Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model

Hogarth, Robin M.; Einhorn, Hillel J.

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-j

Cited by 1,395 publications

(1,617 citation statements)

References 91 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,494

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is noteworthy to state that familiarity refers to the decision maker expertise in a speci c type of decision, which cannot be confounded with the familiarity threat evidenced in the code of ethics of independent auditors that means the repetitive nature of a long-term engagement between the auditor and his/ her client, and this may lead to complacency and to the underweighting of warning signs. e importance of the complexity for belief revision relates to human processing ability (Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992). us, the greater the complexity, the greater the individual's search to simplify strategies to minimize cognitive e orts.…”

Section: Belief Revision Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SbS is a sequential procedure in which individuals express their beliefs each time they get new evidence. In the EoS method, opinions are only expressed a er all information has been presented (Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992).…”

Section: Belief Revision Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Hogarth and Einhorn (1992), two additional coding variables a ect the predictions of the proposed model: (i) processing mode (SbS and EoS) and (ii) type of task (assessment and estimation). When the SbS mode is used, an individual adjusts his opinion incrementally for each new piece of evidence that is processed.…”

Section: Belief Revision Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In view of the de nitions by Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) regarding the complexity of individual items in evidence that is to be processed, the auditors would only feel the e ects associated with the amount of information contained in each group of evidence, while the accountants are a ected by the same, as well as by the lack of familiarity with the task.…”

Section: Neuroaccountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…us, independent auditing is increasingly associated with the validation of audited companies' economic and nancial position, mainly regarding management use of the going concern assumption, which enhances the institutionalization of independent auditors' role in the global economy. For this reason, this study adapted the experimental protocol used by Stephen K. Asare (1992), that includes cognitive brain mapping and testing of the belief revision theory (Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992), seeking to answer the following research question: to what extent does brain mapping patterns follow behavioral patterns of auditors and accountants' judgments when assessing sequential evidences for going concern decisions? erefore, this multidisciplinary study, involving medical science and accountancy, aims at explaining the extent to which brain mapping patterns follow behavioral patterns of auditors and accountants' judgments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cognitive brain mapping of auditors and accountants in going concern judgments

Júnior

Cornacchione

Rocha

et al. 2017

Rev. contab. finanç.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACTis study aims to explain the extent to which brain mapping patterns follow behavioral patterns of auditors and accountants' judgments when assessing evidence for decisions involving going concern. is multidisciplinary research involved investigating the relation between the theory of belief revision, neuroscience, and neuroaccounting with a sample of auditors and accountants. We developed a randomized controlled trial study with 12 auditors and 13 accountants. Auditors and accountants presented similar judgments about going concern, specially demonstrating greater sensitivity to negative evidence. Despite similar judgments, results showed diverging brain processing patterns between groups, as distinct reasoning was used to reach going concern estimates. During the decision process, auditors presented homogeneous brain processing patterns, while accountants evidenced con icts and greater cognitive e ort. For both groups, the occurrence of maximization (minimization) of judgments is observed in brain areas associated with identi cation of needs and motivations linked to individuals' relations with their social group. is was strengthened by the lack of signi cant di erences between the regression maps of auditors and accountants, leading to interpretation of the groups' ndings as homogeneous brain behavior. Despite familiarity with the executed task and knowledge of auditing standards, as a result of the greater use of algorithmic reasoning the auditors' judgments were similar to that of accountants. On the other hand, the accountants' greater cognitive e ort, due to the experiencing of greater con ict in the decision-making process, made them use more quantic brain processing abilities, which are responsible for conscious reasoning. is was observed in the maximizations (minimizations) of the estimates in brain areas related to concerns with the judgments' social repercussions, which culminated in some degree of "conservatism" in their decisions. Furthermore, these ndings reveal another opportunity to discuss the assumption of the brain as the original accounting institution.

show abstract

Section: Belief Revision Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Belief Revision Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Belief Revision Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neuroaccountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cognitive brain mapping of auditors and accountants in going concern judgments

Júnior

Cornacchione

Rocha

et al. 2017

Rev. contab. finanç.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our study develops and uses a new methodology for analyzing journal citations to recent publications to determine which management journals now have the greatest influence on the field of management. It analyzes the 23637 academic journal references cited in the 1275 articles published in 17 key management journals during 1993 and 1994, focusing on citations to references published up to the modal vintage of 4 years earlier. Most cited as a percentage of all these references was Strategic Management Journal (11%), followed by Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, and Journal of Management—accounting in total for 51 percent of all citations. Strategic Management Journal, whose subfield of strategic management has become a major concern of management in general, has developed as the predominant academic journal influencing the field of management. Our measures of journal influence provide information which can aid management scholars, practitioners, department heads, and university libraries to decide on efficient choices of journals for research and for manuscript submissions, for evaluation, and for subscriptions. Just seven management and social science journals, led by Strategic Management Journal, contain more than half of the cited articles published recently. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract