La hipótesis de la profecía autocumplida en la evaluación de la evidencia en el contexto de la gestión continuada

The role played by the self fulfilling prophecy effect in the going concern evaluation process

  • Andrés Guiral Contreras Universidad de Alcala e Investigador del CIFF
  • José A. Gonzalo Angulo Universidad de Alcala
Palabras clave: Gestión Continuada, Auditoría, Evaluación de la Evidencia, Profecía Autocumplida

Resumen

Este estudio analiza si el valor otorgado a la evidencia a favor y en contra de la hipótesis de gestión continuada, se ve afectada por las percepciones que los auditores tienen sobre la validez de la hipótesis de la profecía autocumplida. Hemos realizado un experimento en el que una muestra de auditores debe someter a estudio la continuidad de una hipotética empresa, basándose tanto en información financiera como en determinada evidencia tanto a favor como en contra de la continuidad de ésta. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que los auditores que muestran una fuerte creencia en la validez de la hipótesis de la profecía autocumplida otorgan mayor valor probatorio a la evidencia a favor de la hipótesis de continuidad. Por el contrario, los auditores que no muestran una fuerte creencia en la hipótesis de la profecía autocumplida otorgan un mayor valor probatorio a la evidencia en contra de la continuidad.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Gestión Continuada, Auditoría, Evaluación de la Evidencia, Profecía Autocumplida

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Citas

Altman, E. (1983), Corporate Financial Distress: A Complete Guide to Predicting, Avoiding and Dealing with Bankruptcy. Garland Publising, New York.

American Institute of Certified Public Accounts (1988), Statements on Auditing Standards nº. 59: The Auditor’s Consideration of an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern, AICPA Professional Standards. New York.

Arnedo, L., F. Lizarraga, y S. Sanchez (2008), “Going-concern Uncertainties in Prebankrupt Audit Reports: New Evidence Regarding Discretionary Accruals and Wording Ambiguity”, International Journal of Auditing, 12 (1): 25-44.

Arruñada, B. (2004), “Audit Failures and the Crisis of Auditing”, European Business Organization Law Review, 5: 635-643.

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

Ashton, A. y R. Ashton (1988), “Sequential revision in auditing”, The Accounting Review, 63: 623-641.

Ayers, S. y S.E. Kaplan (1993), “An Examination of the effect of hypothesis framing on auditor’s information choices in analytical procedure task”, ABACUS, 29: 113-129.

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

Bazerman, M.X., K.P. Morgan y G.F. Loewenstein (1997), “The impossibility of auditor independence”, Sloan Management Review: 89-95.

Blay, A. (2005), “Independence Threats, Litigation risk and the auditor’s decision process”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 22 (4): 727-758.

Boritz, J.E. (1991), The ‘Going Concern’ Assumption: Accounting and Auditing Implications. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Blasco Lang, J.J. (1994), El informe de auditoría: expectativas”, Partida Doble, 50: 22-26.

Church, B.K. (1990), “Auditors’ use of confirmatory processes”, Journal of Accounting Literature (Spring), 9: 81-112.

Citron, D.B. y R. J. Taffler (1992), “The Audit Report Under Going Concern Uncertainties: An Empirical Analysis”, Accounting and Business Research, 22: 337-345.

Citron, D.B. y R. J. Taffler (2001), “Ethical Behaviour in the U.K. Audit Profession: The Case of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Under Going-Concern Uncertainties”, Journal of Business Ethics, 29 (4): 353-363.

Felix, W.L. y W. Kinney (1982), “Research in the auditor’s opinion formulation process: State of the art”, The Accounting Review (April): 245-271.

Farmer, T., L. Rittenberg y G. Trompeter (1987), “An investigation of impact of economic organizational factors on auditor independence”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 7: 1-14.

Geiger, M.A., K. Raghunandan y D. V. Rama (1998), “Going-concern audit report recipients before and after SAS No. 59”, National Public Accountant, 43: 24-26.

George, C., J. Spiceland y S. George (1996), “A longitudinal study of the going-concern audit decision and survival time”, en Advances in the Quantitative Analysis of Finance and Accounting. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT: 77-103.

