The objective of this research is to articulate a decision‐making foundation for the systems audit approach. Under this audit approach, the auditor first gains an understanding of the auditee's economic environment, strategy, and business processes and then forms expectations about its performance and financial reporting. Proponents of this audit approach argue that decision making is enhanced because the knowledge of the system allows the auditor to focus on the most important risks. However, there has not been an explicit framework to explain how systems knowledge can enhance decision making. To provide such a framework, we combine mental model theory with general systems theory to produce a hypothesis we refer to as a systems‐mediated mental model hypothesis. We test this hypothesis using experimental economics methods. We find that (1) subjects make systematic errors under the setting without an organizing framework provided by the systems information, and (2) the presence of an organizing framework results in lower reporting errors. Importantly, the organizing framework significantly enhances decision making in the settings where the environment changed. Establishing a decision‐making foundation for systems audits can provide an important building block that, in part, can contribute to the development of a more effective and efficient audit technology ‐ an important objective now when audits are facing a credibility crisis.

In this paper we examine the importance of systematic equity market factors in explaining the cross-sectional variation in yield spreads on corporate debt. Based on a sample of 1771 corporate bonds over the period from January 1985 to March 1998, we find that once the default-related variables are controlled for, bond betas or sensitivities to aggregate equity market risks have very limited explanatory power. This is in contrast to [Elton, E.J., Gruber, M.J., 2001. Explaining the rate spread on corporate bonds. Journal of Finance 56, 247–277] who find that market factors tied to expected returns are predominantly important, but who do not control for these variables (i.e. the relevant variables from structural models), possibly biasing their estimates. On the other hand, our finding that the systematic factors exhibit some limited explanatory power suggests that the standard contingent claims approach may not fully apply. This finding is consistent with previous research that bond betas are not completely irrelevant once market frictions are introduced. Overall, the evidence provides empirical support for the proposition that structural models capture important elements of corporate bond yield spread determination and equity market systematic factors are by no means predominant.