IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/isacfm/v8y1999i3p199-213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consideration of the social context of auditors’ reliance on expert system output during evaluation of loan loss reserves

Author

Listed:
  • Laurie Swinney

Abstract

Auditors are accountable for judgments made within the social context of the accounting firm. Tetlock (1985) states that decision makers often use the acceptability heuristic to cope with accountability. According to this heuristic, individuals make decisions which they are reasonably confident will be acceptable by others to whom they are accountable. When auditors form judgments with the aid of expert system output, they must determine the appropriate level of reliance on the expert system output. Since the expert system output is based on the input of experts, auditors may decide the output is ‘acceptable‘ and overrely on the output. In addition, because of the conservative nature of the accounting firm, expert system output which is negative may be viewed as more acceptable than positive output leading to greater overreliance. The results indicate that auditors do overrely on expert system output and rely to a greater degree on output which is negative versus output which is positive. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurie Swinney, 1999. "Consideration of the social context of auditors’ reliance on expert system output during evaluation of loan loss reserves," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 199-213, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:isacfm:v:8:y:1999:i:3:p:199-213
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1174(199909)8:33.0.CO;2-A
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1174(199909)8:33.0.CO;2-A
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1174(199909)8:33.0.CO;2-A?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. Trotman, Ken T. & Sng, Jennifer, 1989. "The effect of hypothesis framing, prior expectations and cue diagnosticity on auditors' information choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 565-576, October.
    2. Ashton, Rh, 1990. "Pressure And Performance In Accounting Decision Settings - Paradoxical Effects Of Incentives, Feedback, And Justification," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 148-180.
    3. Kida, T, 1984. "The Impact Of Hypothesis-Testing Strategies On Auditors Use Of Judgment Data," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 332-340.
    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. Amelia A. Baldwin & Carol E. Brown & Brad S. Trinkle, 2006. "Opportunities for artificial intelligence development in the accounting domain: the case for auditing," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 77-86, July.
    2. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).

    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. 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. 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. 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.
    4. Craig Emby & David Finley, 1997. "Debiasing Framing Effects in Auditors' Internal Control Judgments and Testing Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 55-77, June.
    5. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    6. Christine R. Ohlert & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2020. "Debiasing escalation of commitment: the effectiveness of decision aids to enhance de-escalation," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 405-438, February.
    7. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Julia Ortner & Sebastian Robert & Louis Velthuis, 2023. "Designing incentives and performance measurement for advisors: How to make decision-makers listen to advice," Working Papers 2304, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    8. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    9. Mauldin, Elaine G. & Ruchala, Linda V., 1999. "Towards a meta-theory of accounting information systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 317-331, May.
    10. Shepherd, Dean A. & Zacharakis, Andrew, 2002. "Venture capitalists' expertise: A call for research into decision aids and cognitive feedback," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Mark V. Pezzo & Stephanie P. Pezzo, 2006. "Physician Evaluation after Medical Errors: Does Having a Computer Decision Aid Help or Hurt in Hindsight?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(1), pages 48-56, January.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:627-641 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Philip R. Beaulieu, 1994. "Utilisation par les prêteurs commerciaux de l'information comptable en interaction avec la crédibilité de la source," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 587-623, March.
    15. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.
    18. Tarek Amer & Karl Hackenbrack & Mark Nelson, 1995. "Context†Dependence of Auditors' Interpretations of the SFAS No. 5 Probability Expressions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 25-39, September.
    19. Philip R. Beaulieu, 1994. "Commercial Lenders' Use of Accounting Information in Interaction with Source Credibility," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 557-585, March.
    20. Fanzheng Yang & Yujiao Shi & Weiwei Weng, 2020. "Be proactive or inactive: The effects of systematic job riskiness on effort investment," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 599-607, June.
    21. Dobbs, Ian M. & Miller, Anthony D., 2009. "Experimental evidence on financial incentives, information and decision-making," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 71-89.

    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:isacfm:v:8:y:1999:i:3:p:199-213. 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: http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/1099-1174/ .

    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.