The Impact of Initial Information Ambiguity on the Accuracy of Analytical Review Judgments

SUMMARY: Analytical procedures require that auditors develop and test hypotheses about possible fluctuations in a firm's financial data. Research in psychology suggests that the initial information ambiguity that exists prior to hypothesis generation may affect not only the initial hypothesis set, but also final judgment accuracy. We argue in this paper that information ambiguity can be caused by two primary variables, data sufficiency and data complexity, and examine how these variables affect judgment accuracy during analytical review. Ninety-four staff auditors completed analytical procedures for a company with an error seeded into its financial statements. Information ambiguity was varied across three levels by manipulating both the sufficiency and complexity of the data (insufficient/complex, sufficient/complex, and sufficient/not complex). Participants generated hypotheses that might explain the observed fluctuations in the data, then received a comprehensive financial data set (that was identical f...

[1]  Norbert L Kerr,et al.  Satisficing in hypothesis generation. , 2002, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  W. A. Sherden.  The Fortune Sellers: The Big Business of Buying and Selling Predictions , 1997 .

[3]  Arnold Schneider,et al.  Auditors' Generation of Diagnostic Hypotheses in Response to a Superior's Suggestion: Interference Effects* , 1993 .

[4]  Robert Libby,et al.  Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review , 1985 .

[5]  H. J. Einhorn.  The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. , 1970, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  D. Eric Hirst,et al.  Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation* , 1996 .

[7]  Wendy Green,et al.  An Examination of Different Performance Outcomes in an Analytical Procedures Task , 2003 .

[8]  E. Weber,et al.  Determinants of diagnostic hypothesis generation: effects of information, base rates, and experience. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Sudip Bhattacharjee,et al.  The Impact of Generating Initial Hypothesis Sets of Different Sizes on the Quality of the Initial Set, and the Resulting Time Efficiency and Final Judgment Accuracy , 2004 .

[11]  Mark Snyder,et al.  Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. , 1978 .

[12]  Ken T. Trotman,et al.  THE EFFECT OF HYPOTHESIS FRAMING: PRIOR EXPECTATIONS AND CUE DIAGNOSTICITY ON AUDITORS'... , 1989 .

[13]  William R. Kinney,et al.  The effect of ambiguity on loss contingency reporting judgments , 1997 .

[14]  Sudip Bhattacharjee,et al.  The Effectiveness of Alternative Training Techniques on Analytical Procedures Performance , 2007 .

[15]  Thomas Kida,et al.  The Impact of Analytical Review Results, Internal Control Reliability, and Experience on Auditors' Use of Analytical Review , 1989 .

[16]  L. Shulman,et al.  Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning , 1978 .

[17]  M. Potter,et al.  Interference in Visual Recognition , 1964, Science.

[18]  Bryan K. Church.  An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence* , 1991 .

[19]  Mark Snyder,et al.  Testing hypotheses about other people: The use of historical knowledge , 1979 .

[20]  Thomas Kida,et al.  The Impact of Hypothesis Set Size on the Time Efficiency and Accuracy of analytical Review Judgments , 1999 .

[21]  Arnold M. Wright,et al.  A Note on the Interdependence between Hypothesis Generation and Information Search in Conducting Analytical Procedures , 2003 .

[22]  Lewis R. Goldberg,et al.  Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving on clinical inferences. , 1970 .

[23]  Arnold M. Wright,et al.  The World Has Changed—Have Analytical Procedure Practices? , 2010 .

[24]  Manuel London,et al.  Effects of Hypothesis Generation on Hypothesis Testing in Rule-Discovery Tasks. , 1997, The Journal of general psychology.

[25]  Tina D Carpenter,et al.  Audit Team Brainstorming, Fraud Risk Identification, and Fraud Risk Assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99 , 2007 .

[26]  Alvin A. Arens,et al.  Auditing: An Integrated Approach , 1976 .

[27]  Zubaidah Ismail,et al.  The impact of the review process in hypothesis generation tasks , 1995 .

[28]  Robert Libby,et al.  Experience And The Ability To Explain Audit Findings , 1990 .

[29]  Arthur S. Elstein,et al.  Medical Problem Solving , 1990 .

[30]  R. Dawes.  A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making. , 1971 .

[31]  Donald V. Moser,et al.  The Impact of an Auditor's Initial Hypothesis on Subsequent Performance at Identifying Actual Errors* , 1995 .

[32]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Availability and interference in predictive judgment. , 1984 .

[33]  Kathryn Kadous,et al.  The Effect of Quality Assessment and Directional Goal Commitment on Auditors' Acceptance of Client‐Preferred Accounting Methods , 2003 .

[34]  R. Dawes,et al.  House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. , 1995 .