 1991. "An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 513-534, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:7:y:1991:i:2:p:513-534
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1991.tb00827.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1991.tb00827.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1991.tb00827.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ashton, Robert H. & Ashton, Alison Hubbard, 1990. "Evidence-responsiveness in professional judgment: Effects of positive versus negative evidence and presentation mode," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-19, June.
    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. Janne Chung & Gary Monroe, 1999. "The effects of counterexplanation and source of hypothesis on developing audit judgment," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 111-126.
    2. Lori Shefchik Bhaskar & Patrick E. Hopkins & Joseph H. Schroeder, 2019. "An Investigation of Auditors’ Judgments When Companies Release Earnings Before Audit Completion," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 355-390, May.
    3. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    4. Shana Clor‐Proell & Mark W. Nelson, 2007. "Accounting Standards, Implementation Guidance, and Example‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 699-730, September.
    5. Wendy Green, 2005. "Are Auditors' Analytical Procedures Judgments Affected by Receiving Management Explanations?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 15(37), pages 67-74, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Soon‐Yeow Phang, 2020. "Impacts of the timing of the discovery of a subsequent event on the auditors’ approach to subsequent events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4121-4146, December.
    8. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Sadok Mansour, 2007. "Modelisation Du Risque Dans Les Methodologies D'Audit : Apport Des De La Psychometrie," Post-Print halshs-00543217, HAL.
    4. Sierra-García, Laura & Gambetta, Nicolás & García-Benau, María A. & Orta-Pérez, Manuel, 2019. "Understanding the determinants of the magnitude of entity-level risk and account-level risk key audit matters: The case of the United Kingdom," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 227-240.
    5. Agnes Aurora Ngelo & Yani Permatasari & Siti Zaleha Abdul Rasid & Iman Harymawan & Wulandari Fitri Ekasari, 2022. "Ex-Auditor CEOs and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure: Evidence from a Voluntary Period of Sustainability Report in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Janne Chung & Gary Monroe, 1999. "The effects of counterexplanation and source of hypothesis on developing audit judgment," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 111-126.
    7. Andrés Guiral‐Contreras & Jose A. Gonzalo‐Angulo & Waymond Rodgers, 2007. "Information content and recency effect of the audit report in loan rating decisions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(2), pages 285-304, June.
    8. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3528 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Stefan Schiller, 2017. "The Quest for Rationality: Chief Financial Officers’ and Accounting Master’s Students’ Perception of Economic Rationality," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, April.
    13. Wei Chen & Hun‐Tong Tan & Elaine Ying Wang, 2013. "Fair Value Accounting and Managers' Hedging Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 67-103, March.
    14. J.E. Boritz & B.G. Gaber & W.M. Lemon, 1988. "An experimental study of the effects of elicitation methods on review of preliminary audit strategy by external auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 392-411, March.
    15. Roger Simnett & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Research Methods for Examining Independence Issues: Experimental and Economics-of-Auditing Approaches," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 12(28), pages 23-31, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Jean Bã‰Dard, 1991. "Expertise and Its Relation to Audit Decision Quality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 198-222, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    20. 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.
    21. Kathryn Kadous & Lisa M. Sedor, 2004. "The Efficacy of Third†Party Consultation in Preventing Managerial Escalation of Commitment: The Role of Mental Representations," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 55-82, March.

    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:7:y:1991:i:2:p:513-534. 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: 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.