Abstract. A description of factors contributing to good judgment is developed by considering both the process of exercising judgment and the results of having exercised it. Factors are developed from public accountants' perceptions of important components in characterizing good professional judgment in public accounting. Descriptive data about important judgment quality factors are presented and hypotheses concerning justification are tested using responses to a process-oriented questionnaire. The emphasis is on the natural environment of the professional accountant and the types of judgment situations which occur in the field, with reliance on respondents to interpret their own comments.
The questionnaire results provide a description of judgment factors which professional accountants see as important. Factor categories related to expectation, outcome, and justification perspectives on judgment quality are shown to play a role in defining good judgment, with variations related to position (level of responsibility) in the accounting firm. The results also indicate that justification is perceived differently by people in different positions.
Resume. Les auteurs decrivent les facteurs contribuant a la qualite du jugement en prenant en consideration a la fois le processus d'exercice du jugement et les resultats de ce processus. Ces facteurs ont ete determines a partir des elements percus par les experts-comptables comme etant importants dans la definition de ce qu'est un bon jugement professionnel, en expertise comptable. Les auteurs presentent des donnees descriptives au sujet des principaux indices de qualite du jugement et testent certaines hypotheses relatives a la justification, a partir de reponses a un questionnaire axe sur le processus. Ils s'interessent a l'environnement naturel du comptable professionnel et aux cas de jugement qu'on retrouve dans la pratique, en confiant aux repondants le soin d'interpreter leurs propres observations.
Les resultats du questionnaire offrent une description des facteurs que les comptables professionnels jugent importants dans l'evaluation de la qualite d'un jugement. Il semble que les categories de facteurs reliees a une evaluation en termes d'attentes, de resultats et de justification jouent un certain role dans la definition de ce qu'est un bon jugement, qui varie selon le poste occupe (niveau de responsabilite) a l'interieur du cabinet comptable. Les resultats indiquent egalement que l'on percoit la justification differemment selon le poste.
[1]
Peter Wright,et al.
Retrospective reports on the causes of decisions.
,
1981
.
[2]
Timothy D. Wilson,et al.
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
,
1977
.
[3]
W. Waller,et al.
The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures
,
1984
.
[4]
Paul R. Brown,et al.
Descriptive Modeling of Auditors' Internal Control Judgments: Replication and Extension
,
1980
.
[5]
Michael Gibbins,et al.
PROPOSITIONS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IN PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
,
1984
.
[6]
R. Ashton.
An Experimental Study of Internal Control Judgments
,
1974
.
[7]
A. Tversky,et al.
Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) :
,
2007
.
[8]
Edward J. Joyce,et al.
Expert Judgment In Audit Program Planning
,
1976
.
[9]
W. Edwards.
The prediction of decisions among bets.
,
1955,
Journal of experimental psychology.
[10]
A. Tversky,et al.
Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk
,
1979
.