The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates
Open accessAbstract
Auditors experience significant problems auditing complex accounting estimates, and this increasingly puts financial reporting quality at risk. Based on analyses of the specific errors that auditors commit, we propose that auditors need to be able to think more broadly and incorporate information from a variety of sources in order to improve audit quality for these important accounts. We experimentally demonstrate that a deliberative mindset intervention improves auditors’ ability to identify unreasonable estimates by improving their ability to identify and incorporate into their analyses contradictory information from diverse parts of the audit and improving their ability to think critically about the evidence. We perform additional analyses to demonstrate that our intervention improves auditor performance by causing them to think differently rather than simply to work harder. We demonstrate that critical thinking can improve the identification of unreasonable estimates and, in doing so, we provide new directions for addressing audit quality issues.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.130 · Cited by 10,418
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 · Cited by 9,406
(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Third Edition
Byrne, B. M. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315757421 · Cited by 4,653
Byrne, B. M. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203805534 · Cited by 4,016
CEO Overconfidence and Corporate Investment
MALMENDIER, U., & TATE, G. (2005) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00813.x · Cited by 3,669
Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-3719 · Cited by 3,645
Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market's reaction☆
MALMENDIER, U., & TATE, G. (2008) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.07.002 · Cited by 2,754
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613480187 · Cited by 2,387
Cited by
Man versus machine: Complex estimates and auditor reliance on artificial intelligence
COMMERFORD, B. P., DENNIS, S. A., JOE, J. R., & ULLA, J. W. (2022) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12407 · Cited by 270
Behavioral challenges to professional skepticism in auditors’ data analytics journey
Li, X. (2022) · Maandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie · doi:10.5117/mab.96.78525 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- GRIFFITH, E. E., HAMMERSLEY, J. S., KADOUS, K., & YOUNG, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Accounting Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-12-03
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 49-77
- ISSN
- 0021-8456 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-679X
- OpenAlex
- W2607441414
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 84.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-679x.12066
- The paper
- GRIFFITH, E. E., HAMMERSLEY, J. S., KADOUS, K., & YOUNG, D. (2015). Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates. Journal of Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.12066
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.