Publication Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

1-2008

Abstract

This study provides exploratory evidence on auditors’ framing and evaluation of hypotheses, identifies implications for improving audit decision-making and facilitates the interpretation of prior research. Prior studies usually assume hypotheses to be framed as mutually exclusive and exhaustive. However, both verbal protocol evidence and probability assessments reveal that in a realistic case most auditors frame the hypotheses as a non-mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of causes. Further, auditor probability assessments tend to reflect multiple causes. Finally, exploratory analyses indicate auditors have difficulty in updating assessments consistent with the perceived interrelationships between hypotheses.

Keywords

Audit, judgment, framing, multiple hypothesis, evidence

Discipline

Accounting

Publication

Asian-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics

Volume

15

Issue

1

First Page

123

Last Page

140

Identifier

10.1080/16081625.2008.9720814

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Additional URL

http://doi.org./10.1080/16081625.2008.9720814

Included in

Accounting Commons

Share

COinS