Predecisional Distortion of Evidence as a Consequence of Real‐Time Audit Review

By T. Wilks. 2002

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Finance, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/15177cf5ba9bd218f8ecaf27f2a9695bf0978ed8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Finance

In General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

The Halo Effect in Business Risk Audits: Can Strategic Risk Assessment Bias Auditor Judgment about Accounting Details? (2005, background): “Fourth, prior studies (e.g., Phillips 1999; Wilks 2002 ) focus on how preliminary holistic opinions about an audit judgment task can influence the evaluation of subsequent, more detailed evidence closely related to the same task.”
Fifty-Year Overview of Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting (2011, unknown): “Some of the aforementioned papers, including Wilks (2002), rely on the ‘motivated reasoning’ literature (also see the discussion in the financial accounting literature).”
Disclosure Readability and the Sensitivity of Investors' Valuation Judgments to Outside Information (2017, unknown): “and Spilker 2008), auditors (e.g., Turner 2001; Wilks 2002; Kadous, Kennedy, and Peecher 2003), and current investors (e.”
Experimental Research in Financial Accounting (2002, background): “Wilks (2001) provides evidence that incentives affect decisions more when the incentives are made apparent to subjects prior to evaluating evidence, suggesting that incentive effects influence the evaluation process as well as the decisions that result from that process.”
Professional Skepticism: The Effects of a Partner's Influence and the Level of Fraud Indicators on Auditors' Fraud Judgments and Actions (2013, background): “made by subordinate auditors in analytical reviews (Peecher 1996), client bidding (Cohen and Trompeter 1998), reliance on internal auditors (Gramling 1999), going concern judgments (Wilks 2002), audit planning decisions (Bierstaker and Wright 2001, 2005), and accounts receivable collectability revie”
A Model and Literature Review of Professional Skepticism in Auditing (2009, background): “, a reviewer who believes client explanations should not be taken at face value), anticipation of that preference affects their evidence search (Turner 2001), documentation and information weighting (Peecher 1996), and their memory for audit evidence (Wilks 2002).”
Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature (2013, background): “preferences (Peecher 1996; Turner 2001; Wilks 2002; Shankar and Tan 2006).”
Directional Preferences, Information Processing, and Investors' Forecasts of Earnings (2007, unknown): “As such, it is also possible that the directional bias is partly explained as a normative response to all available information (e.g., Hunton and McEwen 1997; Wilks 2002).”