Predecisional Distortion of Information by Auditors and Salespersons

References

• Arens A., Loebbecke J.Auditing. An Integrated Approach (1991) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Aschenbrenner K. M., Albert D., Schmalhofer F. Stochastic choice heuristics. Acta Psych. (1984) 56:153–166Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barad E. Wishful thinking and objectivity among sports fans. Social Behavior (1987) 2:231–240Google Scholar
• Bockenholt U., Albert D., Aschenbrenner K. M., Schmalhofer F. The effects of attractiveness, dominance, and attribute differences on information acquisition in multiattribute binary choice. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1991) 49:258–281Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busemeyer J. R., Townsend J. T. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. (1993) 100(3):432–459Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaiken S., Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J. Personality and Social Psych. (1994) 66(3):460–473Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cuccia A., Hackenbrack K., Nelson M. The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. Accounting Rev. (1995) 70(2):227–248Google Scholar
• Doney P. M., Armstrong G. M. Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. (1996) 24(1):57–65Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elliott A. J., Devine P. G. On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance. J. Personality and Social Psych. (1994) 67:382–394Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frey D., Berkowitz L. Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1986) (Academic Press, New York) 41–80Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilovich T. Chapter 5: Seeing what we want to see: Motivational determinants of belief. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life (1991) (The Free Press, New York) 75–87Google Scholar
• Glover S. The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditor's processing of nondiagnostic information. J. Accounting Res. (1997) 35:213–226Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackenbrack K., Nelson M. Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. Accounting Rev (1996) 71(1):43–59Google Scholar
• Hastorf A. H., Cantril H. They saw a game: A case study. J. Abnormal and Social Psych. (1954) 49:129–134Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirst D. E. Discussion of the effects of accountability on judgment: Development of hypotheses for auditing. Auditing: A J. of Practice & Theory (1992) 11:139–151SupplementGoogle Scholar
• Hoffman V., Patton J. Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments. J. Accounting Res. (1997) 35:227–237Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarvis W. B. G., Petty R. E. The need to evaluate. J. Personality and Social Psych. (1996) 70(1):172–194Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson E. J., Payne J. W. Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Sci. (1985) 31:394–414Link, Google Scholar
• Keinan G., Friedland N., Ben-Porath Y. Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under physical threat. Acta Psych. (1987) 64:219–228Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koehler J. J. The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1993) 56:28–55Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psych. Bull. (1990) 108:480–498Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J. S., Tetlock P. E. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psych. Bull. (1999) 125(2):255–275Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meloy M. G.Affect-driven distortion of product information (1999) . Working Paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VAGoogle Scholar
• Mill J. S.On Liberty (1926) (MacMillan, New York) Google Scholar
• Montgomery H., Humphreys P., Svenson O., Vari A. Decision rules and the search for dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes (1983) (North-Holland, Amsterdam)Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olsen R. A. Desirability bias among professional investment managers: Some evidence from experts. J. Behavioral Decision Making (1997) 10:65–72Crossref, Google Scholar
• Payne J. W., Bettman J. R., Johnson E. J.The Adaptive Decision Maker (1993) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peterson R. A., Sauber M., Murphy Patrick, et al. A mood scale for survey research. American Marketing Association Educator's Proceedings (1983) (The American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL) 409–414Google Scholar
• Poses R. M., Anthony M. Availability, wishful thinking, physicians' diagnostic judgments for patients with suspected bacteremia. Medical Decision Making (1991) 11(3):159–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo J. E. Toward intelligent product information systems. J. Consumer Policy (1987) 10:109–138Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo J. E., Dosher B. A. Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learning, Memory and Cognition (1983) 9:676–696Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo J. E., Medvec V. H., Meloy M. G. The distortion of information during decisions. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1996) 66(1):102–110Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo J. E., Meloy M. G., Medvec V. H. The distortion of product information during brand choice. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(4):438–452Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwarz N., Knauper B., Hippler H. J., Noelle-Neumann E., Clark L. Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quart. (1991) 55:570–582Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shelton S.The effect of experience on the use of nondiagnostic evidence in auditor judgment (1998) . Working Paper, DePaul University, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
• Siegel-Jacobs K.Effects of procedure- and outcome-oriented accountability on judgment quality (1993) . Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
• Simonson I. Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. (1989) 16:158–174Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I., Nowlis S. M.Components of accountability: The effects of providing reasons and being evaluated on consumer choice (1997) . Working Paper, Stanford University, Arizona State University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
• Simonson I., Nye P. The effects of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes (1992) 51:416–446Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith J. F., Kida T. Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psych. Bull. (1991) 109(3):472–489Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sniezek J. A., Buckley T. Level of confidence depends on level of aggregation. J. Behavioral Decision Making (1991) 4:263–272Crossref, Google Scholar
• Svenson O. Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of preand postdecision processes. Acta Psych. (1992) 80:143–168Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock P. E., Staw B., Cummings L. Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior (1985) 1(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT:) 297–332Google Scholar
• Tetlock P. E., Zanna M. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1992) (Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Tetlock P. E., Boettger R. Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. J. Personality and Social Psych.: Attitudes and Social Cognition (1989) 57:388–398Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock P. E., Boettger R. Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. J. Behavioral Decision Making (1994) 7:1–23Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilks T. J.Predecisional distortion of evidence and real-time audit review (1999) . Working Paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
• Wilson T. D., Brekke N. Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psych. Bull. (1994) 116(1):117–142Crossref, Google Scholar