Search results

While the use of computerized decision aids in accounting is widespread, little is known about the effects of decision aids on accounting decision making. However, prior research has often noted the difficulty in getting users to accept and rely upon decision aids (Rose, 2002). A primary area of focus in the design of decision aids that will facilitate user acceptance and reliance has been the development of user-centered interfaces that increase the user's comfort with the aid. This study contributes to this body of research by extending the findings of Ryan, Mims, and Koestner (1983) on the use of informational versus controlling rewards to the context of a decision aid and the interface design. While Ryan et al. focused on the effects of verbal feedback on intrinsic motivation, this study focuses on the impact of text-based feedback from a decision aid on decision performance for a choice task. Additionally, this study examines the effect of task-contingent versus performance-contingent rewards on the impact of the decision aid feedback. The results indicate a differential effect from that of Ryan et al. (1983) when feedback is provided through a decision aid and the focus is on decision performance rather than the precursor condition of intrinsic motivation. Additional research is needed to help explain why the findings obtained by Ryan et al. do not hold in the context of computerized decision aid use when decision performance is measured directly. There are important implications of these findings both in terms of theory development and decision aid design in professional decision-making environments such as accounting.

This study contributes to the participative budgeting and budget misrepresentation literature by exploring: (1) whether managers’ judgments of fair behaviors are malleable and context-dependent and (2) if these judgments of fair behavior impact cost reporting misrepresentations. Two experiments investigate these questions. Experiment 1 (n = 42) tests whether the behavior that managers judge to be “fair” differs based on the decision context (i.e., initial economic position [IEP]). Experiment 2 (n = 130) investigates: (1) how managers’ deployment of fairness beliefs influences their reporting misrepresentations and (2) how decision aids that reduce task complexity impact managers’ deployment of fairness beliefs in their misreporting decisions. The study found that managers deploy fairness beliefs (i.e., honesty or equality) consistent with maximizing their context-relevant income. Hence, fairness beliefs constrain misrepresentations in predictable ways. In addition, we find more accounting information is not always beneficial. The presence of decision aids actually increases misrepresentations when managers are initially advantaged (i.e., start with more resources than others). The implications from these findings are relevant to the honesty and budgeting literature and provide novel findings of how managers’ preferences for fairness constrain managers from maximizing their income. The chapter demonstrates that contextual factors can influence the deployment of managers’ fairness beliefs which, in turn, differentially impact their reporting misrepresentation. Another contribution is that providing decision aids, which reduce task complexity, may not always benefit companies, since such aids may increase misrepresentation under certain conditions.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the brainstorming component of Statement of Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99 influences decision aid use and reliance, and the effectiveness of fraud risk assessment.

The research framework links the influences of the fraud assessment setting and decision aid reliance. The hypotheses are tested in an experiment with two manipulated factors: setting (group or individual) and decision aid (provided or not provided).

The results of the study provide insight on how the brainstorming impacts fraud risk assessment, decision aid use and decision aid reliance. The results show that groups using a decision aid with fraud risk factors demonstrate superior decision quality and effectiveness even with lower decision aid reliance.

The influence of the setting (group or individual) on the fraud evaluation and detection is highlighted.

This paper will be informative for auditors and firms involved in designing an efficient and effective fraud risk assessment.

This paper integrates the fraud risk assessment and decision aid literature to evaluate decision quality and effectiveness of group fraud risk assessment.

Decision making is inherently stressful since the decision maker must choose between potentially conflicting alternatives with unique hazards and uncertain outcomes. Whereas decision aids such as decision support systems (DSS) can be beneficial in stressful scenarios, decision makers sometimes misuse them during decision making, leading to suboptimal outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between stress, decision making and decision aid use.

The authors conduct an extensive multi-disciplinary review of decision making and DSS use through the lens of stress and examine how stress, as perceived by decision makers, impacts their use or misuse of DSS even when such aids can improve decision quality. Research questions examine underlying sources of stress in managerial decision making that influence decision quality, relationships between a decision maker’s perception of stress, DSS use/misuse, and decision quality, and implications for research and practice on DSS design and capabilities.

The study presents a conceptual model that provides an integrative behavioral view of the impact of a decision maker’s perceived stress on their use of a DSS and the quality of their decisions. The authors identify critical knowledge gaps and propose a research agenda to improve decision quality and use of DSS by considering a decision maker’s perceived stress.

This study provides a previously unexplored view of DSS use and misuse as shaped by the decision and job stress experienced by decision makers. Through the application of four theories, the review and its findings highlight key design principles that can mitigate the negative effects of stressors on DSS use.

In complex environments, the use of technology to enhance the capability of people is commonplace. In rapidly changing and often unpredictable environments, it is not enough that these human-automated “teams” perform well when events go as expected. Instead, the human operators and automated aids must be flexible, capable of responding to rare or unanticipated events. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the Framework of Automation Use (Dzindolet, Beck, Pierce, & Dawe, 2001) as it relates to adaptive automation. Specifically, our objectives are to: (1) examine a number of factors that determine how people can effectively integrate their activities with their machine partners in fluid environments and (2) consider the implications of these findings for future research.

The multiple performance measures in strategic performance measurement systems should be selected to represent a set of causally linked strategic drivers and outcomes. The pattern of results thus can provide information concerning the proper execution of the strategy (i.e., the performance evaluation role) and the strength of the cause-and-effect linkages assumed by the strategy (i.e., the strategy evaluation role). Unfortunately, managers’ tendency to re-evaluate the strategy when performance falls short of target is low in practice. Possible explanations include motivational and cognitive biases. We experimentally examine two decision aids, an attribution aid, and a decomposition aid, designed to help managers ease these challenges. Study 1 shows the decision aids, individually and in combination, increase managers’ tendency to re-examine a problematic strategy. Study 2 demonstrates the effectiveness of the two decision aids, when used together, under a different pattern of results and among a sample of more experienced managers.

