Search results

The role of big data and data analytics in the audit engagement process is evident. Notwithstanding, understanding how big data influences cognitive processes and, consequently, on the auditors’ judgment decision-making process is limited. The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework on the cognitive process that may influence auditors’ judgment decision-making in the big data environment. The proposed framework predicts the relationships among data visualization integration, data processing modes, task complexity and auditors’ judgment decision-making.

The methodology to accomplish the conceptual framework is based on a thorough literature review that consists of theoretical discussions and comparative studies of other authors’ works and thinking. It also involves summarizing and interpreting previous contributions subjectively and narratively and extending the work in some fashion. Based on this approach, this paper formulates four propositions about data visualization integration, data processing modes, task complexity and auditors’ judgment decision-making. The proposed framework was built from cognitive theory addressing how auditors process data into useful information to make judgment decision-making.

The proposed framework expects that the cognitive process of data visualization integration and intuitive data processing mode will improve auditors’ judgment decision-making. This paper also contends that task complexity may influence the cognitive process of data visualization integration and processing modes because of the voluminous nature of data and the complexity of business processes. Hence, it is also expected that the relationships between data visualization integration and audit judgment decision-making and between processing mode and audit judgment decision-making will be moderated by task complexity.

There is a dearth of studies examining how big data and big data analytics affect auditors’ cognitive processes in making decisions. This paper will help researchers and auditors understand the behavioral consequences of data visualization integration and data processing mode in making judgment decision-making, given a certain level of task complexity.

With the advent of big data and the evolution of innovative audit procedures, the constructed framework can be used as a theoretical foundation for future empirical studies concerning auditors’ judgment decision-making. It highlights the potential of big data to transform the nature and practice of accounting and auditing.

Heuristics are used in the judgment and decision-making process of bank employees; however, discussions and research on the type or range of judgmental heuristics are very difficult to find throughout the world. In light of this, the purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze what types of heuristics are used in bank employees’ judgment and decision-making processes and the extent to which those types of heuristics prevent rational decision making due to the systematic biases they generate. In particular, this study aims to conduct empirical research based on various scenarios related to the banking industry.

To examine the heuristics in decision-making circumstances and the level of subsequent biases, the present study narrowed the scope of research to the three main types of heuristics introduced by Tversky and Kahneman (1974), namely, representativeness heuristics, availability heuristics and anchoring and adjustment heuristics. To analyze the bank employees’ decision making, this study specifically investigated the level of decision-making heuristics and the level of bias by focusing on these three types of heuristics. This study targeted bank employees who either sell financial products or are engaged in customer service work at a real/physical bank.

For representativeness heuristics, this study found bank employees’ judgment of probability was influenced by biases, such as insensitivity to prior probability, insensitivity to sample size, misconception of chance and insensitivity to predictability. Regarding availability heuristics, it found that bank employees judge the probability of events based on the ease of recalling an event instead of the actual frequency of the event, and so they fall prey to systematic biases. Finally, regarding anchoring and adjustment heuristics, this study found that employees fall prey to judgment biases as they judge the probability of conjunctive events and disjunctive events based on anchoring and insufficient adjustment.

Although people who are well-trained in statistics can avoid rudimentary errors, they fall prey to biased judgment at a similar level to those who are not properly trained in statistics when it comes to more complicated and ambiguous issues. It clearly indicates that it is risky to determine that financial experts would be more rational than the general public in making various judgments required in the policy-making process. To conclude, it is imperative to recognize the existence of heuristics-based systematic biases in the judgment and decision-making process and, furthermore, to reinforce the education and training system to improve bank employees’ rational choice and judgment ability.

The purpose of this study is to examine how trends in historical data influence two types of predictive judgments: territory selection and salesperson hiring. Sales managers are confronted frequently with decisions that explicitly or implicitly involve forecasting with limited information. In doing so, they conceptualize how the magnitude of these trend effects may be affected by the experience managers have in making these types of judgments. Study 1 provides evidence of a curvilinear relationship between experience and reliance on the trend data whereby the sales territory selections of novice sales managers exhibited greater susceptibility to informational trends than did the evaluations of naïve and expert decision-makers. A benchmark analysis in Study 2 further revealed that the salesperson selections made by novice and expert sales managers were equally biased, albeit in opposite directions, with novices overweighting and experts underweighting historical performance trends. Implications of these findings are discussed, as are avenues for future research.

