Debiasing Audit Judgment with Accountability: A Framework and Experimental Results
研究问责制（即向他人证明自己判断合理的要求）能否减轻审计判断中的近因效应（即倾向于高估后收到证据的权重），通过实验发现无明确问责时存在该偏差，并探讨了审计流程中的纠正机制。
This paper examines whether accountability, defined as the requirement to justify one's judgments to others, mitigates recency. Recency refers to the tendency to overweight evidence received later in a sequence.' Ideally, judgments are influenced by the substance of evidence, not the order in which it is evaluated. Audit judgments may be prone to recency because auditing involves updating beliefs about financial statement assertions on the basis of new evidence. Indeed, audit judgment research documents recency in experiments with no explicit accountability requirements. These results have implications for audit efficiency and effectiveness if there are no mechanisms in the audit process to correct or mitigate these tendencies. One such mechanism is the