Decomposition of Fraud Risk Assessments and Auditors' Sensitivity to Fraud Cues

By T. Wilks, Mark F. Zimbelman. 2004

215 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Information Systems and Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5383920f10a91193855be4b8b02e93e6ae2bc539

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

1. Yuan Ding
2. Jeffrey R. Cohen
3. Jacqueline S. Hammersley
4. Hervé Stolowy

In Information Systems and Management

1. Jeffrey R. Cohen
2. Jacqueline S. Hammersley

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Yuan Ding
2. Jacqueline S. Hammersley

Citations in the corpus

• A Review and Model of Auditor Judgments in Fraud-Related Planning Tasks (2011, background): “Overall, auditors are sensitive to cues that increase the salience of fraud or fraud risk (Zimbelman 1997; Knapp and Knapp 2001; Wilks and Zimbelman 2004b; Hammersley et al. 2011; Trotman and Wright 2011).”
• Corporate Fraud and Managers’ Behavior: Evidence from the Press (2010, background): “In the previous literature, breaking down overall fraud-risk assessments into separate assessments for management’s (1) incentives/pressures, (2) opportunities and (3) attitudes/rationalizations/ is often referred to as the fraud-triangle decomposition (Wilks and Zimbelman, 2004) or, in short, the f”
• Fraud Risk Factor Of The Fraud Triangle Assessing The Likelihood Of Fraudulent Financial Reporting (2011, unknown): “In current audit environment, fail to detect existing fraud seems to be more concerned than costly examination of a nonexistent fraud (Wilks and Zimbelman, 2004).”
• Fifty-Year Overview of Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting (2011, unknown): “Two examples of papers on this topic are Asare and Wright (2004) and Wilks and Zimbelman (2004).”