The authors employ an online experimental design methodology of practicing managers. For Study 1, they use regression, whereas Study 2 uses a deterministic process to develop a priori predictive benchmark forecasts. Ordinary least squares is then used to estimate manager’s decisions, which are then compared to the predictive forecasts to determine accuracy.

Study 1 provides evidence of a curvilinear relationship between experience and reliance on the trend data whereby the sales territory selections of novice sales managers exhibited greater susceptibility to informational trends than did the evaluations of naïve and expert decision-makers. A benchmark analysis in Study 2 further revealed that the salesperson selections made by novice and expert sales managers were equally biased, albeit in opposite directions, with novices overweighting and experts underweighting historical performance trends.

The present inquiry is the first to provide insights into an important issue that has been the subject of equivocal findings, namely, whether experience in a judgmental domain exerts a facilitating or debilitating effect on sales manager decision-making. In this regard, some research supports the intuition that experience in making a particular type of decision can insulate managers from judgmental bias and, in doing so, improve decision quality (see Shanteau, [1992a] for a summary). In contrast, other work provides a more pessimistic view by demonstrating that the quality of decision-making is either unaffected by or can erode with additional experience (Hutchinson et al., 2010). To help reconcile these conflicting findings, the authors presented and tested a theoretical framework conceptualizing how trends may influence predictive judgments across three levels of decision-maker experience.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of transparency on consumers' judgment and decision-making.

This study uses an experimental research design in which participants' negative emotions dynamically change driven by group emotional interactions when they are experiencing a group complaint.

The experimental results show that compared with opaque products, transparent products make consumers rely more on emotions to make judgments and decisions (Experiment 1). It is precise because transparency increases the influence of emotion on consumers' judgment and decision-making that positive emotion makes consumers' evaluation and willingness to pay higher, while negative emotion makes consumers' evaluation and willingness to pay lower (Experiments 2 and 3). Transparency will also affect consumers' subsequent judgment and decision-making methods, so they are more inclined to choose the option with the dominant emotional dimension (Experiment 4).

Previous studies mainly focus on the impact of transparent packaging on consumers and discuss the impact of transparent packaging on consumer product evaluation and consumption quantity. This study proves that product-related transparent elements can also affect consumers' decision-making methods, making them more dependent on emotions to make decisions, enriching the research on the influencing factors of consumer decision-making methods.

Wisdom is considered as crucial in decision-making in both management and auditing practice. This research aims to investigate the concept of wisdom in auditing, thereby empirically exploring the determinants of wisdom in audit decision-making and explaining inter-relations among these determinants.

This study employs grounded theory methodology that is based on in-depth interviews with twenty-seven practicing auditors who are audit partners, managers, seniors and assistants of auditing firms. Guided by the grounded theory, data collection and data analyses were conducted simultaneously to look into the new insights of the research phenomenon. The coding process was constantly compared until the research's theoretical saturation is reached after four rounds. At the end of the research process, the study conducted a survey to confirm the proposed framework as well as examine the inter-relationships between the defined determinants.

Results suggest developing a conceptual framework to interpret wisdom-based decision-making process in auditing. A wise process of audit decision-making is defined as an integrated exercise of multiple determinants including knowledge assimilation, judgmental ability and ethical orientation. The research also explains and examines the potential interrelationships among these determinants in the audit decision-making process.

Wisdom is a valuable tacit ability for all external auditors. The development of wise decision-making abilities of auditors should be considered an integral part of multiple virtues including knowledge and judgmental and ethical aspects.

The contributions of this study are original and significant because it proposes a new approach to explain for the audit decision-making process and enhances better understandings of the concept of wisdom in auditing practices and its roles in audit decision-making.

The paper seeks to evaluate the prescriptive value of ethical decision‐making models.

