1 / 11

‘‘Order Effects’’ Revisited: The Importance of Chronology

‘‘Order Effects’’ Revisited: The Importance of Chronology. Michael Favere-Marchesi. Justification . When engaging in decision making it is important to understand if auditors Take into consideration the chronological order of the evidence (trend effect),

isaura
Download Presentation

‘‘Order Effects’’ Revisited: The Importance of Chronology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ‘‘Order Effects’’ Revisited:The Importance of Chronology Michael Favere-Marchesi

  2. Justification • When engaging in decision making it is important to understand if auditors • Take into consideration the chronological order of the evidence (trend effect), • Or are influenced the order of presentation of the data

  3. Research question • Whether awareness of the temporal order of evidence would prevent auditors from placing more subjective weight on evidence that they have most recently processed (in other words, whether a trend effect dominates the recency effect).

  4. Main Theories • Temporal order of events – which can suggest causal links (Teigen, 2004) • The belief-adjustment model, developed by Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) • Individuals process information sequentially when they are involved in evaluative tasks, and use an anchoring and adjustment strategy to incorporate new evidence. • Evidence chronology is important not only because it provides trend evidence but also due to recency effects (Hogarth 1987, Ricchuite 1998)

  5. Hypotheses • H1: Auditors who receive dated mixed evidence in which the trend and presentation order are consistent will exhibit either greater or equal recency than auditors who receive undated mixed evidence • H2: Auditors who receive dated mixed evidence in which the trend and presentation order are orthogonally varied will exhibit a trend effect rather than a recency effect.

  6. Research method • Sample – 109 partners and 71 senior managers from Big Five companies • 2X3 between subject design • Temporal order with favorable trend • Temporal order with unfavorable trend • No temporal order with two pieces of undated positive and negative evidence

  7. Results

  8. Results

  9. Results

  10. Results

  11. Results and Conclusions • H1: Supported - Recency effect was not significantly different between auditors evaluation undated evidence and those evaluation dated mixed evidence • H2: Supported – auditors consider the temporal order of the evidence in assessing a trend and they are not unduly influenced by the presentation order

More Related