Designing a Model of Auditors'''' Cognitive Styles and Evaluating the Axes Identified in the Auditing Profession

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Accounting, Khorramshah International Branch,Islamic Azad University, Khorramshahr,Iran

2 Department of Accounting, Masjed - Soleiman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Masjed-Soleiman, Iran

3 Department of Economics, Khorramshahr university of Marine Sciences and Technology, Khorramshahr, Iran

10.22099/jaa.2023.46694.2302

Abstract

 
One of the most important functions of the auditing profession is the behavior of auditors in making professional judgments that arise from their perceptual frameworks. It can be effective in reducing perceptual biases and increasing information transparency of stakeholders. The purpose of this study is designing a model of auditors' cognitive styles and evaluating the axes identified in the auditing profession. Although past studies such as (Fuller and Kaplan, 2004; Yankova, 2015 and Rembing et al., 2019) have investigated the effects of cognitive styles in the auditing profession, little research has been done in the past to integrate its dimensions in the auditing profession, and most of the studies conducted are based on standard questionnaires and non-natives with the auditing profession. Therefore, in this study, the existence of such a theoretical gap in the auditing profession, tries to provide a coherent model in this department by relying on the Grounded theory to cover the weakness of past research to develop the evaluable dimensions of this phenomenon in the auditing profession. On the other hand, the need to pay attention to cognitive styles in the auditing profession can help auditors more quickly and consciously react to the existence of contradictions in the practices of clients.
 
2- Research Questions

What are the themes of auditors' cognitive styles?
What are the components of auditors' cognitive styles?
What are the categories of auditors' cognitive styles?
What are the most influential axes of auditors' cognitive styles?

 
3- Methods
The methodology is mixed and based on the result of developmental research. In this research, interviews are used to collect data in the qualitative part, matrix checklists are used based on pairs comparison in the quantitative part. The target population in the qualitative part was 12 academic specialists who were considered experts, both scientifically and empirically. Sampling in the qualitative methodology was the snowball. The target statistical population in quantitative part is 20 managers of the listed companies who were selected based on work experience and the level of technical and specialized knowledge through homogeneous sampling. Therefore, first, through the qualitative analysis and relying on the Grounded theory, it is attempted to present the dimensions of auditors' cognitive styles in the form of a multidimensional model. After presenting the model and measuring the reliability of its dimensions through Delphi analysis, in the quantitative part, through interpretive ranking process, the research seeks to prioritize auditors' cognitive style axes.
 
4- Results
Research results in the qualitative part indicate the existence of 3 categories including auditors' intuitive cognition style, auditors' inductive/exploratory cognition style, auditors' interpretative cognition style and 6 components including inner, abstract, objective, critical, pragmatic, skeptical senses and 35 conceptual themes in the form of a 6-dimensional model, which was obtained during three stages of coding in the Grounded Theory analysis according to Glaser's approach. Also, the results in the quantitative section indicate that the percentage of influence of objective senses is higher than the rest of the axes and it was chosen as the most favorable axis of auditors' cognitive styles.
 
5- Conclusion
The results are the statement of the fact that objective senses as a style of inductive cognition is based on the functions of logical estimation of processes and planning of audit work, which helps auditors to use higher reliability for their opinion during professional judgment. These senses in auditors helps to create solutions to obtain reliable facts and through step-by-step processes, they help auditors reach functional facts and make a more informed opinion.
 
Keywords: Auditors' Cognitive Styles, Objective Senses, Professional Judgments, Grounded theory.
 
