be no incremental effect of prior year ratings being embedded as defaults in prepopulated workpapers. Such a finding would be consistent with prior research showing few changes to risk ratings from year to year (e.g., Mock and Wright [1993, 1999]), and more generally, the as last year” effect in auditing (e.g., Brazel et al. [2004]). “same 2.2.2 Hypotheses for Responses that Mediate the Effects of Prepopulation on Risk Rating Accuracy While there is strong evidence that people more frequently adopt an option when it is presented as the default, the theory as to people do so is muddier given a relative why dearth of empirical evidence. We focus on the explanation most relevant for auditing: people act as if a default option carries meaning (Brown and Krishna [2004]). One way in which a default option can carry meaning is that decision-makers (consciously) believe a policymaker has selected the default because that policymaker finds value in the default, i.e., either prefers the default option or at least considers it to be acceptable. These beliefs then lead decision-makers to construct preferences and choose in line with those preferences. Studies examining this idea ask decision-makers to report their beliefs about the reasons underlying the policymaker’s selection of the default. For example, in settings of organ donation (McKenzie et al. [2006]), retirement plan enrollment (McKenzie et al. [2006]; Tannenbaum and Ditto [2011]), and course deadline options (Tannenbaum and Ditto [2011]), studies have found that people that policymakers have chosen a default because they think decision-makers should choose that option, and also that policymakers themselves would choose the default. A second way in which a default option can carry meaning is that people (nonconsciously) believe it is appropriate, or has value, simply because it occupies the space in which the final choice will be documented (here, a cell in a spreadsheet). Studies
be no incremental effect of prior year ratings being embedded as defaults in prepopulated workpapers. Such a finding would be consistent with prior research showing few changes to risk ratings from year to year (e.g., Mock and Wright [1993, 1999]), and more generally, the “same as last year” effect in auditing (e.g., Brazel et al. [2004]). 2.2.2 Hypotheses for Responses that Mediate the Effects of Prepopulation on Risk Rating Accuracy While there is strong evidence that people more frequently adopt an option when it is presented as the default, the theory as to why people do so is muddier given a relative dearth of empirical evidence. We focus on the explanation most relevant for auditing: people act as if a default option carries meaning (Brown and Krishna [2004]). One way in which a default option can carry meaning is that decision-makers (consciously) believe a policymaker has selected the default because that policymaker finds value in the default, i.e., either prefers the default option or at least considers it to be acceptable. These beliefs then lead decision-makers to construct preferences and choose in line with those preferences. Studies examining this idea ask decision-makers to their beliefs about the reasons underlying the policymaker’s selection of the default. For example, in settings of organ donation (McKenzie et al. [2006]), retirement plan enrollment (McKenzie et al. [2006]; Tannenbaum and Ditto [2011]), and course deadline options (Tannenbaum and Ditto [2011]), studies have found that people report that policymakers have chosen a default because they think decision-makers should choose that option, and also that policymakers themselves would choose the default. A second way in which a default option can carry meaning is that people (nonconsciously) believe it is appropriate, or has value, simply because it occupies the space in which the final choice will be documented (here, a cell in a spreadsheet). Studies
BMR_JARforPublication_FINAL-1.docx