scholarly journals Counterpoint

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank H. Durgin
Keyword(s):  
Perceptual Experience ◽  
Reporting Process ◽  
Judgmental Biases

Claims about alterations in perception based on manipulations of the energetics hypothesis (and other influences) are often framed as interesting specifically because they affect our perceptual experience. Many control experiments conducted on such perceptual effects suggest, however, that they are the result of attribution effects and other kinds of judgmental biases influencing the reporting process rather than perception itself. Schnall (2017, this issue), appealing to Heider’s work on attribution, argues that it is fruitless to try to distinguish between perception and attribution. This makes the energetics hypothesis less interesting.

Beliefs in Differences Between Professional and Lay Stock Investors' Proneness to Judgmental Biases

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Petersson ◽  
Anders Carlander ◽  
Amelie Gamble ◽  
Tommy Gärling ◽  
Martin Holmen
Keyword(s):  
Judgmental Biases

Numerical symbols as explanations of human perceptual experience

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barner
Keyword(s):  
Perceptual Experience ◽  
Number Words ◽  
The World ◽  
Symbolic Systems ◽  
Perceptual Systems

Why did humans develop precise systems for measuring experience, like numbers, clocks, andcalendars? I argue that precise representational systems were constructed by earlier generationsof humans because they recognized that their noisy perceptual systems were not capturingdistinctions that existed in the world. Abstract symbolic systems did not arise from perceptualrepresentations, but instead were constructed to describe and explain perceptual experience. Byanalogy, I argue that when children learn number words, they do not rely on noisy perceptualsystems, but instead acquire these words as units in a broader system of procedures, whosemeanings are ultimately defined by logical relations to one another, not perception.

Auditor Independence in the United States: Cornerstone of the Profession or Thorn in Our Side?

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan K. Church ◽  
J. Gregory Jenkins ◽  
Jonathan D. Stanley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
The United States ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Client Relationships ◽  
Reporting Process ◽  
Regulatory Approach

SYNOPSIS The objective of this paper is to provide a systematic evaluation of independence as a foundational element of the auditing profession. We maintain that while independence is a theoretically appealing construct, it is fraught with practical problems surrounding its implementation, monitoring, and regulation. We analyze the current oversight of auditor independence and evaluate the need for auditor independence from the perspective of information users and information producers. In the process, we discuss important implications and intractable challenges that affect one or more parties involved in the financial-reporting process. Finally, we carefully evaluate alternatives to the current regulatory approach for managing auditor independence (i.e., proscribing various auditor-client relationships). We conclude that increasing audit committees' responsibilities for monitoring the auditor's independence—along with additional disclosure about threats and safeguards to auditor independence—is worthy of further consideration and debate as a path toward addressing the auditor independence conundrum.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document