Framing, decision-aid systems, and culture: Exploring influences on fraud investigations

被引:26
作者
Huerta, Esperanza [1 ]
Glandon, TerryAnn [1 ]
Petrides, Yanira [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968 USA
[2] Inst Tecnol Autonomo Mexico, Mexico City 10700, DF, Mexico
关键词
Fraud prevention software; Decision-aid; Framing; Cognitive bias; Culture; PROSPECT-THEORY; WEB ABUSE; EMAIL; CONSEQUENCES; TECHNOLOGY; VALUES; TRUST;
D O I
10.1016/j.accinf.2012.03.007
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We conducted an experiment to investigate the influence of the framing of reports, the type of decision-aid system, and the cultural background of the decision maker on the intention to investigate fraud. We compared decisions made from reports generated by automated and manual systems to explore whether automated systems exacerbated or ameliorated the framing bias. We also explored whether the cultural background of participants Americans and Mexicans influenced the decision. Results indicated that the influence of type of system and framing are culturally dependent. When the framing highlights the possibility of the results being incorrect, people take a more cautious approach and the intention to investigate fraud is lower compared to the framing that highlights the probability of the results being correct. Automated systems appear to ameliorate the framing bias in the American sample and preserve the framing bias in the Mexican sample. The reason for the different impact of automated systems appears to be in how Americans and Mexicans perceive decision-aid systems. Americans are less likely to trust automated systems and more likely to trust manual systems than Mexicans. Mexicans, on the other hand, rely more on automated systems and evaluate their reputation at a higher level than Americans. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:316 / 333
页数:18
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] Ajzen I., 1980, UNDERSTANDING ATTITU, DOI [DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-32]
  • [2] Arnold V., 2005, Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, V2, P33
  • [3] Arnold V., 2004, Accounting Finance, V44, P1, DOI [10.1111/j.1467-629x.2004.00099.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1467-629X.2004.00099.X]
  • [4] Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), 2010, 2010 REP NAT OCC FRA
  • [5] Debiasing investors with decision support systems: An experimental investigation
    Bhandari, Gokul
    Hassanein, Khaled
    Deaves, Richard
    [J]. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2008, 46 (01) : 399 - 410
  • [6] Biehl M, 2007, COMMUN ACM, V50, P53
  • [7] Brown D., 1998, J INF SYST, V12, P75
  • [8] An Examination of Cross-cultural Differences in Attitudes Towards Risk: Testing Prospect Theory in the People's Republic of China
    Brumagim, Alan L.
    Wu Xianhua
    [J]. MULTINATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW, 2005, 13 (03) : 67 - +
  • [9] Debiasing the framing effect: The effect of warning and involvement
    Cheng, Fei-Fei
    Wu, Chin-Shan
    [J]. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2010, 49 (03) : 328 - 334
  • [10] Gamst G., 2008, Analysis of variance designs: a conceptual and computational approach with SPSS and SAS