The purpose of this study is to investigate consumer reactions to professionals who use decision aids to make recommendations. The authors propose that people react negatively to decision aids only when they are used in place of human expert judgment. When used in combination with expert judgment, decision aids are not perceived negatively and may even enhance service evaluations.

Three online experiments are presented. Participants indicated their perceptions regarding the recommendation strategy of professionals and their impressions of these professionals using one of three strategies: one based on expertise only, one based on decision aids only and a combination of the two (hybrid approach). Both within and between-subjects designs were used.

Contrary to previous research that has found a negative reaction to professionals who use decision aids, the authors find that consumers actually appreciate these professionals, as long as the use of decision aids does not replace expert judgment. The authors also find that when people are given the opportunity to compare a pure expert judgment approach with a hybrid approach (decision aid in combination with expert judgment), they prefer the latter.

Although findings should extend to various contexts, this research is limited to the three contexts examined and to the type of use of decision aid described.

It has significant practical implication, as decision aids have been shown to improve decision accuracy, but previous research had indicated that consumers view these professionals in a negative way. The current research more clearly delineates the situations under which negative reactions are likely to occur and makes recommendations regarding circumstances in which reactions are actually quite positive.

Reactions to professionals using decision aids have been investigated outside the marketing literature. However, this is the first work to show that consumers actually have positive reactions to professionals using decision aids, as long as they do not replace expert judgment.

This study extends prior accounting research on decision aids (DAs) relating to face validity. Specifically, this study aims to examine the effects of face validity through the presence of two levels of bias in DA output. The presence of bias in a DA will not affect how statistically informative an aid is but will decrease the face validity. The findings suggest that non-expert DA users recognize the bias in the DA’s suggestions as evidenced by users’ low agreement with the aid; however, they do not adjust for the bias in their performance, suggesting that non-expert users do not learn from the DA.

This repeated-measures experimental design allows us to examine performance effects over time in response to different levels of bias in the DA output. The participants in the study are provided with outcome feedback to examine learning effects.

The findings suggest that non-expert DA users recognize the bias in the DA’s suggestions as evidenced by users’ low agreement with the aid; however, they do not adjust for the bias in their performance, suggesting that non-expert users do not learn from the DA. Although users of an unbiased DA strongly agree with the DA’s output, individual performance deteriorates over time. Initially, the users of an unbiased DA perform better than those who use a biased DA; however, over time, the performance of users of an unbiased aid deteriorates and the performance of users of the biased aid does not improve.

Companies developing DAs may need to consider the effects of using a DA under circumstances different from those under which the aid was developed and that may lead to the biased DA output. This study has implications for firms that design, develop and use DAs.

This study considers a yet unexamined face validity issue – observable bias in DA output. This study examines deterministic DAs designed to assist the decision-maker through their ability to combine multiple cues in a systematic and consistent manner. This study has implications for firms that design, develop and use DAs. Firms need to consider the effects of using a DA under circumstances different from those under which the aid is developed, thereby, potentially leading to biased DA output. Each additional variable added to the DA will be associated with an incremental cost in a DA’s development, use and modification. The results of this study provide insights contributing to the information available for cost–benefit analyses conducted when developing a DA or when considering the modification of existing aid. Failure to change a DA because of face validity issues alone may result in a decline in user performance. Thus, the cost of modifying a DA must be weighed against the benefits resulting from improved performance. This study contributes insights into how users’ responses to DA bias could affect the assessments of the benefits of including an omitted variable in a DA.

Develops and tests a general model for understanding the influence of query‐based decision aids (QBDA) on consumer decision making in the electronic commerce environment. The results show that the use of well‐designed query‐based decision aids leads to increased satisfaction with the decision process and increased confidence in judgements. The number of stages of phased narrowing of the consideration set was higher in the case of subjects who had access to the query‐based decision aids. The mediating variables through which this influence occurs are size of the consideration set, similarity among the alternatives in the consideration set, cognitive decision effort, and perceived cost savings. The size of the consideration set and the similarity among the alternatives in the consideration set were higher in the case of subjects who had access to the query‐based decision aid. Subjects who had access to the query‐based decision aid perceived an increased cost savings and a lower cognitive decision effort associated with the purchase decision. This research is done in the context of consumers searching for information on the World Wide Web prior to the purchase of cars.

Decision aids (DAs) in online retail stores ease consumers' information processing. However, online consumers do not use all decision aids in purchase decision-making. While the literature has documented the effects of individual decision aids or two decision aids at a time, no study has compared the efficacy of multiple decision aids simultaneously. Also, very few studies have looked at the use of decision aids for consumers with maximizing and satisficing tendencies. Hence, this study aims to understand the preferences of maximizers and satisficers towards online decision aids during the choice-making process.

This is an observational study with 60 individuals who were asked to purchase either a search-based or an experience-based product online. Participants' browsing actions and verbalizations during online shopping, were recorded and analysed using NVivo, and later the use of decision aids was mapped along their choice process.

Consumer's preference of decision aids varies across the two stages of the choice process (that is, consideration set formation and evaluation & choice). In their choice formation, maximizers use different decision aids in both stages, that is, filter tool and in-website search tool for search products, and collaborative filtering-based recommender systems and eWOM for experience products. Satisficers used more decision aids as compared to maximizers across the two stages for both product types.

This study is an exploratory attempt to understand how consumers use multiple decision aids present on e-commerce websites.