[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aims& Scopes
Editorial Board ::
Articles archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
Browse by Authors
Browse by Keywords
Publication Ethics::
For Authors::
Guide for Authors
Submission Form
Peer Review Process::
Reviewers Section
Registration::
Registration Form
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
FAQ
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: Volume 10, Issue 20 And (2025) ::
aapc 2025, 10(20 And ): 345-383 Back to browse issues page
The impact of brainstorming group member composition on fraud risk assessment: The role of the minority group
Kazem Shamsadini *1 , Mahboobe Jafari2
1- Accounting Department, Faculty of Management and Economics, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran. (Corresponding Auther). , kshams@uk.ac.ir
2- Accounting Department, Faculty of Management and Economics, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran. jafari.m@uk.ac.ir
Abstract:   (103 Views)
This paper experimentally examine the effect of the composition of fraud brainstorming group on fraud brainstorming performance and the judgments of the group after the fraud brainstorming. The statistical population of this research includes 93 graduate accounting and auditing students at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman in 2024. To investigate hypotheses, independent-sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance test were used. Results indicate that groups with a minority of  high trait skeptics assess fraud risk more than control groups with no high trait skeptics. Also, results indicate low trait skeptics who brainstorm in groups with a minority of high trait skeptics tend to view the minority high trait skeptic as the best member of the group because of that member’s unique insights. Their individual, post-brainstorming fraud risk assessments remain high, indicating conversion to the minority (skeptical) viewpoint. This paper highlights the importance of group composition. It suggests that firms can promote skeptical team judgments by leveraging individuals’ high trait skepticism in thoughtfully composed interacting groups.
Keywords: Conversion theory, Fraud brainstorming, Professional skepticism.
Full-Text [PDF 1621 kb]   (28 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Applicable | Subject: Special
Received: 2025/08/16 | Accepted: 2026/03/1 | Published: 2026/05/31
References
1. Afram, A. L. M. A. 2022. The effect of using brainstorming to improve the professional skepticism of the external auditor to discover fraud in the financial statements: A study of the opinions of a sample of external auditors in Iraq. Tikrit Journal of Administration and Economics Sciences, 18(60): 1-25.
2. Apandi, N. N., H. Rossieta, F. Fitriany, and L.S. Wondabio. 2024. Does Brainstorming in Supervision Audit Fieldwork Can Improve Professional Auditor Judgement?. Journal Pendidikan Akuntansi & Keuangan, 12(2): 225-236.
3. Bazerman, M. H., and D. Chugh. 2006. Bounded ethicality: The perils of loss framing. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior (pp. 399–422). American Psychological Association.
4. Bhattacharjee, S., T. King, and K. Walker. 2025. Harnessing humility: The Effects of Partner humility and Surface-Level Diversity on Auditors' Fraud Brainstorming Outcomes. Available at SSRN 5124663.
5. Brazel, J. F., T.D. Carpenter, and J.G. Jenkins. 2010. Auditors’ use of brainstorming in the consideration of fraud: Reports from the field. The Accounting Review, 85 (4): 1273–1301.
6. Carpenter, T. D. 2007. Audit team brainstorming, fraud risk identification, and fraud risk assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99. The Accounting Review, 82 (5): 1119–1140.
7. Chen, C. X., K.T. Trotman, and F. H. Zhou. 2015. Nominal versus interacting electronic fraud brainstorming in hierarchical audit teams. The Accounting Review, 90 (1): 175–198.
8. Dennis, S. A., and K. M. Johnstone. 2018. A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 66: 14–28.
9. Dewi, Y., H. Suharman, P.S. Koeswayo, and N.D. Tanzil. 2023. What is the key determinant of the credit card fraud risk assessment in Indonesia? An idea for brainstorm. Bank and Bank System, 18(1): 26-37.
10. Elizabeth, A.P., and J.R. Robert. 2005. Fraud risk assessments and auditors’professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(3): 321-330.
11. Glover, S. M., and D.F. Prawitt. 2014. Practitioner summary: Enhancing auditor professional skepticism: The professional skepticism continuum. Current Issues in Auditing, 8(2): 1–10.
12. Hammersley, J. S., E.M. Bamber, and T.D. Carpenter. 2010. The influence of documentation specificity and priming on auditors’ fraud risk assessments and evidence evaluation decisions. The Accounting Review, 85 (2): 547–571.
