臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：以詞彙溝通機率對審計決策的影響
作者：王翰屏 引用關係
作者(外文)：Wang Hann Pyng
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：商學研究所
指導教授：杜榮瑞
胡志偉
學位類別：博士
出版日期：1999
主題關鍵詞：機率詞彙；雙向性；v-u模型；冒險理論；信念調整模型；時近效應；the probability phrases；bi-directionality；v-u model；venture theory；belief-adjustment model；recency effect
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:40
在實務上，審計人員經常使用機率詞彙來表達和溝通審計風險(如「很有可能」、「極少可能」)，會計準則制定者也用機率詞彙描述不確定性(如或有損失的會計處理)，由於審計人員的決策也會受機率詞彙的影響，因此有許多會計學者投入機率詞彙的研究中。本文將敘述過去研究的實驗方式與結論。大致而言，許多會計學者認為機率詞彙會造成溝通上的問題，因此他們建議審計人員改用數字溝通機率，並建議準則委員會修改會計、審計的準則內容。
由於改用數字溝通機率以及修改準則內容對審計人員都有極大的影響，在向實務界提出建議之前，我們應先確定改用數字溝通是否真的能改善審計決策，因此本文想深入探討機率詞彙的影響。本文先從過去的文獻中整理出機率詞彙的三項性質，這三項性質分別是：模糊性、個別差異性、雙向性。(一)模糊性是指，一個機率詞彙可以代表許多機率值，就像機率區間一樣模糊。(二)個別差異性是指，同樣的機率詞彙在不同人心中代表的機率有很大的差異。(三)雙向性是指，用機率詞彙描述的資訊會被視為雙向的(bi-directional)資訊，用數字描述的資訊則被視為單向的(uni-directional)資訊。
在說明三項性質的相關研究後，本文將根據各性質逐一討論人們處理機率詞彙和處理數字的差別。首先，本文將引用v-u模型和冒險理論(venture theory)，分析模糊性和個別差異性的影響，並建立兩項假說：<1>根據詞彙和根據數字所做的決策或判斷會有差異。但在獲利情境，差異的程度會隨機率的增加而增加；在損失情境，差異的程度會隨機率的增加而減小。<2>相對於用數字溝通機率，用詞彙溝通機率會降低決策者彼此間的共識。其次，本文引用信念調整模型(belief-adjustment model)，來分析雙向性的影響，並建立第三項假說：<3>當審計人員要根據兩項證據制定決策，而且兩項證據是一致時，根據數字制定的決策會產生時近效應(也就是給後出現的資訊比較大的權數)，根據詞彙制定的決策則不受資訊呈現順序的影響。
在建立假說之後，本文設計兩個實驗來分別驗證這些假說是否正確。其中，假說1和假說2的檢定安排在實驗一，假說3的檢定安排在實驗二。在實驗一方面，實驗結果與假說1不完全相符。在損失情境，兩種判斷(根據詞彙和根據數字所做的判斷)的差異會隨機率的增加而降低。但獲利情境，兩種判斷的差異卻未隨機率的增加而增加。其次，實驗一的結果顯示，受試者根據詞彙回答的答案有比較大的變異數(相對於受試者根據數字回答的答案)，但變異數的差異並未達到顯著水準，因此實驗結果並不支持假說2。也就是說，用詞彙溝通機率並未顯著的降低共識。
在實驗二方面，實驗結果符合假說3的預期：當受試者收到的兩項證據是一致時，根據數字制定的決策會產生時近效應，根據詞彙制定的決策則不受資訊呈現順序的影響。此外，本文又增加一個實驗(實驗三)，改用不同的詞彙來測試實驗二的結果是否穩定，實驗結果仍然支持假說3。
綜合三個實驗的結果，本文認為，當審計人員只需要溝通一項機率時，因為用詞彙溝通機率並不會顯著的降低共識，所以審計人員仍然可以繼續使用詞彙。但是，當審計人員需要溝通兩項機率，而且兩項機率是一致時，因為整合數字會產生時近效應，而且時近效應是一種偏誤，所以用詞彙溝通對決策反而比較有利。
Auditors frequently use the probability phrases to express and communicate audit risks(e.g.,「probable」、「remote」). Standard setters also use the probability phrases to denote levels of probability in prescribing recognition, measurement and disclosure of events and transaction’s in financial reports(e.g.,SFAS No.5). Consequently, the issue regarding the interpretation of the probability phrases has been the focus of several studies in the accounting literature.
The dissertation investigates the impact of communication with the probability phrases on auditing decisions. The dissertation briefly summarize the relevant findings, and provides three properties of the probability phrases. The three properties are：
<1>Vagueness, which means that one probability phrase can represent many probability numbers, its meaning is as vague as a probability range.
<2>Individual difference, which means that the meaning of the probability phrase varies across people.
