:: Volume 5, Issue 9 (8-2020) ::
aapc 2020, 5(9): 33-1 Back to browse issues page
The Impact of Auditors' Cognitive Styles on Fraud Risk Assessment (A Test of Gregorc's Energy Theory)
Reza Nematikoshteli1 , Mohsen Hamidian 2, Seyedeh Mahboobeh Jafari3 , Maryam Sarraf4
1- PhD. Student of Accounting, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran(nematikoshteli20@yahoo.com)
2- Assistant Professor, Depatement of Accounting, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.(Corresponding Author) , hamidian¬_2002@yahoo.com
3- Assistant Professor, Depatement of Accounting, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.(jafari.mahboobeh@gmail.com)
4- Assistant Professor, Depatement of Psychology, Basir Institute of Higher Education, Abyek, Iran.(m_sarraf50@yahoo.com)
Abstract:   (8348 Views)

The intellectual framework of individuals is determined by their cognitive style and the cognitive style of individuals plays the role of an intermediate element between accounting information and decision making. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of Gregorc's cognitive styles of auditors on fraud risk assessment. Gregorc's cognitive styles include Concrete-Sequential, abstract-sequential, Concrete-random, and abstract-random styles. The statistical sample of the research consisted of 539 auditors working in the auditing institutes of the Iranian Society of Certified Auditors and the audit organization located in the geographical area of Tehran in 2019 which were selected using simple random sampling. The research method is a descriptive survey and the instrument used in the research is the standard questionnaire. Structural equation modeling using Lisrel software was used to analyze the data and test the hypotheses. The results of the analysis and findings indicate that auditors' cognitive styles have a significant effect on fraud risk assessment at a 99% confidence level. Therefore, abstract-random, abstract-sequential, Concrete-Sequential, and Concrete-random cognitive styles have the greatest impact on fraud risk assessment, respectively. The results of this research can lead to the expansion of topics related to judgment and decision making in auditing and finally to improve audit quality.
Keywords: Fraud Risk Assessment, Cognitive Styles, Gregorc's Method, Auditors.
Full-Text [PDF 343 kb]   (970 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2019/09/24 | Accepted: 2019/10/18 | Published: 2020/08/22
References
1. Abdelhakeem, A., K. H. Haj Haron, and T. A. Masron. 2017. Relationship between internal Shariah audit characteristics and its effectiveness. Humanomics 33 (2): 238-251.
2. Boyle, D. M., F. T. DeZoort, and D. R. Hermanson. 2015. The effect of alternative fraud model use on Auditors fraud risk judgments. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 34 (6): 578-596.
3. Blazhenkova, O., and M. Kozhevnikov. 2008. The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement. Applied cognitive psychology, Journal of Theoretical Psychology, 23 (5): 638-663.
4. Brasel, K. R., R. C. Hatfield, E. B. Nickell, and L. M. Parsons. 2019. The Effect of Fraud Risk Assessment Frequency and Fraud Inquiry Timing on Auditors Skeptical Judgments and Actions. Accounting Horizons 33 (1): 1-15.
5. Chin, w. w. 1998. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22 (1): vii-xvi.
6. Duff, A. 2004. The Role of Cognitive Learning Styles in Accounting Education: Developing Learning Competencies. Journal of Accounting Education 22 (1): 29-52.
7. Elizabeth, A. P., and J. R. Robert. 2005. fraud risk assessments and Auditors professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal 20 (3): 321 -330.
8. Fuller, L. R., and S. E. Kaplan. 2004. A note about the effect of auditor cognitive style on task performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting 16: 131-143.
9. Gregorc, A. F. 1979. Learning/Teaching styles: potent forces behind them. Scientific Research an Academic Publisher, in Educational Leadership 5: 234-237.
10. Grigorenko, E. L, and R. J. Sternberg. 1995. Thinking styles, International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. New York, NY, US: Plenum Press 205-229.
11. Hopwood, W. S., J. J. Leiner, and G. R. Young. 2008. Forensic Accounting. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin 3 (2): 109-136.
12. Hansen, J. D. 1993. The effect of information load and cognitive style on decision quality in a financial distress decision task. Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
13. Jackson, C., and M. L. Jones. 1996. Explaining the overlap between personality and learning style. Personality and Individual Differences 20 (3): 293-300.
14. Knapp, C. A., and M. C. Knapp. 2001. The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 26 (1): 25-37.
15. Kent, P., L. Munro, and T. Gambling. 2006. Psychological characteristics contributing to expertise in audit judgment. International Journal of Auditing 10 (2): 125-141.
16. Kolb, D. A. 2004. Experiential learning. www. learning Frame experience. com.
17. Messick, S. 1994. The matter of style: manifestations of personality in cognition. learning, and teaching, Educational Psychologist 29 (3): 121-136.
18. Pincus, K. V. 1990. Auditor individual differences and fairness of presentation judgments auditing. A Journal of practice & Theory 9 (3): 150-166.
19. Phan, P. H. 2002. Technological Entrepreneurship, A Volume in Research in entrepreneurship and management. Lally School of Management and Technology Rensselaer Polytechnic institute. Printed in the United States of America.
20. Payne, E. A., and R. J. Ramsay. 2005. Fraud risk assessments and Auditors professional skepticism. Managerial Auditing Journal 20 (3): 321 -330.
21. Pham, N. P. 2000. Learning styles. Retrieved January, 2010 from http://payson .tulan.edu/Pham/learning/lstyles.html.
22. Parkas, P. 1987. The Audit process as a function of the differentiated environment: an empirical study. Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
23. Rayner, S., and R. Riding. 1997. Towards a Categorization of Cognitive Styles and learning Styles. Educational Psychology 17 (1-2): 5-27.
24. Salarian, M., R. Ibrahim, and K. Nemati. 2012. The relationship between Users cognitive style and information seeking behavior among postgraduate engineering students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 56 (8): 461-465.
25. Sternberg, R. J., and E. L. Grigorenko. 1997. Are Cognitive Style Still in Style? American Psychologist 52 (7): 700-712.
26. Saha, S., and R. R. K. Sharma. 2019. The impact of personality and cognitive style of managers on their work types. Journal of Management Development 38 (1): 58-71.
27. Schroder, H. M., M. J. Driver, and S. Streufert. 1976. Human Information Processing: Individuals and Groups Functioning in Complex Social Situations. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston Inc.
28. Verma, S. 1994. A study of thinking styles of tertiary students. Psycho-Lingua 31 (1): 15- 19.
29. Wells, J. T. 2005. Accountants need help fighting the war on frau. ACFE Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, ACFE founder urges anti-fraud education.
30. Woolfolk, A. E. 1995. Educational psychology. 6thed Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
31. Zhang, L, F. 2001. Thinking styles and personality types revisited. Personality and individual Differences 31 (6): 112-121.

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 5, Issue 9 (8-2020) Back to browse issues page