13. Harding, N., and K.T. Trotman. 2017. The effect of partner communications of fraud likelihood and skeptical orientation on auditors’ professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36 (2): 111–131.
14. Hurtt, R. K. 2010. Development of a scale to measure professional skepticism. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1): 149–171.
15. Hurtt, R.K., H. Brown-Liburd, C.E. Earley, and G. Krishnamoorthy. 2013. Research on auditor professional skepticism: literature synthesis and opportunities for future research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 32(1): 45-97.
16. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2012. Overall objectives of the independt auditor and the conduct of an audit in accordance with international standards on auditing. New York, NY: IFAC.
17. International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR). 2015. International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators: Report on 2015 Survey of Inspection Findings. Available at: https://www.ifiar.org/activities/annual-inspection-findings-survey.
18. Janssen, S., K. Hardies, A. Vanstraelen, and K.M. Zehms. 2020. Professional skepticism traits and fraud brainstorming quality. Available at SSRN 3719155.
19. Kim, S., and K.T. Trotman. 2015. The comparative effect of process and outcome accountability in enhancing professional skepticism. Accounting and Finance, 55(4): 1015–1040.
20. Knechel, W. R., C. Staden, and L. Sun. 2013. Auditing and organizational behavior: The impact of experience on decision-making. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(3), 91–114.
21. Kramer, A., D.P. Bhave, and T.D. Johnson. 2014. Personality and group performance: The importance of personality composition and work tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 58: 132–137.
22. Lase, H., A. Pradipta, and M. Siahaan. 2024. Exploring the role of brainstorming in enhancing audit quality. Journal of Management, Accounting, General Finance and International Economic Issues, 3(4): 931-944.
23. Martin, R., M. Hewstone, and P.Y. Martin. 2003. Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 (6): 585–593.
24. Martin, R., P.Y. Martin, J.R. Smith, and M. Hewstone. 2007. Majority versus minority influence and prediction of behavioral intentions and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (5): 763–771.
25. Martin, R., and M. Hewstone. 2008. Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The source-contextelaboration-model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40: 237–326.
26. McAllister, M., A.D. Baly, and K. Kadous. 2018. Fraud brainstorming group composition in auditing: The persuasive power of a skeptical minority. The Accounting Review, 96 (3): 431–448.
27. McLeod, P. L., R.S. Baron, M.W. Marti, and K. Yoon. 1997. The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (5): 706–718.
28. Mohammed, S., and L.C. Angell. 2003. Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research 34 (6): 651–677.
29. Moscovici, S. 1980. Toward a theory of conversion behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13: 209–239.
30. Nelson, M.W. 2009. A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 28(2): 1-34.
31. Nemeth, C. J. 1986. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93 (1): 23–32.
32. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2012. Maintaining and applying professional skepticism in audits. Staff Audit Practice Alert No. 10.
33. Quadackers, L., T. Groot, and A. Wright. 2014. Auditors' professional skepticism: Neutrality versus presumptive doubt. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(3): 639–657.
34. Sagara, Y., and P. P. Alkotdriyah. 2020. Interpersonal Skill-based Audit Team Brainstorming: Solution for Fraud Detection. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 10(3): 458-474.
35. Saiewitz, A., M. K. Dodgson, and M. M. Doxey. 2021. Examining the impact of audit firms’ use of skepticism feedback in auditor training. Available at SSRN 3183471.
36. Schein, E. H. 2010. Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
37. Tang, J., and K. E. Karim. 2019. Financial fraud detection and big data analytics–implications on auditors’ use of fraud brainstorming session. Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(3): 324-337.
38. Trotman, K. T., T. D. Bauer, and K. A. Humphreys. 2015. Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 47: 56–72.
39. Woolley, A. W., C. F. Chabris, A. Pentland, N. Hashmi, and T. W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science.

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shamsadini K, Jafari M. The impact of brainstorming group member composition on fraud risk assessment: The role of the minority group. aapc 2025; 10 (20) :345-383
URL: http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-1365-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 10, Issue 20 And (2025) Back to browse issues page
دوفصلنامه علمی حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.07 seconds with 36 queries by YEKTAWEB 4741