IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accted/v8y1999i2p111-126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of counterexplanation and source of hypothesis on developing audit judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Janne Chung
  • Gary Monroe

Abstract

Inheriting a hypothesis from a superior and explaining one's decision may lead to the use of a hypothesis-confirming strategy (Church, 1991; 1990). This study investigates whether generating one's own hypothesis and counterexplaining would mitigate such behaviour among auditing students in a classroom situation. We hypothesized that auditing students who inherit their hypothesis from an instructor would resort to a hypothesis-confirming strategy whereas those who generate their own hypothesis would not. Similarly, those who explain their decisions would be hypothesis-confirming but those who counterexplain would not. An experiment using an auditing case study was carried out and the results support our hypotheses. These results have instructional and assessment implications.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accted:v:8:y:1999:i:2:p:111-126
    DOI: 10.1080/096392899330964
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/096392899330964
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/096392899330964?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. Bryan K. Church & Arnold Schneider, 1993. "Auditors' Generation of Diagnostic Hypotheses in Response to a Superior's Suggestion: Interference Effects," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 333-350, September.
    2. Kennedy, J, 1993. "Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245.
    3. 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.
    4. Ashton, Robert H. & Ashton, Alison Hubbard, 1990. "Evidence-responsiveness in professional judgment: Effects of positive versus negative evidence and presentation mode," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Anderson, Urton & Wright, William F., 1988. "Expertise and the explanation effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 250-269, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Kida, T, 1980. "An Investigation Into Auditors Continuity And Related Qualification Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 506-523.
    8. Bryan K. Church, 1991. "An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 513-534, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce, 1996. "Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 457-486, September.
    5. Kathryn Kadous & Lisa M. Sedor, 2004. "The Efficacy of Third†Party Consultation in Preventing Managerial Escalation of Commitment: The Role of Mental Representations," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 55-82, March.
    6. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. El-Hussein E. El-Masry, 2008. "Factors affecting auditors' utilization of evidential cues," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(1), pages 26-50, January.
    10. Davis, Elizabeth B. & Ashton, Robert H., 2002. "Threshold adjustment in response to asymmetric loss functions: The case of auditors' "substantial doubt" thresholds," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1082-1099, November.
    11. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    12. Marija Aleksovska & Thomas Schillemans & Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, 2019. "Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    13. W.P. Hogan & Ian G. Sharpe, 1990. "Prudential Supervision of Australian Banks," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 66(2), pages 127-145, June.
    14. Elizabeth Sheedy & Dominic S. B. Canestrari‐Soh, 2023. "Does executive accountability enhance risk management and risk culture?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4093-4124, December.
    15. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    16. 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.
    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. Björn Röber, 2020. "Escalating internationalization decisions: intendedly rational, but only limitedly so?," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(2), pages 455-484, July.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:taf:accted:v:8:y:1999:i:2:p:111-126. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAED20 .

    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.