IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/crpeac/v19y2008i7p1020-1033.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An examination of the influence of surprise on judges and jurors’ outcome effects

Author

Listed:
  • Charron, Kimberly F.
  • Lowe, D. Jordan

Abstract

In our legal system, hindsight judgments are used to evaluate decisions performed in foresight. The extent to which judges and jurors succumb to outcome effects, however, may be dependent on the degree of outcome surprise. The objective of this research is to examine whether the surprise versus causal nature of an outcome would influence the magnitude of outcome effects. It was expected that outcome effects would vary based on the extent of the outcome surprise. That is, outcomes attributable to an increasing degree of unforeseen causes were expected to associate with decreasing outcome effects. Two experiments were conducted involving general jurisdiction judges and prospective jurors. Results revealed that judges and jurors’ evaluations were each susceptible to outcome effects. However, while increasing levels of outcome surprise reduced judges’ outcome effects, it had no effect on jurors’ outcome effects. Given the potential legal consequences, greater understanding of the association between (outcome) surprise and outcome effects is clearly warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Charron, Kimberly F. & Lowe, D. Jordan, 2008. "An examination of the influence of surprise on judges and jurors’ outcome effects," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 19(7), pages 1020-1033.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:crpeac:v:19:y:2008:i:7:p:1020-1033
    DOI: 10.1016/j.cpa.2007.06.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235407000834
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.cpa.2007.06.005?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. Mark, Melvin M. & Mellor, Steven, 1994. ""We Don't Expect It Happened": On Mazursky and Ofir's (1990) Purported Reversal of the Hindsight Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 247-252, February.
    2. Carcello, Jv & Palmrose, Zv, 1994. "Auditor Litigation And Modified Reporting On Bankrupt Clients," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 1-30.
    3. Kelman, Mark & Fallas, David E & Folger, Hilary, 1998. "Decomposing Hindsight Bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 251-269, July-Aug..
    4. Mazursky, David & Ofir, Chezy, 1990. ""I could never have expected it to happen": The reversal of the hindsight bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 20-33, June.
    5. Palmrose, Zoe-Vonna, 1997. "Audit litigation research: Do the merits matter? An assessment and directions for future research," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 355-378.
    6. Ofir, Chezy & Mazursky, David, 1997. "Does a Surprising Outcome Reinforce or Reverse the Hindsight Bias?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 50-57, January.
    7. Anderson, John C. & Lowe, D. Jordan & Reckers, Philip M. J., 1993. "Evaluation of auditor decisions: Hindsight bias effects and the expectation gap," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 711-737, December.
    8. Louie, Therese A., 2005. "Hindsight bias and outcome-consistent thoughts when observing and making service provider decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 88-95, September.
    9. Jennings, Marianne M. & Lowe, D. Jordan & Reckers, Philip M. J., 1998. "Causality as an influence on hindsight bias: An empirical examination of judges' evaluation of professional audit judgment," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 143-167.
    10. Reimers, Jane L. & Butler, Stephen A., 1992. "The effect of outcome knowledge on auditors' judgmental evaluations," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 185-194, February.
    11. Bryan Cloyd, C. & Frederickson, James R. & Hill, John W., 1996. "Motivating factors in lawsuits against independent auditors: Experimental evidence on the importance of causality," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 185-218.
    12. Palmrose, Zv, 1991. "Trials Of Legal Disputes Involving Independent Auditors - Some Empirical-Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29, pages 149-185.
    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. Mertins, Lasse & Salbador, Debra & Long, James H., 2013. "The outcome effect – A review and implications for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 2-30.

    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. Lennox, Clive & Li, Bing, 2014. "Accounting misstatements following lawsuits against auditors," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 58-75.
    2. Ricchiute, David N., 1997. "Effects of Judgment on Memory: Experiments in Recognition Bias and Process Dissociation in a Professional Judgment Task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 27-39, April.
    3. Sattar A. Mansi & William F. Maxwell & Darius P. Miller, 2004. "Does Auditor Quality and Tenure Matter to Investors? Evidence from the Bond Market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 755-793, September.
    4. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    5. Clive Lennox & Petro Lisowsky & Jeffrey Pittman, 2013. "Tax Aggressiveness and Accounting Fraud," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 739-778, September.
    6. Zoe†Vonna Palmrose & Susan Scholz, 2004. "The Circumstances and Legal Consequences of Non†GAAP Reporting: Evidence from Restatements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 139-180, March.
    7. Christine Gimbar & Molly Mercer, 2021. "Do Auditors Accurately Predict Litigation and Reputation Consequences of Inaccurate Accounting Estimates?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 276-301, March.
    8. Clive Lennox & Bing Li, 2020. "When Are Audit Firms Sued for Financial Reporting Failures and What Are the Lawsuit Outcomes?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1370-1399, September.
    9. Werth, Lioba & Strack, Fritz & Forster, Jens, 2002. "Certainty and Uncertainty: The Two Faces of the Hindsight Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 323-341, March.
    10. Joshua Ronen, 2010. "Corporate Audits and How to Fix Them," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 189-210, Spring.
    11. Ann Vanstraelen, 2000. "Impact of renewable long-term audit mandates on audit quality," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 419-442.
    12. Goodson, Brian M. & Grenier, Jonathan H. & Maksymov, Eldar, 2023. "When law students think like audit litigation attorneys: Implications for experimental research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Şerafettin SEVİM & Birol YILDIZ & Nilüfer DALKILIÇ, 2016. "Risk Assessment for Accounting Professional Liability Insurance," Sosyoekonomi Journal, Sosyoekonomi Society, issue 24(29).
    14. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José Gonzalo, 2009. "Different Pathways that Suggest Whether Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions are Ethically Based," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 347-361, May.
    15. Jihong Lee & Qingmin Liu, 2008. "The Dynamics of Bargaining Postures: The Role of a Third Party," PIER Working Paper Archive 09-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    16. repec:bof:bofrdp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201508131351 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Pablo de Llano Monelos & Manuel Rodríguez López & Carlos Piñeiro Sánchez, 2013. "Bankruptcy Prediction Models in Galician companies. Application of Parametric Methodologies and Artificial Intelligence," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(1), pages 117-136.
    18. Muhammad Farhan Malik & Yuan George Shan & Jamie Yixing Tong, 2022. "Do auditors price litigious tone?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1715-1760, April.
    19. Cao, June & Ee, Mong Shan & Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He, 2024. "Asymmetric reactions of abnormal audit fees jump to credit rating changes," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    20. Ehsan Habib Feroz & Taek Mu Kwon & Victor S. Pastena & Kyungjoo Park, 2000. "The efficacy of red flags in predicting the SEC's targets: an artificial neural networks approach," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 145-157, September.
    21. Arrunada, Benito & Paz-Ares, Candido, 1997. "Mandatory rotation of company auditors: A critical examination," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-61, March.

    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:crpeac:v:19:y:2008:i:7:p:1020-1033. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/critical-perspectives-on-accounting/ .

    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.