<3>Bi-directionality, which means that the sentences described with the probability phrase are seen as bi-directional. The sentences described with the probability number are seen as uni-directional.
After describing the related studies of the three properties,
the dissertation uses venture theory and belief-adjustment model to analyzes how people process the probability phrases and the probability numbers, and suggests three hypotheses：
<1>Decisions based on the probability phrases differ from those based on the probability numbers. And in the gain domain, the difference will increases as probabilities increase. In the loss domain, the difference will decreases as probabilities increase.
<2>Auditors will have lower consensus when communicating with the probability phrases relative to the probability number.
<3>When auditors need to integrate two evidences and the two evidences are consistent, decisions based on the probability numbers will exhibit a recency effect, and decisions based on the probability phrases will exhibit no recency effect.(Recency effect refers to the tendency to overweight the evidence received later in a sequence)
I design two experiments to test the hypotheses. The results of the experiments are as follows：
<1>The results are mixed with respect to the first hypothesis. In the loss domain, the difference between the answers based on the probability phrases and the probability numbers decrease as probabilities increase. But in the gain domain, the difference doesn‘t increase as probabilities increases.
<2>The results don‘t support the second hypothesis. The answers based on the probability phrases are more variable than those based on the probability numbers. But the ratio of verbal to numerical variances is not significant.
<3>The answers of the subjects conform with the prediction of the third hypothesis. In addition, the dissertation adds another experiment which uses new probability phrases to design the questionnaire,and the results also support the third hypothesis.
These findings suggest that when auditors make decisions based on one probability, because the consensus won‘t be lower when communicating with the probability phrases relative to the probability number, so auditors still can use the probability phrases to communicate. However when auditors need to integrate two evidences and the two evidences are consistent, because decisions based on the probability numbers will exhibit a recency effect, and the recency effect is a bias, so their decision based on the probability numbers will be inferior.
胡志偉、彭昭英、沈永正與楊金龍，民國78年。「常用中文機率詞所代表new window
的意義」。中華心理學刊，卷31(1)，1-6。

