1. Allen, R. D., and R. J Elder. 2005. A longitudinal investigation of auditor error projection decisions. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (2): 69–84.
2. Blay, A. 2005. Independence threats, litigation risk, and the auditor’s decision process. Contemporary Accounting Research 22 (4): 759–789.
3. Bonner, S.E. 2008. Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Brazel, J.F., C.Gimbar, E.Maksymov, and T.R,Schaefer. 2019. The Outcome Effect and Professional Skepticism: A Replication and a Failed Attempt at Mitigation. Behavioral Research in Accounting 31 (2): 135-143.
5. Carpenter, T. D., and J. L. Reimer. 2013. Professional Skepticism: The Effects of a Partner's Influence and the Level of Fraud Indicators on Auditors' Fraud Judgments and Actions. Behavioral Research in Accounting 25 (2), 45-69.
6. Cohen, J.R., Krishnamoorthy, G., Peytcheva, M., and Wright, A.M. 2013. How does the strength of the financial regulatory regime influence auditors' judgments to constrain aggressive reporting in a principles-based versus rules-based accounting environment? Accounting Horizons 27 (3): 579-601.
7. Cushing, B. E. 2003. Economic analysis of skepticism in an audit setting. Working paper.
8. Dreu, C. D., and Carnevale, P. J. D. 2003. Motivational bases of information processing and strategy in conflict and negotiation. Advances in experimental social psychology 35: 235-291.
9. Durney, M., , R.J.Elder, and S.M. Glover.2013. Field data on accounting error rates and audit sampling. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 33(2): 79-110.
10. Glover, S. M. 1997. The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors’processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research 35 (Autumn): 213–227.
11. Glover, S. M., and D. F. Prawitt. 2013. Enhancing auditor professional skepticism. White Paper Series of the Standards Working Group of the Global Public Policy Committee.
12. Hackenbrack, K. 1992. Implications of seemingly irrelevant evidence in audit judgment. Journal of Accounting Research 30: 126–136.
13. Hackenbrack, K., and M. W.Nelson.1996. Auditors’ incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. The Accounting Review 71 (1): 43–59.
14. Hoffman, V. B., andJ. M Patton. 1997. Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors’ fraud judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 35: 227–238.
15. Hoogduin, L. A., Hall, T. W., and Tsay, J. J. 2010. Modified sieve sampling: A method for single- and multi-stage probability-proportional-to-size sampling. Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (1): 125–148.
16. Hurtt, K. 2010. Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 29(1): 149-171.
17. Hurtt, K., H., C. Brown-Liburd, C. E. Earley, and G. Krishnamoorthy. 2013. Research on auditor professional skepticism: literature synthesis and opportunities for future research. Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory 32: 45-97.
18. Hurtt, R. K., M. Eining, and R. D Plumle. 2008. An experimental evaluation of professional skepticism. Working paper, Baylor University.
19. Kemmelmeier, M. 2004. Separating the wheat from the chaff: does discriminating between diagnostic and nondiagnostic information eliminate the dilution effect? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 17(3): 231-243.
20. Knechel, W. R. 2000. Behavioral Research in Auditing and Its Impact on Audit Education. Issues in Accounting Education 15(4): 695-712.
21. Kreutzfeldt, R. W., and Wallace, W. A. 1986. Error characteristics in audit populations: Their profile and relationship to environmental factors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 6 (1): 20–43.
22. Kruglanski, A.W. 1989. The psychology of being "right": The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin 106 (3): 395-409.
23. Lynch, E. 2017. The Effects of Irrelevant Information and Minor Errors in Client Documents on Assessments of Misstatement Risk and Sample Size, Virginia Commonwealth University.
24. Nelson, M.W. 2009. A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 28 (2): 1-34.
25. Nigrini, M. J. 2017. Audit Sampling Using Benford’s Law: A Review of the Literature with Some New Perspectives. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 14 (2): 29–46.
26. Nisbett, R. E., H.Zukier, and R. E.Lemley. 1981. The dilution effect: Nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology 13: 248-277.
27. Quadackers, L., T.Groot, and A.Wright. 2014. Auditors’ professional skepticism: Neutrality versus presumptive doubt. Contemporary Accounting Research 31(3): 639-657.
28. Rennie, M., Kopp, L., and W. Lemo. 2007. Exploring trust and the auditor-client relationship. Working paper, Universities of Lethbridge, Waterloo, and Regina.
29. Scholten, L., D.Van Knippenberg, B.A.Nijstad, and C. K.De Dreu. 2007. Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (4): 539-552.
30. Shaub, M. K. 1996. Trust and suspicion: The effects of situational and dispositional factors on auditors’ trust of clients. Behavioral Research in Accounting 8: 154–174.
31. Shelton, S. W. 1999. The effect of experience on the use of irrelevant evidence in auditor judgment. The Accounting Review 74 (2): 217–224.
32. Siegel-Jacobs, K., and J.F Yates. 1996. Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65 (1): 1-17.
33. Tetlock, P. E. 1983. Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 74–83.
34. Vogel. J. 2010. Bonjour on explanation and skepticism, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 413–421.