IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v46y2015icp56-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discussion of construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Frank, Michele L.
  • Hoffman, Vicky B.

Abstract

Prior auditing research and PCAOB inspection reports note that auditors have difficulty auditing complex accounting estimates. Rasso (2015) tests whether providing auditors with documentation instructions “based on the precepts of construal-level theory (CLT)” improves auditor effectiveness and skepticism when auditing these types of estimates. In this discussion, we highlight some comments about Rasso’s study from participants at the Accounting, Organizations and Society Conference on Accounting Estimates and share our own perspectives about the study’s conclusions and implications for research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank, Michele L. & Hoffman, Vicky B., 2015. "Discussion of construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 56-58.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:46:y:2015:i:c:p:56-58
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2015.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368215000483
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2015.04.005?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramsay, Rj, 1994. "Senior Manager Differences In Audit Workpaper Review Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 127-135.
    2. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous & Donald Young, 2015. "Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 49-77, March.
    3. Hoffman, Vicky B. & Joe, Jennifer R. & Moser, Donald V., 2003. "The effect of constrained processing on auditors' judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(7-8), pages 699-714.
    4. Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    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. Dennis D. Fehrenbacher & Anis Triki & Martin Michael Weisner, 2021. "Can multitasking influence professional scepticism?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 1277-1306, March.
    2. Hunt, Nicholas C. & Curtis, Mary B. & Rixom, Jessica M., 2022. "Financial priming, psychological distance, and recognizing financial misreporting as an ethical issue: The role of financial reporting responsibility," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 102(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. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    2. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    3. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    4. Hurley, Patrick J., 2019. "Ego depletion and auditors’ JDM quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    6. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    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. Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2016. "Accounting Students’ Planning, Writing, and Performance on a Time‐Constrained Case Analysis: Effects of Self‐Talk and Prior Achievement," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 311-329, December.
    10. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Ben W. Van Landuyt, 2017. "Prompting the Benefit of the Doubt: The Joint Effect of Auditor‐Client Social Bonds and Measurement Uncertainty on Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 963-994, September.
    11. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    12. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    13. Christopher Koch & Annette Koehler & Kristina Yankova, 2016. "Professional Skepticism and Auditor Judgment: Does Trait Skepticism Mitigate the Recency Bias?," Working Papers 1623, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 2016.
    14. 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.
    15. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    16. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.
    17. Olsen, Carmen & Gold, Anna, 2018. "Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 127-141.
    18. Ruhnke, Klaus, 2023. "Empirical research frameworks in a changing world: The case of audit data analytics," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:46:y:2015:i:c:p:56-58. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.