Framed in the decision to restate financial statements, this study addresses whether behavior predicted by competing theories depends on the complexity of evidence. Two experiments observe the information‐search behavior of auditors responsible for investigating their firm's prior opinion. Experiment 1 shows that auditors confronted with few (many) summarized statements that replicate in form the materials used in prior research prefer to first search statements that are inconsistent (consistent) with the prior‐period accounting. This result generally corroborates research in accounting and confirms the predictions of information‐quantity theory in psychology. In contrast, experiment 1 also shows that, when materials mimic the detailed documents common in practice, the results are different: Auditors confronted either with few or with many detailed documents prefer to search inconsistent documents first. This result confirms the predictions of evidence‐complexity theory in psychology and shows that, compared to the materials on which prior research relies, detailed documents, such as memos, emails, letters, and analyses, drive information search toward inconsistent evidence. Experiment 2 probes further and finds that auditors evaluate documents bearing notes inscribed after the documents were prepared to be more inconsistent with the prior‐period accounting, and that the dispersion in search behavior may be reliably conditional on the presence of notes.

David N. Ricchiute, An Empirical Assessment of the Impact of Alternative Task Presentation Modes on Decision-Making Research in Auditing, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 341-350

I test whether hints at an attorney's line of argument influence accountants' expert witness testimony. In experiment 1, litigation services accountants review evidence adopted from a recent auditor-liability case and decide whether a defendant auditor complied with generally accepted auditing standards. I find that hints posed before the review of evidence result in decisions that are more consistent with the attorney's verdict preference. Motivated by a lack of research on the role of accountants' expert testimony in judges' decisions and by evidence that most auditor-liability cases settle, I find in experiment 2 that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report affects the settlement decisions of experienced lawyers, a proxy for trial judges. These findings show that hints at an attorney's line of argument can influence accountants' decisions about evidence documenting auditing issues, and that the certainty of decisions in an expert's report can affect the decisions of mock trial judges. The study has implications for drafting attorney-expert retention letters, and for training accounting experts and the judiciary about the role of hints in the attorney-expert setting.

Presents evidence that the presentation order of audit working-paper documentation affects the outcome of audit partners' going-concern decisions. Interaction of memory organization and the organization of working-paper evidence to affect audit decisions; Effects of order manipulation on the subjects' going-concern decisions; Implications of the research for audit working-paper design.

Examines whether the provision of audit clients with nonaudit services result in knowledge spillovers and audit production efficiencies that could produce economic rents for the auditor. Demonstration of the comparability of the research sample with prior studies; Data set compiled from the participating firm's internal billing records.

Reviews the book, "Auditing Symposium VI: Proceedings of the 1982 Touche Ross/ University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems," edited by Donald R. Nichols and Howard F. Stettler.

Reviews the book "Financial Accounting Information: An Introduction to Its Preparation and Use," by A. Thompson Montgomery.