How Insights from the "New" JDM Research Can Improve Auditor Judgment: Fundamental Research Questions and Methodological Advice

被引:64
作者
Griffith, Emily E. [1 ]
Kadous, Kathryn [2 ]
Young, Donald [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[2] Emory Univ, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA
[3] Georgia Inst Technol, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA
来源
AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY | 2016年 / 35卷 / 02期
关键词
audit quality; auditor judgment; dual-process models; judgment and decision making; nonconscious goals; PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICISM; QUALITY ASSESSMENT; 2; SYSTEMS; CLIENT; MODEL; KNOWLEDGE; MANAGERS; IMPACT; BIASES; GOALS;
D O I
10.2308/ajpt-51347
中图分类号
F8 [财政、金融];
学科分类号
0202 ;
摘要
We examine recent developments in judgment and decision-making (JDM) research to provide insight into how two big ideas in this area can be leveraged as overlapping frameworks to examine and improve auditor judgment. The ideas are (1) that human thinking and reasoning can be characterized by a dual-process model and (2) that conscious and nonconscious goals drive cognition. Despite that these ideas are well established in the broader JDM literature and have great promise for improving auditor judgment, we observe minimal use of them in the audit JDM literature. Thus, we briefly outline these ideas, and we develop fundamental, high-level research questions related to audit JDM research that are based on these ideas. Finally, we provide guidance for designing and evaluating experiments that effectively use these frameworks, whether in auditing or other rich decision-making contexts. The frameworks can help researchers improve audit quality by enhancing our understanding of auditors' judgment processes and the factors that influence them, by allowing for new ways of thinking about how to improve auditor judgment, and by suggesting new interventions for improving auditor judgment.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 22
页数:22
相关论文
共 120 条
[91]   TELLING MORE THAN WE CAN KNOW - VERBAL REPORTS ON MENTAL PROCESSES [J].
NISBETT, RE ;
WILSON, TD .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1977, 84 (03) :231-259
[92]  
Peecher M.E., 2001, INT J AUDIT, V5, P193, DOI DOI 10.1111/1099-1123.00335
[93]   The Effects of a Supervisor's Active Intervention in Subordinates' Judgments, Directional Goals, and Perceived Technical Knowledge Advantage on Audit Team Judgments [J].
Peecher, Mark E. ;
Piercey, M. David ;
Rich, Jay S. ;
Tubbs, Richard M. .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2010, 85 (05) :1763-1786
[95]  
PETTY RE, 1984, ADV CONSUM RES, V11, P668
[96]   The Impact of Principles-Based versus Rules-Based Accounting Standards on Auditors' Motivations and Evidence Demands [J].
Peytcheva, Marietta ;
Wright, Arnold M. ;
Majoor, Barbara .
BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH IN ACCOUNTING, 2014, 26 (02) :51-72
[97]   Training Auditors to Perform Analytical Procedures Using Metacognitive Skills [J].
Plumlee, R. David ;
Rixom, Brett A. ;
Rosman, Andrew J. .
ACCOUNTING REVIEW, 2015, 90 (01) :351-369
[98]   Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies [J].
Podsakoff, PM ;
MacKenzie, SB ;
Lee, JY ;
Podsakoff, NP .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 88 (05) :879-903
[99]  
Ranzilla S., 2011, Elevating professional judgment in auditing
[100]   Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates [J].
Rasso, Jason Tyler .
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY, 2015, 46 :44-55