Amer, T., K. Hackenbrack, and M. Nelson. 1994. Between-auditor differences in the interpretation of probability phrases. Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory 13(1): 126-136.

--------, --------, and --------. 1995. Context-dependence of auditor’ interpretations of the No.5 probability expressions. Contemporary Accounting Research 12(1): 25-39.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1988. Reports on audited financial statements. Statement on Auditing Standards No.58. New York, NY:AICPA.

Asare, S. K. 1992. The auditor’s going-concern decision：interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review 67(2): 379-393.

Ashton, A. H., and R. H. Ashton. 1988. Sequential belief revision in auditing. The Accounting Review 63(4): 623-641.

--------, and --------. 1990. Evidence-responsiveness in professional judgment : Effects of positive versus negative evidence and presentation mode. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 46: 1-19.

Bamber, E. M., R. J. Ramsay and R. M. Tubbs. 1997. An examination of the descriptive validity of the belief-adjustment model and alternative attitudes to evidence in auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society 22(3-4): 249-268.

Beaver, W. H. 1991. Problems and paradoxes in the financial reporting of future events. Accounting Horizons(December): 122-134.

Beyth-Marom, R. 1982. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Forcasting 1: 257-269.

Brun, W., and K. H. Teigen. 1988. Verbal probabilities : Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 41: 390-404.

Bryant, G. D., and G. R. Norman. 1980. Expressions of probability：words and numbers. The New England Journal of Medicine. 302,411.

Budescu, D. V., and T. S. Wallsten. 1985. Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36: 391-405.

--------, and --------. 1990. Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 46: 240-263.

--------, and --------. 1995. Processing linguistic probabilities：General principles and empirical evidence. in Busemeyer, J. R., Hestie, R. and Medin, D.(eds), Decision Making from the Perspective of Cognitive Psychology(pp.275-318), New York：Academic Press,1995.

--------, S. Weinberg and T. S. Wallsten. 1988. Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance 14(2): 281-294.

Camerer, C. F., and M. Weber. 1992. Recent developments in modeling preferences : Uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 325-370.

Chesley, G. R. 1979. Procedures for the communication in auditors’ working papers. In Behavioral Experiments in AccountingΠ, edited by T. J. Burns. Columbus, OH : College of Administrative Science, The Ohio State University.

--------. 1986. Interpretation of uncertainty expressions. Contemporary Accounting Research 2(2): 179-199.

--------, and H. A. Wier. 1985. The challenge of contingencies : adding precision to probability. CA Magazine(April): 38-41.

Curley, S. P., and J. F. Yates. 1985. The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36: 273-287.

Dillard, J. F., N. L. Kauffman and E. E. Spires. 1991. Evidence order and belief revision in management accounting decision. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16(7): 619-633.

Dusenbury, R., and M. G. Fennema. 1996. Linguistic-numeric presentation mode effects on risky option preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68(2): 109-122.

Einhorn, H. J., and R. M. Hogarth. 1985. Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychology Review 93(4): 433-461.

--------, and --------. 1986. Decision making under ambiguity. Journal of Business 59(4): S225-S250.

Ellsberg, D. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75: 643-669.

Emby, C. 1994. Framing and presentation mode efects in professional judgment : auditors’ internal control judgments and substantive testing decisions. Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory 13(Supplement): 102-115.

Erev, I., and B. L. Cohen. 1990. Verbal versus numerical probabilites : Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45: 1-18.

Fillenbaum, S., T. S. Wallsten, B. L. Cohen, and J. A. Cox. 1991. Some effects of vocabulary and communication task on the understanding and use of vague probability expressions. American Journal of Psychology 104(1): 35-60.

Gonzaley-Vallejo, C. C., I. Erev and T. S. Wallsten. 1994. Do decision quality and preference order depend on whether probabilities are verbal or numerical？ American Journal of Psychology 107(2): 157-172.

--------, and T. S. Wallsten. 1992. The effects of communication mode on preference reversal and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 855-864.

Harrison, K. E., and L. A. Tomassini. 1989. Judging the probability of a contingent loss : An emprical study. Contemporary Accounting Research 5(2): 642-648.

Hogarth, R. M., and H. J. Einhorn. 1990. Venture teory : A model of decision weights. Management Science 36(7): 780-803.

--------, and --------. 1992. Order effects in belief updating : The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology 24: 1-55.

Joyce, E. J., and G. C. Biddle. 1981. Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 19(1): 120-145.

Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory : An analysis of decision under risk. Economitrica 47: 263-291.

Kahn, B. E., and R. K. Sarin. 1988. Modeling ambiguity in decisions under uncertainty. Journal of Consumer Research 15: 265-272.

Kennedy, J. 1993. Debiasing audit judgment with accountability : A framework and experimental results. Journal of Accounting Research 31(2): 231-245.