The paper explores various types of models in the ethics literature in concert with knowledge from the decision sciences literature to develop a tentative list of evaluative criteria that might be applied to prescriptive models. It then applies these criteria to one prescriptive model from the ethics literature, developed by Petrick and Quinn, in an attempt to demonstrate the value of more comprehensive evaluation. It closes by considering future research aimed at the evaluation of ethical decision‐making models as well as research needed to validate the Petrick and Quinn model.

This critique finds that the Petrick‐Quinn judgment integrity model satisfies most of the criteria discussed in the ethical decision‐making literature. The primary opportunities for refining the Petrick‐Quinn model as a prescriptive framework for ethical decision making are: articulating the operational judgment component of the model as a formal, quantitative decision analysis, and conducting research to assess the real‐world utility of the model.

While there has been a proliferation of research concerning business ethics, little attention has been focused on evaluating the utility of ethical decision‐making models. Accordingly, this paper advances theory, research and practice regarding ethical decision making in organizations.

Prior research suggests that decision-makers can be biased by anecdotal data, even in the presence of more informative statistical data. A bias for anecdotal data can have significant implications for managers since judgments are often made when both statistical and anecdotal data are present. However, since much of the prior research has been conducted primarily on non-professionals engaged in unfamiliar tasks, it is unclear whether anecdotal biases will occur in managerial decision-making, where training and professional duties may reduce the effects of such a bias. Smith and Kida (1991) note, for example, that judgment biases are often mitigated or modified when trained professionals perform job-related tasks. In this study, managers and others with significant business experience were asked to make a capital budgeting decision in the presence of both statistical and anecdotal data. The results indicate that decision-makers ignored, or underweighted, statistical data in favor of anecdotal data, leading to suboptimal decisions. However, a scientific judgment orientation decision-aid did help to mitigate the effects of that bias. The implications of these results for decision-making in managerial accounting are discussed.

An ongoing debate in the field of organizational decision-making concerns the use of intuition versus analytical rationality in decision-making. For the purpose of contributing to this debate we use a rich empirical dataset built from a longitudinal study of information technology project prioritization in a large financial institution to investigate how managers make space for the use of intuition in decision-making. Our findings show that during project prioritization meetings, senior decision makers apply three different techniques: bringing-in project intangibles, co-promoting intuitive judgments, and associating intuitive judgments with shared group context, when they make space for intuition in decision processes.

Following recent high-profile audit failures, concern has been expressed that auditors are not demonstrating sufficient skepticism when exercising professional judgment. In particular, client assumptions and estimations relating to hypothetical valuations in financial reporting are not being challenged. This paper seeks to address the issue by advancing a decision-making framework aimed at guiding auditors beyond regulatory reductionist thinking towards an enhanced understanding of the cognitive processes which shape professional judgment in forming a reliable audit opinion.

Drawing on the normative philosophical and theological teachings of Bernard Lonergan, the authors' decision-making framework embodies reflective thinking and the data of consciousness to highlight the central role played by enquiry in the dynamics of understanding, judgment and decision-making. Such enquiry elicits challenge of the management bias inherent in hypothetical valuations.

Auditing through a Lonerganian lens allows auditors to reflect on their approach to objective decision-making by offering a set of cognitive tools to enhance the enquiry essential for nurturing professional skepticism.

This paper contributes to the literature by developing the somewhat neglected discourse on the cognitive processes essential for professional skepticism and audit judgment. The authors demonstrate how Lonerganian self-appropriation intensifies an awareness of the recursive cognitive activities pertinent to objective judgment and decision-making. This awakened consciousness has the potential not only to change how auditors question evidence to make informed judgments and decisions, but also to normalize the practice of challenge.

The monographs and reviews on audit judgment and decision-making research published over the years have strengthened this strand of research in auditing by providing insights and suggesting avenues for future research. However, no such comprehensive reviews have been published so far for the research undertaken in the domain of accounting judgment. This chapter reviews the accounting judgment and decision-making research published during 1972–2010 in the five top-tier accounting journals. It evaluates the characteristics and significance of these studies, their theoretical and methodological strengths and weaknesses, and suggests avenues for future research. The insights into accounting judgment and decision-making research provided in this chapter may be useful for improving the research method, theory development, and hypotheses' formulation stages of future studies. The analysis presented in this chapter may also provide the necessary impetus to strengthen this strand of research in accounting in the future.