The Effects of Decision Consequences on Auditors' Reliance on Decision Aids in Audit Planning☆☆☆

This study examines the effects of decision consequences on reliance on a mechanical decision aid. Experimental participants made planning choices on cases with available input from an actual management fraud decision aid. Participants examined each case, made an initial planning judgment, received the decision aid's prediction of the likelihood of management fraud, and made a final planning judgment. This sequence documents two types of nonreliance: (1) intentionally shifting the final planning judgment away from the aid's prediction even though this prediction supports the initial planning judgment and (2) ignoring the aid when its prediction does not support the initial planning judgment. Results are consistent with a pressure-arousal-performance explanation of the effects of decision consequences on intentional shifting, but do not support any particular explanation of the effects of decision consequences on ignoring.

[1]  Whitecotton,et al.  Improving Predictive Accuracy with a Combination of Human Intuition and Mechanical Decision Aids. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[2]  M. Gibbins,et al.  Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: Twenty years of judgment research in accounting and auditing , 1995 .

[3]  Ira Solomon,et al.  Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: Judgment and decision-making research in auditing , 1995 .

[4]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing: Acknowledgments , 1995 .

[5]  Michael Gibbins,et al.  An Empirical Exploration Of Complex Accountability In Public Accounting , 1994 .

[6]  U Böckenholt,et al.  Use of formal Methods in Medical Decision Making , 1992, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  P. Tetlock.  The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

[8]  H. Arkes.  Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. , 1991 .

[9]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Learning from feedback: exactingness and incentives. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Thomas Kida,et al.  Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. , 1991 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Preference and belief: Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty , 1991 .

[12]  B Kleinmuntz,et al.  Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: toward an integrative approach. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Pressure And Performance In Accounting Decision Settings - Paradoxical Effects Of Incentives, Feedback, And Justification , 1990 .

[14]  R. Dawes,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment , 2002 .

[15]  Karen V. Pincus,et al.  The efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud , 1989 .

[16]  Robert H. Ashton,et al.  Using and evaluating audit decision aids , 1988 .

[17]  I. Solomon,et al.  Research opportunities in auditing : the second decade , 1988 .

[18]  Don N. Kleinmuntz,et al.  Cognitive Heuristics and Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Environment , 1985 .

[19]  P. Tetlock.  Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[20]  D. Eddy.  Center for Health Policy Research and Education (CHRPRE) Duke University , 1983 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[22]  Hillel J. Einhorn,et al.  A Synthesis: Accounting and Behavioral Science , 1976 .

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[24]  L. R. Goldberg.  Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgments. , 1968, The American psychologist.