Kong, A., G. O. Barnett, F. Mosteller, and C. Youtz. 1986. How medical professionals evalute expressions of probability. The New England Journal of Medicine 315(12): 740-744.

Laswad, F., and Y. T. Mak. 1997. Interpretations of probability expressions by New Zealand standard setters. Accounting Horizons 11(4): 16-23.

Leichti, J. L. 1986. How to evaluate inherent risk - and improve your audits. The Practical Accountant (March): 60-64.

Messier, W. F. 1992. The sequencing of audit evidence：Its impact on the extent of audit testing and report formulation. Accounting and Business Research 22(86): 143-150.

--------, and R. M. Tubbs. 1994. Recency effects in belief revision : The impact of audit experience and the review process. Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory 13(1): 57-72.

Moxey, L. M., and A. J. Sanford. 1993.Communicating quantities：A psychological perspective. Hove, UK：Erlbaum.

Nakao, M. A., and S. Axelord. 1983. Numbers are better than words : Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. American Journal of Medicine 74: 1061-1065.

Olson, M. J., and D. V. Budescu. 1997. Patterns of preference for numerical and verbal probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10: 117-131.

Raghunandan, K., R. A. Grimlund, and A. Schepanski. 1991. Auditor evaluation of loss contingencies. Contemporary Accounting Research (Spring): 549-569.

Rapoport, A., T. S. Wallsten, I. Erev, and B. L. Cohen. 1990. Revision of opinion with verbally and numerically expressed uncertainties. Acta Psychologica 74: 61- 79.

Reagan, R. T., F. Mosteller and C. Youtz. 1989. Quantitative meaning of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Applied Psychology 74(3): 433-422.

Reimers, J. L. 1992. Additional evidence on the need for disclosure reform. Accounting Horizons 6(March): 36-41.

--------, S. Wheeler, and R. Dusenbury. 1993. The effect of response mode on auditor’s control risk assessments. Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory 12(2): 62-78.

Robertson, W. O. 1983. Quantifying the meanings of words. Journal of the American Medical Association 249(19): 2631-2632.

Schultz, J., and P. M. J. Reckers. 1981. The impact of group processing on selected audit disclosure decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 19(2): 482-501.

Stone, D. N., and W. N. Dilla. 1994. When numbers are better than words : The joint effects of response representation and experience on inherent risk judgments. Auditing : A Journal of Practice and Theory 13(supplement): 1-19.

Teigen K. H. 1988. The language of uncertainty. Acta Psychologica 68: 27-38.

--------, and W. Brun. 1995. Yes, but it is uncertain：direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica 88: 233-258.

Trotman, K. T., and A. Wright. 1996. Recency effects：task complexity, decision mode, and task-specific experience. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8: 175-193.

Tubbs, R. M., W. F. Messier, Jr. and W. R. Knechel. 1990. Recency effects in the auditor’s belief revision process. Accounting Review(April): 452-460.

Waller, W. S. 1995. Evaluating and improving the accuracy of auditors’ risk assessments. Working paper, University of Arizona.
Wallsten, T. S. 1990. The costs and benefits of vague information. In R. Hogarth (Ed.), Insight in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, (pp.28-43). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

--------, D. V. Budescu, and I. Erev. 1988.Understanding and using linguistic uncertainties. Acta Psychologica 68: 39-52.

--------, and --------, A. Rapoport and B. Forsyth. 1986. Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology：General 115: 348-365.

--------, and --------, and R. Zwick. 1993. Comparing the calibratin and coherence of numerical and verbal probability judgments. Management Science 39(2): 176-190.

--------, and --------, R. Zwick, and S. M. Kemp. 1993. Preference and reasons for communicating probabilitic inormation in numerical or verbal terms. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 31: 135-138.

Weber, E. U., and D. J. Hilton. 1990. Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words：perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of experimental psychology：Human perception and performance16(4): 781-789.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：987（臺灣：975，外國：12） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2360590 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68165765
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上