Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedural Instrumentality and Audit Group Judgment: An Exploration of the Impact of Cognitive Fallibility and Ability Differences

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The issue of auditor judgment prowess and resultant decision-making success has been an important topic in the behavioral auditing area for many years and has generated a voluminous research literature. However, relatively little literature exists on how differences in individual group member cognitive heuristics (fallibility) and ability impact the group process, and are impacted upon by the group process. This issue is important since so much of audit firm decision-making has its origins in audit group deliberations (Hunton 2001). Accordingly, understanding circumstances that give rise to either more flawed (‘process losses’), or better (‘process gains’), group decision-making outcomes are important even though the literature generally recognizes the superiority of group over individual decision-making (e.g., Rich et al. 1997). The model developed here is intended to develop a better understanding of cognitive factors that impact positively or negatively on audit group process. We then develop a four stage model of group decision-making, during which the differing assets and liabilities (cognitive, ability, expertise) of audit group members are combined. The four stages are diversity, controvery, insight and resolution. These are then described at length.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlawat S (1999) Order effects and memory for evidence in individual versus group decision making in auditing. J Behav Decis Making 12(1): 71–88. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199903)12:1<71::AID-BDM308>3.0.CO;2-Q

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold V, Sutton SG, Hayne SC, Smith CAP (2000) Group decision-making: the impact of opportunity-cost time pressure and group support systems. Behav Res Account 12: 69–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock L, Loewenstein G (1997) Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-serving biases. J Econ Perspect 11: 109–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH, Chugh D (2004) Bounded awareness: focusing failures in negotiation. In: Thompson L (ed), Frontiers of social psychology: negotiations. Psychological Press. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=627482

  • Beck PJ, Wu M (2007) The impact of judgment enhancement strategies on audit quality and firm risk when clients have correlated business risks. American accounting association auditing midyear conference, January, 2007

  • Belkaoui A (1989) Human information processing in accounting. Quorum Books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feinstein JA, Jarvis G (1996) Dispositonal differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychol Bull 119(2): 197–253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng MM, Luckett PF, Schulz AK-D (2003) The effects of cognitive style diversity on decision-making dyads: An empirical analysis in the context of a complex task. Behav Res Account 15: 39–62. doi:10.2308/bria.2003.15.1.39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis MB (2006) Are audit-related ethical decisions dependent upon mood?. J Bus Ethics 68(2): 191–209. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9066-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis MB, Whitecotton S (2005) How did enron affect our student’s propensity to “Blow the Whistle”, unpublished manuscript, University of North Texas

  • Damasio A (1994) Descartes’ error: emotion, reason and the human brain. Penguin Books, Inc., NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Dictionary.com, visited on 10–6-2007

  • Favere-Marchesi M (2006) Audit review: the impact of discussion timing and familiarity. Behav Res Account 28: 53–64. doi:10.2308/bria.2006.18.1.53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Peters E, Stovic P (2003) Judgment and decision making: the dance of affect and reason. In: Schneider SL, Shanteau J (eds) Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 327–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas JP (1998) On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(3): 565–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky AD, Moskowitz GB (2000) Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: priming the simulation heuristic and the consideration of alternatives. J Exp Soc Psychol 36: 357–383. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbins M, Mccracken S, Salterio S (2004) Negotiations over accounting issues: the congruency of audit partner and chief financial officer recalls. Paper presented at the 25th AJPT conference, November 23, 2004

  • Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ (2006) Insurers, illusions of judgment and litigation. Vanderbilt Law Rev 59(6): 2015–2049

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller KJ (2006) The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Mich Law Rev 105(2): 241–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinson JM, Whitney P, Holben H, Wirick AK (2006) Affective biasing of choices in gambling task decision making. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 6(3): 190–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho JLY (1999) Technology and group decision process in going-concern judgements. Group Decis Negot 8(1): 33–49. doi:10.1023/A:1008686105218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman LR, Maier N (1961) Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 62: 401–407. doi:10.1037/h0044025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunton J (2001) Mitigating the common information sampling bias inherent in small-group discussion. Behav Res Account 13: 171–194. doi:10.2308/bria.2001.13.1.171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis I (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman G, Palmon D (2000) The auditor-client negotiation game and instructor’s notes. J Account Case Res 5(2): 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman G, Palmon D (2001) Auditor–client relationships: a mutli-faceted analysis. Markus Weiner Publications, Inc., Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman G, Palmon D (2008) Cognitive biases and auditor performance. Working paper.

  • Kleinman G, Palmon D, Lee P (2003) The effects of personal and group level factors on the outcomes of simulated auditor-client groups. Group Decis Negot 12: 57–84. doi:10.1023/A:1022256730300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3): 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Barry B (2005) Negotiation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus EH (2003) Our changeable memories: legal and practical implications. Nat Rev 4: 231–234. doi:10.1038/nrn1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus EH, Hoffman HG (1989) Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories. J Exp Psychol Gen 118(1): 100–104. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthans F (1995) Organizational behavior, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E, Neale MA (2005) What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse groups in organizations. Psychol Sci Public Interest 6(2): 31–55. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh B, Todd PM, Gigerenzer G (2004) Cognitive heuristics: reasoning the fast and frugal way. In: Leighton JP, Sternberg RJ (eds) The nature of reasoning. Cambridge University Press, NY, pp 273–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson M, Tan HT (2005) Judgment and decision making research in auditing: a task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Audit J Pract Theory 24(Supplement): 41–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr D, Guthrie C (2006) Anchoring,information, expertise, and negotiation: new insights from meta-analysis. Ohio State J Disp Resolut 21(3): 597–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin M (1998) Psychology and economics. J Econ Lit 36(1): 11–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich JS, Solomon I, Trotman K (1997) Multi-auditor judgment/decision-making research: A decade later. J Account Lit 16: 86–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider SL, Shanteau J (eds) (2003) Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich KE, Sà WC, West RF (2004) Individual differences in thinking, reasoning, and decision-making. In: Leighton JP, Sternberg RJ (eds) The nature of reasoning. Cambridge University Press, NY, pp 375–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak C (2006) When auditors err: how mistake significance and professional image influence staff auditors’ likelihood to admit a mistake. Accounting and Behavior in organizations AAA conference, September, 2006

  • Tanner D (1986) That’s not what I meant! How conversational style makes or breaks relationships. Ballantine Books, Inc., NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne L, Hartwick J (2001) The directional effects of discussion on auditors’ moral reasoning. Contemp Account Res 18(2): 337–361. doi:10.1506/Y917-MPRY-PANF-PRVE

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wüstemann J, Koch C (6/26/2006) Behavioral research in auditing: a comprehensive review of bias research in auditing with a focus on how psychology and economics-based research can profit from each other. Working paper prepared for the “Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Forschungsseminar”, University of Freiburg, Germany

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Touro Graduate School of Business, New York City, NY, USA

    Gary Kleinman

  2. Department of Accounting, Business Ethics and Information Systems, Rutgers Business School, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Dan Palmon

Authors
  1. Gary Kleinman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan Palmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Kleinman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kleinman, G., Palmon, D. Procedural Instrumentality and Audit Group Judgment: An Exploration of the Impact of Cognitive Fallibility and Ability Differences. Group Decis Negot 18, 147–168 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9116-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9116-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation