An examination of the descriptive validity of the belief-adjustment model and alternative attitudes to evidence in auditing

• Published in: Accounting, organizations and society Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 249 - 268
• Main Authors: Bamber, E.Michael, Ramsay, Robert J., Tubbs, Richard M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.04.1997; Elsevier; Pergamon Press; Pergamon Press Inc
• Series: Accounting, Organizations and Society
• Subjects: Attitudes; Audit evidence; Auditing; Auditors; Evidence; Hypotheses; Mathematical models; Parameter estimation; Professional standards; Regression analysis; Studies; Validity; United States > US
• ISSN: 0361-3682; 1873-6289
• DOI: 10.1016/S0361-3682(96)00029-3

While the academic and professional auditing literature makes numerous references to auditors' attitudes to evidence, alternative attitudes to evidence in auditing have not been systematically examined. This study uses the belief-adjustment model developed by Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) as a framework for examining auditors' attitudes to evidence. The study presents a comprehensive analysis of the descriptive validity of the belief-adjustment model in the auditing context. Once the descriptive validity of the Hogarth and Einhorn model is established, parameter estimation in the model permits the investigation of alternative attitudes to evidence in an explicit fashion. The results suggest that in the evaluation of evidence auditors are confirmation prone in that they are more sensitive to evidence that confirms the initial hypothesis. Furthermore, confirmation proneness holds over two experience levels and over contexts that do and do not involve irregularities.