Consequentiality, justification and auditors' decision processes: A theoretical framework and two experiments
Peecher, Mark Everett
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/22770
Description
Title
Consequentiality, justification and auditors' decision processes: A theoretical framework and two experiments
Author(s)
Peecher, Mark Everett
Issue Date
1994
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Solomon, Ira
Department of Study
Accountancy
Discipline
Accountancy
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Business Administration, Accounting
Psychology, Social
Psychology, Experimental
Language
eng
Abstract
Justification demands pervade auditing, yet little is known regarding their effects on auditors' decision processes (e.g., Ashton 1990; Gibbins and Newton 1993; Solomon and Shields, in press). In this dissertation, I develop a framework for predicting when justification demands are likely to be of significant influence. Additionally, I decompose the cognitive task of justifying into several interdependent steps, highlighting how justification can both directly and indirectly influence auditors' judgment and decision making. Based on my theoretical development, I devise two experiments within a planning stage analytical procedures context--one using undergraduate auditing students and one using auditors possessing two to seven years of experience. To assure a meaningful level of consequentiality, all participants were asked to sign their experimental instrument and were advised of further follow-up procedures. Results indicate that justifiee preferences, client-specific cues and requests for lists of alternative explanations interactively influenced how readily subjects accepted client explanations, how extensively they spontaneously searched for alternative causes (cf., Koonce 1992), and the extent to which they relied on the congruence heuristic to judge the diagnosticity of evidentiary questions (cf., Baron, Beattie and Hershey 1988). I discuss implications of the thesis for building a more complete theory of justification with an emphasis on how client-specific cues and audit task requirements can interact with justifiee preferences to directly and indirectly influence how auditors' decision processes. I conclude the thesis by discussing avenues for future research, noting the importance of bridging justification research on the decision processes of individual auditors with research that investigates the interdependence amongst auditors inherit in the audit review process (Rich, Solomon and Trotman 1994; Solomon 1987).
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
