Accountability Demands and the Auditor’s Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)

103 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Fifty-Year Overview of Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting (2011, unknown): “Turner (2001) examined the influence of reviewer preferences (accountability) on auditors’ evidence search strategy.”
Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature (2013, background): “First, auditor judgments are often biased when auditors are made aware of the reviewer’s preferences prior to performing auditing tasks, i.e., biased in favor of the reviewers’ preferences (Peecher 1996; Turner 2001; Wilks 2002; Shankar and Tan 2006).”
Disclosure Readability and the Sensitivity of Investors' Valuation Judgments to Outside Information (2017, unknown): “, Turner [2001]; Wilks [2002]; Kadous,”
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).”