A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF HEURISTICS AND COGNITIVE BIASES IN AUDITOR JUDGEMENTS

Authors

  • Agus Fredy Maradona Universitas Pendidikan Nasional

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32400/ja.30634.9.2.2020.94-112

Keywords:

Heuristic, bias, audit judgement, audit procedure, ethnomethodology

Abstract

Professional judgement is inherent in financial statement audits because various methods, techniques, or approaches prescribed in auditing standards do not provide auditors with detailed guidance or specific audit criteria. While auditors are expected to exercise their judgements based on careful reasoning, there is a possibility that they do not always follow such an approach and instead make their judgements using heuristics. This study aims to penetrate and reveal whether there are cognitive biases in the judgements of auditors and what heuristics lead to these biases. This study employs a qualitative research design and uses ethnomethodology as a research approach. Data were collected using in-depth semi-structured interviews with 15 auditors who were either partners, managers, seniors, or juniors at a public accounting firm. Using the heuristic-bias framework as a theoretical lens and based on an analysis involving data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification, this study identifies five types of biases that auditors can experience: jumping to conclusions, groupthink, representativeness, availability, and anchoring biases. The results of this study present practical implications for auditors, accounting professional associations, public accounting firms, and academic institutions. That is, the findings provide insights for formulating strategies aimed at raising auditors’ awareness about possible systematic errors, or biases, in professional judgements when auditors rely on heuristics as a simplifying judgement-making strategy.

References

Asbahr, K., & Ruhnke, K. (2019). Real effects of reporting key audit matters on auditors’ judgment and choice of action. International Journal of Auditing, 23(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12154

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgmental in Managerail Decesion Making. John Wiley & Sons.

Bettinghaus, B., Goldberg, S., & Lindquist, S. (2014). Avoiding auditor bias and making better decisions. The Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 25(4), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.21953

Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. (2016). Biases and heuristics in decision making and their impact on autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics, 16(5), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1159750

Bonner, S. E. (2008). Judgment and Decision Making in Accounting. Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bouteska, A., & Regaieg, B. (2019). Psychology and behavioral finance: Anchoring bias by financial analysts on the Tunisian stock market. EuroMed Journal of Business, 15(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-08-2018-0052

Ceschi, A., Costantini, A., Sartori, R., Weller, J., & Di Fabio, A. (2019). Dimensions of decision-making: An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.033

Chang, C. J., & Luo, Y. (2019). Data visualization and cognitive biases in audits. Managerial Auditing Journal, Forthcomin. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-08-2017-1637

Choudhary, P., Merkley, K., & Schipper, K. (2019). Auditors’ quantitative materiality judgments: Properties and implications for financial reporting reliability. Journal of Accounting Research, 57(5), 1303–1351. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12286

Cossette, P. (2014). Heuristics and cognitive biases in entrepreneurs: A review of the research. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 27(5), 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2015.1105732

Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T. (2016). The headwinds/tailwinds asymmetry: An availability bias in assessments of barriers and blessings. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 111, Issue 6, pp. 835–851). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000066

Eutsler, J., Norris, A. E., & Trompeter, G. M. (2018). A live simulation-based investigation: Interactions with clients and their effect on audit judgment and professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(3), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51880

Gao, P., & Zhang, G. (2019). Auditing standards, professional judgment, and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 94(6), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52389

Garber, M. D., Watkins, K. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2019). Comparing bicyclists who use smartphone apps to record rides with those who do not: Implications for representativeness and selection bias. Journal of Transport and Health, 15, 1–14.

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

Givi, J., & Galak, J. (2019). The “future is now†bias: Anchoring and (insufficient) adjustment when predicting the future from the present. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84(February), 103830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103830

Guiral, A., Rodgers, W., Ruiz, E., & Gonzalo-Angulo, J. A. (2015). Can expertise mitigate auditors’ unintentional biases? Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 24, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2014.11.002

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizatios: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Hussain, A., & Oestreicher, J. (2018). Clinical decision-making: heuristics and cognitive biases for the ophthalmologist. Survey of Ophthalmology, 63(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2017.08.007

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS). (2012). A Professional Judgement Framework for Financial Reporting. ICAS.

