The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective

Rich, Jay S.; Solomon, Ira; Trotman, Ken T.

doi:10.1016/s0361-3682(97)80165-1

Cited by 221 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As part of the review process, the reviewer also enhances the knowledge of reviewees. Given that reviewers play a role in performance evaluation, reviewers set incentives for reviewees (Rich et al 1997).…”

Section: Review and Consultationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Model and Literature Review of Professional Skepticism in Auditing

Nelson

2009

AUDITING: A Journal of Practice &Amp; Theory

529

485

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Review and Consultationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, reviewees' awareness of the role of the reviewer in performance evaluation could have negative effects if it encourages reviewees to bias their work in some way (Rich et al 1997;Gibbins and Trotman 2002;Fargher et al 2005). Reviewer judgments are affected by reviewee conclusions (Yip-Ow and Tan 2000).…”

Section: Review and Consultationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model and Literature Review of Professional Skepticism in Auditing

Nelson

2009

AUDITING: A Journal of Practice &Amp; Theory

529

485

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Such documentation serves to bolster conclusions reached rather than to map out the process used to reach those conclusions. Rich et al (1997b) characterize audit workpapers as persuasive messages that may be 'stylized' to enhance the reputation of the preparer with the reviewer. The preparer can influence what and how evidence is gathered, the interpretation of the evidence, whether or not the evidence is documented, and how to frame and format the workpapers.…”

Section: Recency In Auditingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eliminating recency with self‐review: the case of auditors' ‘going concern’ judgments

Ashton¹,

Kennedy²

2002

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the use of self-review to debias recency. Recency is found in the 'going concern' judgments of staff auditors, but is successfully eliminated by the auditor's use of a simple self-review technique that would be extremely easy to implement in audit practice. Auditors who self-review are also less inclined to make audit report choices that are inconsistent with their going concern judgments. These results are important because the judgments of staff auditors often determine the type and extent of documentation in audit workpapers and serve as preliminary inputs for senior auditors' judgments and choices. If staff auditors' judgments are affected by recency, the impact of this bias may be impounded in the ultimate judgments and choices of senior auditors. Since biased judgments can expose auditors to significant costs involving extended audit procedures, legal liability and diminished reputation, simple debiasing techniques that reduce this exposure are valuable. The paper also explores some future research needs and other important issues concerning judgment debiasing in applied professional settings.

show abstract

“…For example, Rich et al (1997) characterizes the audit review process from a persuasion perspective that is based on the persuasion knowledge model. During the review process, audit preparers are likely to present stylized workpapers to audit reviewers in order to persuade reviewers that the work performed and conclusions reached by the preparer are appropriate and justified.…”

Section: Persuasion Knowledge Model In the Accounting Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on this examination, I identified persuasion tactics that are available to management in a litigation disclosure setting: the placement, labeling, and framing of lawsuits within the disclosure (Bouwman 1982;Hunton and McEwen 1997;Nelson et al 1997;Nelson and Oxley 1999;Maines and McDaniel 2000;Druckman 2001;Lipe and Salterio 2002;McCaffery and Baron 2004;Maule and Villejoubert 2007;Slothuus 2008;Bonner 2008). Following prior persuasion research in accounting, the presentation of the disclosures under the proposed amendment in this study made use of all three persuasion tactics that would be available, practicable, and likely to be used simultaneously by managers to craft disclosures which are more opportunistic versus more objective (Rich et al 1997;Tan and Yip-Ow 2001). I did this to more fully distinguish the opportunistic condition from the more objective condition (Kerlinger and Lee 2000).…”

Section: Disclosure Typementioning

confidence: 99%