When public accounting firms engage in activities to improve their aud
iting methods, observations are often made about ways in which auditor
s make decisions. These observations could be useful to both the audit
ing research and practice communities, but are rarely communicated in
academic journals. This paper offers insights about the organization o
f experienced auditors' knowledge, based on two observations made duri
ng the process of knowledge elicitation for development of Risk Adviso
r(sm), an expert system for audit risk assessment. Both observations d
iffered from previous experience in developing ExperTAX(sm), an expert
system for income tax accrual and planning, and have implications for
auditing research and practice. The first observation was that audito
rs queried to develop the knowledge base for Risk Advisor had difficul
ty expressing generalized rules for risk assessment. This may imply a
''client-centered'' organization for knowledge relevant to that task.
Second, an unexpected ''framing'' effect was observed. Negative wordin
g used in statements designed to elicit client knowledge (i.e., asking
the auditor to recall facts supporting a statement indicating a clien
t problem) tended to improve recall and integration of facts, relative
to positive or neutral statements. The paper relates both observation
s to theoretical and empirical research on auditor knowledge, explores
implications for audit practice, and suggests topics for further stud
y.