Jaspersen, J. G., & Aseervatham, V. (2017). The Influence of affect on heuristic thinking in insurance demand. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 84(1), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12088

Johnstone, K. M., Chen, J., & Balzan, R. P. (2017). An investigation into the jumping-to-conclusions bias in social anxiety. Consciousness and Cognition, 48, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.10.012

Kadous, K., & Zhou, Y. (Daniel). (2019). How does intrinsic motivation improve auditor judgment in complex audit tasks? Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(1), 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12431

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books.

Kim, S., Mayorga, D. M., & Harding, N. (2017). Can I interrupt you? Understanding and minimizing the negative effects of brief interruptions on audit judgment quality. International Journal of Auditing, 21(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12089

Knechel, W. R. (2013). Do auditing standards matter? Current Issues in Auditing, 7(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-50499

Knechel, W. R. (2016). Audit quality and regulation. International Journal of Auditing, 20(3), 215–223.

Knechel, W. R., Krishnan, G. V., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L. B., & Velury, U. K. (2013). Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(Supp. 1), 385–421. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50350

Lambert, T. A., & Peytcheva, M. (2020). When is the averaging effect present in auditor judgments? Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(1), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12512

Lee, G., Barrowclough, C., & Lobban, F. (2011). The influence of positive affect on jumping to conclusions in delusional thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 717–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.024

Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Pearson.

Luo, G. Y. (2013). Can representativeness heuristic traders survive in a competitive securities market? Journal of Financial Markets, 16(1), 152–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finmar.2012.05.001

Mactavish, C., McCracken, S., & Schmidt, R. N. (2018). External auditors’ judgment and decision making: An audit process task analysis. Accounting Perspectives, 17(3), 387–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12182

Mala, R., & Chand, P. (2015). Judgment and decision-making research in auditing and accounting: Future research implications of person, task, and environment perspective. Accounting Perspectives, 14(1), 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12040

McLaughlin, K., Eva, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2014). Reexamining our bias against heuristics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(3), 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9518-4

Messier, W. F., Glover, S. M., & Prawitt, D. F. (2019). Auditing & Assurance Services: A Systematic Approach (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

Nouri, P., Imanipour, N., Talebi, K., & Zali, M. (2018). Most common heuristics and biases in nascent entrepreneurs’ marketing behavior. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 30(6), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2018.1427406

Otuteye, E., & Siddiquee, M. (2015). Overcoming cognitive biases: A heuristic for making value investing decisions. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 16(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2015.1034859

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Sage.

Sanusi, Z. M., Iskandar, T. M., Monroe, G. S., & Saleh, N. M. (2018). Effects of goal orientation, self-efficacy and task complexity on the audit judgement performance of Malaysian auditors. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2362

Schafer, B. A., & Schafer, J. K. (2019). Interpersonal affect, accountability and experience in auditor fraud risk judgments and the processing of fraud cues. In Advances in Accounting Behavioural Research, Vol. 22 (pp. 43–65). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-148820190000022004

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028232

Tsunogaya, N., Sugahara, S., & Chand, P. (2016). Judgments of auditors on "principles†versus “guidance†in lease accounting standard. Asian Review of Accounting, 24(3), 362–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-04-2012-0017

Tsunogaya, N., Sugahara, S., & Chand, P. (2017). The impact of social influence pressures, commitment, and personality on judgments by auditors: Evidence from Japan. Journal of International Accounting Research, 16(3), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-51761

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Wedemeyer, P. D. (2010). A discussion of auditor judgment as the critical component in audit quality - A practitioner’s perspective. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 7(4), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2010.19

Xiao, H. (2020). Anchoring in international merger and acquisition equity decisions: evidence from Chinese firms. Baltic Journal of Management, 15(3), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-04-2019-0124

Yang, L., Brink, A. G., & Wier, B. (2018). The impact of emotional intelligence on auditor judgment. International Journal of Auditing, 22(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12106

Zhang, G., & Zhu, A. X. (2019). A representativeness heuristic for mitigating spatial bias in existing soil samples for digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 351, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.024

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2020-12-18

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 2 (2020)

Section

Articles

License

The articles published in Jurnal Accountability are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International with authors as copyright holders.

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

 

Under this license then authors free to:
  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material.
  • The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:
  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:
  • You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
  • No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.