联系我们

论文查询结果	返回搜索

论文编号：	252
作者编号：	20050706
上传时间：	2008/6/18 10:04:41
中文题目：	经验、努力程度与审计判断偏误研
英文题目：	Experience, effort and audit j
指导老师：	张继勋
中文关键字：	经验;努力程度;审计判断偏误;锚<
英文关键字：	Experience;Effort;Audit judgme
中文摘要：	锚定与调整启发法是人们在不确定性条件下进行判断时运用最广泛的启发法判断策略，时近效应和证实性偏误是运用该策略容易导致的两种典型的判断偏误。在审计判断中，如果发生时近效应或证实性偏误，会导致审计不足或过度审计，从而影响审计的效果或效率。本文以我国会计师事务所审计执业人员为被试，通过实验检验了审计判断中锚定与调整启发法判断策略的适用性，以及审计经验水平的不同对该策略运用的影响，然后，在保持判断任务变化的基础上，通过实验检验了经验、努力程度对时近效应和证实性偏误的影响。 本文共分六章。第一章为绪论；第二章为文献回顾，对心理学领域及审计领域中，锚定与调整启发法判断策略及其时近效应和证实性偏误的主要研究文献进行了梳理；第三章就审计判断中经验对锚定与调整启发法判断策略运用的影响，以及经验、努力程度对时近效应和证实性偏误的影响进行了理论分析；第四章则对本文中两个实验的设计进行了介绍；第五章通过两个实验就审计经验对锚定与调整启发法判断策略的影响，以及经验、努力程度对审计判断中时近效应和证实性偏误的影响进行了检验和分析；第六章是本文的结论，总结了全文的研究结论、局限性及未来进一步研究的方向。 本文得到的主要结论包括： 1.理论分析表明，审计人员在其职业判断中也广泛运用锚定与调整启发法，审计经验水平的不同会导致该策略运用的差异，同时，理论分析还表明，审计人员的经验、努力程度的提高有助于减轻或消除审计判断中的时近效应和证实性偏误，但是经验和努力程度的作用会受到判断任务特征的影响。 2.锚定与调整启发法实验的结果表明审计人员在其职业判断中运用了锚定与调整启发法判断策略，经验水平的不同对锚定与调整启发法的运用产生了明显影响，与高经验水平审计人员相比，低经验水平审计人员更容易发生锚定效应。 3.经验、努力程度对审计判断偏误影响的实验结果表明： （1）在半结构化任务中，审计人员的经验能够消除时近效应，而审计人员的努力程度对时近效应没有产生明显的影响。审计经验水平越高，产生时近效应的可能性越小。 （2）在复杂的非结构化任务中，努力程度对时近效应产生了明显的影响。审计人员努力程度越高，产生时近效应的程度越低。 （3）在复杂的非结构化任务中，经验和努力程度对时近效应产生了显著的交互影响。只有高经验水平和高努力程度同时具备的审计人员才能够消除时近效应，即使高经验水平审计人员在努力程度较低时也没有消除时近效应；而无经验审计人员和低经验水平审计人员，无论努力程度高低，均发生了明显的时近效应。 （4）在复杂的非结构化任务中,审计人员的经验、努力程度对证实性偏误均没有产生明显的影响。 （5）在复杂的非结构化任务中,与无经验审计人员相比，有经验审计人员表现出了更加稳定的谨慎性和应有的职业怀疑态度。
英文摘要：	The Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic is the most prevalent heuristic judgment strategy under uncertainty, and it may produce systematical biases such as recency effect and confirmation bias that may result in under-audit or over-audit in audit judgment and impairs audit efficiency or effectiveness. The study firstly tests the applicability of the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic in audit judgment and auditor’s experience effect on the application of such judgmental strategy in an experiment participated by experienced auditors from accounting firms in China; then, it tests the effects of auditors’experience and effort on recency effect and confirmation bias with different judgment tasks in the next experiment. The dissertation is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 is an overall introduction; Chapter 2 is literature review of the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic, recency effect, and confirmation bias in psychology and auditing; Chapter 3 analyses theoretically the effect of experience on the application of the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic, and the effect of experience and effort on recency effect and confirmation bias in audit judgment, and develops research hypotheses; Chapter 4 describes the designs of two experiments, of which one testing the applicability of the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic in audit judgment and auditors’experience effect on the application of the judgmental strategy, and the other testing related biases; Chapter 5 discusses the experimental results, tests the research hypotheses, and analyses auditors’experience effect on the application of the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic, the effects of auditors’experience and effort on recency effect and confirmation bias in audit judgment; Chapter 6 concludes the dissertation by stating its research conclusions, discussing its limitations, and highlighting several issues for future research. The major conclusions of the dissertation are as follows: 1. The theoretic analysis argues that the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic Strategy is also prevalently employed in auditors’professional judgment, and increase in auditors’experience and effort may mitigate recency effect and confirmation bias, but the effect of experience and effort on biases may be moderated by the characteristics of judgment tasks. 2. The study indicates that the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic Strategy is employed in auditing professional judgment. The experiment shows that experience has a significant effect on the application of the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic Strategy. Compared with high-experienced auditors, low-experienced auditors are more likely to exhibit anchoring effect. 3. The experimental results indicate the effect of experience and effort on auditing judgment biases: (1) In the semi-structured judgment task, the auditors’experience can eliminate recency effect, but auditors’effort has no significant effect on recency effect. Auditors with more experience are less likely to exhibit recency effect. (2) In the complex unstructured judgment task, the auditors’effort has a significant effect on recency effect. The magnitude of recency effect is lower for auditors with high effort than auditors with low effort. (3)A significant interaction on recency effect between auditors’experience and effort is displayed in the complex unstructured judgment task. The high-experienced auditors with high effort do not exhibit recency effect, while high-experienced auditors with low effort exhibit recency effect. Regardless of effort level, both no-experienced and low-experienced auditors exhibit significant recency effect. (4) The auditors’experience and effort have no significant effect on confirmation bias in the complex unstructured judgment task. (5) Compared with no-experienced auditors, experienced auditors exhibit more consistent conservatism and an attitude of professional skepticism in their judgment.
查看全文：	预览  下载(下载需要进行登录)