 
 

Keywords

References

Assawer, E., Anis, J. (2019). Strategic foresight and auditor's cognitive contribution: The study of cognitive mapping, 6(1): 18-37.
          https://doi.org/10.1504/AJFA.2019.10025895
Brown, Sh, C., Tenbrink, A, P., LaMarre, G. (2019). Performance while distracted: The effect of cognitive styles and working memory, Personality and Individual Differences, 138(1): 380-384 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.025
Chan, M. M. (1995). The moderating effects of cognitive style and regency effects on the auditor’s belief revision process. Managerial Auditing Journal, 10(9): 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686909510100869
Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4(3): 359-380.
Cohen, J.A. (2022). The purposeful use of Kolb’s learning styles in online learning design, Developmentand Learning in Organizations, https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-06-2022-0111
 
Cools, E., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007) Development and validation of the Cognitive Style Indicator, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 141(4): 359-387
Eklund, A, R., Aguiar, U, N., Amacher, A. (2021). Design thinking as sensemaking: Developing a pragmatist theory of practice to (re)introduce sensibility, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(1): 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12604
Fernández, W. D. (2004). The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design. In Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and Criticizing, 1(1): 43-59.
Fuller, L., Kaplan, S, E. (2004). A Note about the Effect of Auditor Cognitive Style on Task Performance, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 16(1):131-143 https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2004.16.1.131
Giancola, M., Palmiero, M., Piccardi, L., D’Amico, S. (2022). The relationships between cognitive styles and creativity: the role of field dependence-independence on visual creative production, behavioral sciences, 12(2): 212-229. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12070212
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, 2(2): 68-80.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, Calif.: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2007). Remodeling grounded theory, Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement, 19(32): 47-68.
Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual systems and personality organization.
Henrizi, P., Himmelsbach, D., & Hunziker, S. (2021). Anchoring and adjustment effects on audit judgments: Experimental evidence from Switzerland. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22 (4): 598-621
Jonsen, K. and Jehn, K.A. (2009). Using triangulation to validate themes in qualitative studies, qualitative research in organizations and management, 4(2): 123-150.
       https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640910978391
Kolb, A, A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Edu, 4(2):193-212
Kutschera, I. (2003). Cognitive style and decision making: Implications of intuitive and analytical information processing for decision quality.
Lundholm, R.J., Rogo, R. and Zhang, J.L. (2014), restoring the tower of Babel: How foreign firms communicate with U.S. investors. The Accounting Review, 89(4): 1453-1485
Manolis, Ch., Burns, D, J., Assudani, R., Chinta, R. (2013). Assessing experiential learning styles: A methodological reconstruction and validation of the Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Learning and Individual Differences, 23(2): 44-52.
      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.009
Noordin, N, A., Hussainey, K., Hayek, A, F. (2022). The Use of Artificial Intelligence and Audit Quality: An Analysis from the Perspectives of External Auditors in the UAE, Journal Risk Financial Management, 15(8): 339-369. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15080339
Rambing, Y.C, Utami, I, & Kristianti, I. (2019), Analyzing the recency effects on long series audit information and its mitigation methods with group discussions, The Journal of Economics, Business, and Accountancy Ventura, 22(20): 202–212
Rayner, S., and R. Riding. (1997). Towards a Categorization of Cognitive Styles and learning Styles. Educational Psychology 17(1/2): 5-27.
Schroder HM, Driver M.J. & Streufert S. (1976). Human information processing: Individuals and groups functioning in complex social situations. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Simon, H. A. (2013). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations, 4th edition. New York: The Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & E. L. Grigorenko. (1997). Are cognitive style still in style? American Psychologist 52(7), 700-712.
Vagner, B. (2022). The effect of personalized audit communication and evidence inconsistency on auditor judgments and decision-making, Managerial Auditing Journal, 37(8): 1038-1061.
       https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-09-2020-2857
Yankova, K. (2015). The influence of information order effects and trait professional skepticism on auditors’ belief revisions: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Springer. Dissertation University of Duisburg-Essen.
Yuan, H., Lu, K., Yang, C., Hao, N. (2021). Examples facilitate divergent thinking: The effects of timing and quality, Consciousness and Cognition, 93(2): 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103169
 
 
Journal of Accounting Advances
Volume 14, Issue 2 - Serial Number 83
November 2022
Pages 258-315

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 07 February 2023
  • Revise Date: 07 June 2023
  • Accept Date: 07 June 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics