Search
  Advanced Search
 
Journal search
Journal cover: Managerial Auditing Journal

Managerial Auditing Journal

ISSN: 0268-6902

Online from: 1986

Subject Area: Accounting and Finance

Content: Latest Issue | icon: RSS Latest Issue RSS | Previous Issues

Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile

Icon: .Table of Contents.Next article.Icon: .

Does repetition impair auditors' judgments?


Document Information:
Title:Does repetition impair auditors' judgments?
Author(s):Wendy Green, (The Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)
Citation:Wendy Green, (2008) "Does repetition impair auditors' judgments?", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 23 Iss: 8, pp.724 - 743
Keywords:Auditing, Auditors, Bias, Financial analysis, Quality audit
Article type:Research paper
DOI:10.1108/02686900810899509 (Permanent URL)
Publisher:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Acknowledgements:This paper has benefited from the contributions of Cindy Moeckel and Buck Pei.
Abstract:

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.



Fulltext Options:

Login

Login

Existing customers: login
to access this document

Login


- Forgot password?
- Athens/Institutional login

Purchase

Purchase

Downloadable; Printable; Owned
HTML, PDF (115kb)Purchase

To purchase this item please login or register.

Login


- Forgot password?

Recommend to your librarian

Complete and print this form to request this document from your librarian


Marked list


Bookmark & share

Reprints & permissions