HEURISTICS AND BIASES - EXPERTISE AND TASK REALISM IN AUDITING

Important issues concerning generalizations drawn from heuristics research that depict humans as highly prone to a number of judgmental biases have been raised in recent years. Some researchers have argued that the tasks and subjects examined do not adequately represent the contexts to which generalizations are made, citing evidence of improved performance for expert judges working realistic, familiar tasks. This article presents additional evidence on these issues by reviewing experimental research on certain heuristics and biases in professional auditor judgments. In general, the significance of generalizability issues is underscored. Although certain biases seemed to persist in auditor judgments, they were often mitigated or modified in studies that used expert subjects performing familiar tasks.