Does Attribute Framing Exist in Audit Decision Aid?

Dovi Septiari, Goedono Goedono

Abstract


This study aims to test the framing effect in audit decision aid. The research employs a between-subject experimental design involving 56 undergraduate students as the sample. The dependent variable is the tendency to follow the aid recommendation which is measured using Gomaa, Hunton, Vaassen, and Carree's (2011) scenario. Framing effect is manipulated as follows: (1) positive framing, (2) negative framing. The result shows that framing effect exists in audit decision aid, especially, in how the aid reliability presented (positive or negative) influences the final participant's decision. This research seeks to contribute to the development of framing theory, particularly to test the framing phenomena in audit decision aid. Previous studies on this realm focus on health, politic, finance, business, and marketing areas and only a few studies are found discussing this issue in the auditing area. The result would also be useful in the practical field where it should now be obvious that an auditor should never be over-reliant on decision aid. Decision aid can indeed make decision bias if the auditor thinks using only the aid is enough to make a decision and forgets to use professional judgment. The result of the study gives a warning to auditors that the way information on the reliability of a decision aid is presented can make a decision bias.

Keywords


attribute framing; decision aid; auditor decision, audit context

Full Text:

Download Article

References


Alewine, H. C., Allport, C. D., & Shen, W. C. M. (2016). How measurement framing and accounting information system evaluation mode influence environmental performance judgments. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 23, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2016.10.002

Alon, A., & Dwyer, P. (2010). The impact of groups and decision aid reliance on fraud risk assessment. Management Research Review, 33(3), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171011030390

Bateman, C. R., Fraedrich, J. P., & Iyer, R. (2002). Framing effects within the ethical decision making process of consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1-2), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014229124279

Bizer, G. Y., Larsen, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Exploring the valence-framing effect: Negative framing enhances attitude strength. Political Psychology, 32(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00795.x

Boritz, J. E. (1997). Debiasing framing effects in auditors’ internal control judgements and testing. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(2), 79–88. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9710215726&site=ehost-live

Brown, D. L., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Factors that Influence Reliance on Decision Aids : A Model and an Experiment. Journal of Information Systems, 12(2), 75–94. Retreived from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=99288

Cassotti, M., Habib, M., Poirel, N., Aïte, A., Houdé, O., & Moutier, S. (2012). Positive emotional context eliminates the framing effect in decision-making. Emotion, 12(5), 926–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026788

Cheng, F.-F., & Wu, C.-S. (2010). Debiasing the framing effect: The effect of warning and involvement. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 328–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.04.002

Cheng, F. F., Wu, C. S., & Lin, H. H. (2014). Reducing the influence of framing on internet consumers’ decisions: The role of elaboration. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.015

Dowling, C., & Leech, S. (2007). Audit support systems and decision aids : Current practice and opportunities for future research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 8, 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2007.04.001

Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P. (2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7

Edwards, K. (1996). Prospect theory: A literature review. International Review of Financial Analysis, 5(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-5219(96)90004-6

Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7

Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010). How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(12), 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9

Goh, K. H., & Bockstedt, J. C. (2013). The framing effects of multipart pricing on consumer purchasing behavior of customized information good bundles. Information Systems Research, 24(2), 334–351. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0428

Gomaa, M. I., Hunton, J. E., Vaassen, E. H. J., & Carree, M. A. (2011). Decision aid reliance: Modeling the effects of decision aid reliability and pressures to perform on reliance behavior. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 12(3), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.02.001

Grinblatt, M., & Han, B. (2005). Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum. Journal of Financial Economics, 78(2), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.10.006

Heynitz, H. v., Bremicker, M., & Amadori, D. M. (2016). The factory of the future. KPMG Guide, (468, 1990), 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.1987.1105295

Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 343–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610374586

Johnson, R. D., & Levin, I. P. (1985). More than Meets the Eye: The Effect of Missing Information on Purchase Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.2307/254349

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Kramer, R. M. (1989). Windows of vulnerability or cognitive illusions? Cognitive processes and the nuclear arms race. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(89)90040-1

Lacson, F. C., Wiegmann, D. A., & Madhavan, P. (2005). Effects of Attribute and Goal Framing on Automation Reliance and Compliance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(3), 482–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900357

Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1(46), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50

Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374. https://doi.org/10.1086/209174

Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2983

Levin, I. P., Johnson, R. D., Russo, C. P., & Deldin, P. J. (1985). Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 362–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90005-6

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

Loke, W. H., & Tan, K. F. (1992). Effects of framing and missing information in expert and novice judgment. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(3), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330437

Lowe, D. J., Reckers, P. M. J., & Whitecotton, S. M. (2002). The Effects of Decision-Aid Use and Reliability on Jurors ’ Evaluations of Auditor Liability. The Accounting Review, 77(1), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2002.77.1.185

Mascha, M. F., & Smedley, G. (2007). Can computerized decision aids do “damage”? A case for tailoring feedback and task complexity based on task experience. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 8(2), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2007.03.001

McKechnie, S., Devlin, J., Ennew, C., & Smith, A. (2012). Effects of discount framing in comparative price advertising. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11), 1501–1522. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211259952

Paul Newman, D. (1980). Prospect theory: Implications for information evaluation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(80)90011-2

Peters, E., Hart, P. S., & Fraenkel, L. (2011). Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10391672

Raghubir, P. (2005). Framing a price bundle: The case of “buy/get” offers. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(2), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510592617

Rönnlund, M., Karlsson, E., Laggnäs, E., Larsson, L., & Lindström, T. (2005). Risky decision making across three arenas of choice: Are younger and older adults differently susceptible to framing effects?. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.3200/genp.132.1.81-93

Shanteau, J. (1989). Cognitive heuristics and biases in behavioural auditing: Review, comments, and observations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(1/2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(89)90040-8

Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for Cognition and Choice Framing Effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199612)9:4<283::AID-BDM241>3.0.CO;2-7

Swinney, L. (1999). Consideration of the social context of auditors’ reliance on expert system output during evaluation of loan loss reserves. International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management, 8(3), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1174(199909)8:3<199::AID-SAF160>3.0.CO;2-A

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Zhang, Z., & Han, B. (2012). The framing effect of coupon value for new products: An empirical study in China. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 22(2), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2011.652643




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jai.2001107

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Office:
Ruang Journal of Accounting and Investment,
Gedung Ki Bagus Hadikusuma (E4) Lantai 2 Pojok Barat, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta,
Jalan Lingkar Selatan, Tamantirto, Kasihan, Bantul, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Website: journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/ai - E-mail: jai@umy.ac.id
Phone: +62 274 387 656 (ext: 334)

Journal of Accounting and Investment is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.