請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46054
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 杜榮瑞 | |
dc.contributor.author | Nien-Chi Chen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳念琪 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T04:52:30Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-04-09 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-08-13 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-07-30 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 1.財團法人會計研究發展基金會審計準則委員會,審計準則公報第十六號「繼續經營之評估」,民國88年12月31日。
2.陳意楸(民89),查核人員之證據評估與信念修正-信念調整模式之評估,私立中原大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。 3.劉郁棻(民84),證據呈現次序與審計判斷關係之研究,國立台灣大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文。 4.顏信輝(民90),審計判斷之架構效應與時近效應-繼續經營判斷與查核報告決策,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。 5.Arnold, V., P. A. Collier, S. A. Leech, and S. G. Sutton. 2000. The effect of experience and complexity on order and recency bias in decision making by professional accountants. Accounting & Finance 40(2): 109-134. 6.Asare, S. K. 1992. The auditors going-concern decision - Interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. Accounting Review 67(2): 379-393. 7.Ashton, A. H., and R. H. Ashton. 1988. Sequential belief revision in auditing. Accounting Review 63(4): 623-641. 8.Ashton, R. H., and J. Kennedy. 2002. Eliminating recency with self-review: The case of auditors' 'going concern' judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15(3): 221-231. 9.Cushing, B. E., and S. S. Ahlawat. 1996. Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: The effect of documentation. Auditing-a Journal of Practice & Theory 15(2): 110-122. 10.Favere-Marchesi, M. 2006. Order effects revisited: The importance of chronology. Auditing-a Journal of Practice & Theory 25(1): 69-83. 11.Hogarth, R. M., and H. J. Einhorn. 1992. Order effects in belief updating - The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology 24(1): 1-55. 12.Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability: A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31(2): 231-245. 13.Messier, W. F. Jr., and R. M. Tubbs. 1994. Recency effects in belief revision: The impact of audit experience and the review process. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 13(1): 57-72. 14.Monroe, G. S., and J. Ng. 2000. An examination of order effects in auditors’ inherent risk assessments. Accounting & Finance 40 (2): 153-167. 15.Tubbs, R. M., W. F. Jr. Messier, and W. R. Knechel. 1990. Recency effects in the auditor's belief-revision process. The Accounting Review 65(2): 452-460. 16.Trotman, K. T., and A. Wright. 1996. Recency effects: Task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8: 175-193. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46054 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本研究探討證據呈現順序是否影響審計判斷與決策而產生時近效應,以及自我複核於銷除時近效應之效果。
本研究以審計人員為受測者,控制回應模式(整體處理模式與逐步處理模式)、審計證據之呈現順序(正正負負與負負正正),以及銷除時近效應之機制(須自我複核與毋須自我複核)以進行實驗。實驗要求受測者依據實驗所提供之資料,針對一家受查公司的繼續經營可能性進行判斷,並選擇查核意見。78位審計人員之實驗結果顯示:受查公司繼續經營可能性之判斷容易受到後使用的證據影響而產生時近效應,而自我複核可有效銷除該偏誤;但並未自查核意見之選擇中發現時近效應。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This study examines whether the presentation order of audit evidence affects audit judgment and audit opinion decision and leads to recency effect. It also explores whether self-review can mitigate such bias.
By manipulating response mode (end-of-sequence vs. step-by-step), presentation order of audit evidence (mitigating-contrast vs. contrast-mitigating), and debiasing mechanism (self-review vs. no self-review), and controlling the initial belief, an experiment with practicing auditors as the subjects was conducted. Subjects were asked to make judgments about a hypothetical client’s going concern likelihood and to make audit opinion choice based on the case material provided to them. Experimental data based on 78 auditors show that auditors’ going concern judgments are subject to recency bias and that self-review can effectively mitigate such bias. But, recency effect does not occur in the audit opinion decisions. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T04:52:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R97722022-1.pdf: 1239354 bytes, checksum: df1cbeda54ac312892756b5f91f8c194 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 I
中文摘要 II 英文摘要 III 目錄 IV 圖表目錄 V 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究問題 3 第三節 論文結構及研究過程 4 第二章 文獻探討與研究假設 6 第一節 順序效應與時近效應 6 第二節 研究假設 19 第三章 研究方法 21 第一節 實驗材料與程序 21 第二節 研究變數 29 第三節 受測者 31 第四節 統計分析方法 35 第四章 研究結果與分析 36 第一節 操弄檢查 36 第二節 敘述統計 37 第三節 假設檢定 41 第四節 額外測試 49 第五章 結論、研究限制與未來研究建議 53 第一節 研究結論 53 第二節 研究限制 55 第三節 未來研究建議 55 參考文獻 56 附錄 57 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 自我複核能否銷除時近效應-審計人員對繼續經營之評估 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Can self review mitigate recency effect? Auditors' going concern evaluation | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 顏信輝,陳耀宗 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 順序效應,時近效應,除誤機制,自我複核, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | order effect,recency effect,debiasing,self-review, | en |
dc.relation.page | 111 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-08-02 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 會計學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.21 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。