Guiral Contreras, A. (2003), El modelo de Revisión de Creencias como aproximación psicológica a la toma de decisiones de auditores y analistas bancarios. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Alcalá de Henares.

Hogarth, R. y h. Einhorn (1992), “Orders effects in belief updating: the belief adjustment model”, Cognitive Psychology, 24: 1-55.

Hopwood, W., J. McKeown y J. Mutchler (1989), “A test of the incremental explanatory power of opinions qualified for consistency and uncertainty”, The Accounting Review, 64 (1): 28-38.

Kadous, K., S. Kennedy y M. Peecher (2003), “The effect of quality assessment and directional goal commitment on auditors’ acceptance of client-preferred accounting methods”, The Accounting Review, 78 (3): 759-778.

Kida, T. (1980), “An investigation into auditors’ continuity and related qualification judgments”, Journal of Accounting Research, 18 (2): 506-523.

Kida, T. (1984), “The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditor use of judgment data”, Journal of Accounting Research (Fall): 332-339.

Knechel, W. y W. Messier (1990), “Sequential auditor decision making: Information search and evidence evaluation”, Contemporary Accounting Research, 6 (2): 386-406.

Marín Vilanoa, J.M. (1995), “De que y ante quien son responsables los auditores: equívocos que es conveniente aclarar”, Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 84: 799-805.

McKeown, J.C., J.F. Mutchler, W. Hopwood y T.B. Bell (1991), “Towards an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinions of bankrupt companies”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10: 1-24.

Monroe, G.S. y J. Ng (2000), “An examination of order effects in auditors’ inherent risk assessments”, Accounting and Finance, 40: 153-168.

Mutchler, J.F. (1984), “Auditor’s perceptions of the going-concern opinion decision”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 3: 17-30.

Mutchler, J.F. y D.D. Williams (1990), “The relationship between audit technology, client risk profiles, and the going-concern opinion”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 9 (Fall): 39-54.

Nogler, G.E. (1995), “The resolution of auditor going concern opinions”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19: 681-689.

O’Clock, P. y K. Devine (1995), “An Investigation of Framing and Firm Size on the Auditor’s Going Concern Decision”, Accounting & Business Research, 25(99): 197-207.

Picazo González, P. (1995), “La responsabilidad del auditor en la detección del fraudes y los problemas de gestión continuada de la empresa”, Partida Doble, 57: 59-65.

Pulido Álvarez, A. (1992), “Responsabilidades de lod administradores en sus relaciones con los auditores”, Partida Doble, 20: 34-41.

Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., N. Gómez-Aguilar, C., De Fuentes-Barberá, y M. A. García-Benau (2004), “Audit quality and the going-concern decision-making process: Spanish evidence”, European Accounting Review, 13: 597-622.

Solomon, I. y K. Trotman (2002), “Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: The first 25 years of AOS”, Accounting, Organization and Society (May), 28: 395-412.

Taffler, R.J. y M. Tseung (1984), “The audit going concern qualification in practice — exploding some myths”, Accountant’s Magazine: 263-269.

Trotman, K. (1996), Research Methods for Judgment and Decision Making Studies in Auditing. Coopers & Lybrand Accounting Research Methodology. Monograph nº.3. Ed. Coopers & Lybrand and Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand.

Trotman, K. (2000), “Order effects and recency: where do we go from here?”, Accounting and Finance, 40: 169-182.

Tua Pereda, J. y J.A. Gonzalo Angulo (1987), “La responsabilidad social del auditor”, Técnica Contable: 435-466.

Williams, H. (1984), “Practitioners’ perpectives on going-concern sigues”, The CPA Journal (December): 12-19.
Publicado
01-01-2008
Cómo citar
Guiral Contreras, A., & Gonzalo Angulo, J. A. (2008). La hipótesis de la profecía autocumplida en la evaluación de la evidencia en el contexto de la gestión continuada. Revista De Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, 11(1), 43-66. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.um.es/rcsar/article/view/384341
Sección
Artículos