Procedural instrumentality and audit group judgment

An exploration of the impact of cognitive fallibility and ability differences

Gary Kleinman, Dan Palmon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)147-168
Number of pages22
JournalGroup Decision and Negotiation
Volume18
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Mar 2009

Fingerprint

audit
Decision making
decision making
ability
group decision
Group
group membership
cognitive factors
auditing
cognitive ability
deliberation
liability
heuristics
assets
expertise
Procedural
Audit
Fallibility
Instrumentality
Group processes

Keywords

  • Auditing
  • Auditor-client relationships
  • Cognitive heuristics
  • Diversity
  • Group decision-making

Cite this

@article{61f7c76b504044dca447607090a95bd0,
title = "Procedural instrumentality and audit group judgment: An exploration of the impact of cognitive fallibility and ability differences",
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.",
keywords = "Auditing, Auditor-client relationships, Cognitive heuristics, Diversity, Group decision-making",
author = "Gary Kleinman and Dan Palmon",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10726-008-9116-z",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "147--168",
journal = "Group Decision and Negotiation",
issn = "0926-2644",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

Procedural instrumentality and audit group judgment : An exploration of the impact of cognitive fallibility and ability differences. / Kleinman, Gary; Palmon, Dan.

In: Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 18, No. 2, 01.03.2009, p. 147-168.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Procedural instrumentality and audit group judgment

T2 - An exploration of the impact of cognitive fallibility and ability differences

AU - Kleinman, Gary

AU - Palmon, Dan

PY - 2009/3/1

Y1 - 2009/3/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Auditing

KW - Auditor-client relationships

KW - Cognitive heuristics

KW - Diversity

KW - Group decision-making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58849142486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10726-008-9116-z

DO - 10.1007/s10726-008-9116-z

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 147

EP - 168

JO - Group Decision and Negotiation

JF - Group Decision and Negotiation

SN - 0926-2644

IS - 2

ER -