Description
The process gains arising from the review process have been the subject of much research interest, but few studies
have examined how features in the audit environment can in¯uence the review process. In this paper, we investigate
how one such feature Ð the preparer's justi®cation for a conclusion made Ð aects the nature of hypotheses generated
by reviewers and their likelihood assessments. Using the context of an analytical procedures task, our results showed
that exposure to a preparer's justi®cation for a non-error cause reduced the number of alternative error hypotheses
generated by the reviewer, and increased the reviewer's belief in the likelihood of a non-error cause.
doc_266121192.pdf
The process gains arising from the review process have been the subject of much research interest, but few studies
have examined how features in the audit environment can in¯uence the review process. In this paper, we investigate
how one such feature Ð the preparer's justi®cation for a conclusion made Ð aects the nature of hypotheses generated
by reviewers and their likelihood assessments. Using the context of an analytical procedures task, our results showed
that exposure to a preparer's justi®cation for a non-error cause reduced the number of alternative error hypotheses
generated by the reviewer, and increased the reviewer's belief in the likelihood of a non-error cause.
doc_266121192.pdf