The results of this study provide a

The results of this study provide additional insights into the judgment processes of professional auditors. The study investigated whether group decision making can moderate the severity of recency effects predicted by Hogarth and Einhorn's (1992) belief-adjustment model. Although experienced managers were found to be susceptible to recency effects, the results suggest that teamwork tempered the severity of recency bias. The recency effect reported in several experiments with audit practitioners, and replicated here in the test of H^,. was alleviated in the test of H^^. when groups made the judgments. Interestingly, audit report choices were not systematically affected by evidence order. This suggests that whereas judgments are prone to anchoring and adjustment processes, reporting choices (audit report) perhaps are more prone to context effects. Auditors may reach different judgments about the going-concern status of a client, but still be consistent in their choice of an audit report if, for example, they have different thresholds.
In real audit engagements, audit teams are engaged in many activities, which enhance their cognitive involvement and thus may be the basis for the mitigation of recency bias. Judgment biases such as recency may be even less likely in real audit settings because audit team judgments are less likely to be biased due to the order in which evidence is received and evaluated. However, large standard deviations obtained for the two group conditions suggest that there are differences between expert groups. The results also suggest that professional skepticism is not (unduly) exacerbated or mitigated in a group setting since group responses to contrary (mitigating) information were not as negative (positive) as that of individual responses.
The investigation of individual and group memory and confidence provides insights into superiority of group memory over individual memory. Group processing of evidence itself improves the memory of its members. The results also reveal that although individual judgments are susceptible to recency effects, their memory is not. Order effects, apparently, do not persist in long-term memory. The results, nonetheless, show that reduced order effects are associated with groups' greater recognition for the factual information. The group context could have minimized the order effect because of any number of reasons. It is possible that the presence of others minimized the amount of change that the manager (or group as a whole) was willing to make after any particular piece of information, or that group used an additive strategy to combine information, instead of an anchoring and adjustment strategy. As indicated by their superior memory performance, it is also possible that group processing of evidence encouraged greater attention, comprehension, and recall. Such effort-inducing, involvement-enhancing techniques seemigly mitigate biases.
The benefits of using audit teams extend to superior comprehension and recall of evidence and to judgments that are less biased. We may also conclude that since ^rowp judgments were found to be less biased, audit firms need not reassess their procedures for evidence evaluation to overcome a bias (recency) replicated to varying degrees in a plethora oi' studies. However, the wide range of group responses also revealed a level of disagreement between groups, even though their judgments, on average, were less biased.
Memory errors can expose auditors to excessive audit risk. However, group assistance can improve memory accuracy without over or undermining confidence. Since groups exhibit greater validity in their confidence regarding the correctness of their recognition responses, it could be the basis for better decision strategies. For example, group members may not engage in lengthy discussions or exert much effort when the group is confident that an item is correct. For items about which the group is not confident that they arc correct, group members could use their efforts to identify correct memories or to figure out the correct response. Thus, member confidence could significantly infiucnce decision
processes.
This study builds upon Kennedy's (1993) and Cushing and Ahlawat's (1996) work by explaining bow factors (other than accountability, documentation) that are relevant to an auditing environment, mitigate recency effects. A team effort stimulated more accurate recognition of relevant evidence, suggesting greater attention to and comprehension of audit evidence. Although controlled experimentation is one of the best available means of learning about auditor behavior, and thus improving the efiiciency and effectiveness of the audit process, a cautionary note against relying too heavily on experimental evidence is called for. since audit settings differ from experimental settings in important

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Hasil penelitian ini memberikan tambahan wawasan proses penilaian profesional auditor. Studi ini meneliti apakah pengambilan keputusan berkelompok dapat moderat keparahan efek jangka waktu kunjungan terakhir yang diramalkan oleh Hogarth dan Einhorn's kepercayaan-penyesuaian (1992) model. Meskipun manajer yang berpengalaman yang ditemukan untuk menjadi rentan terhadap efek kemutakhiran, hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa kerja sama marah keparahan kemutakhiran bias. Efek jangka dilaporkan di beberapa eksperimen dengan praktisi audit, dan direplikasi di sini dalam tes h ^,. dikurangi dalam ujian H ^ ^. ketika kelompok membuat penilaian. Menariknya, audit laporan pilihan secara sistematis tidak terpengaruh oleh bukti. Ini menunjukkan bahwa sedangkan penilaian rentan terhadap proses penahan dan penyesuaian, pilihan pelaporan (laporan audit) mungkin lebih rentan terhadap efek konteks. Auditor dapat mencapai penilaian yang berbeda tentang status keberlangsungan klien, tapi masih menjadi konsisten dalam pilihan mereka laporan audit jika, misalnya, mereka memiliki ambang batas yang berbeda.In real audit engagements, audit teams are engaged in many activities, which enhance their cognitive involvement and thus may be the basis for the mitigation of recency bias. Judgment biases such as recency may be even less likely in real audit settings because audit team judgments are less likely to be biased due to the order in which evidence is received and evaluated. However, large standard deviations obtained for the two group conditions suggest that there are differences between expert groups. The results also suggest that professional skepticism is not (unduly) exacerbated or mitigated in a group setting since group responses to contrary (mitigating) information were not as negative (positive) as that of individual responses.The investigation of individual and group memory and confidence provides insights into superiority of group memory over individual memory. Group processing of evidence itself improves the memory of its members. The results also reveal that although individual judgments are susceptible to recency effects, their memory is not. Order effects, apparently, do not persist in long-term memory. The results, nonetheless, show that reduced order effects are associated with groups' greater recognition for the factual information. The group context could have minimized the order effect because of any number of reasons. It is possible that the presence of others minimized the amount of change that the manager (or group as a whole) was willing to make after any particular piece of information, or that group used an additive strategy to combine information, instead of an anchoring and adjustment strategy. As indicated by their superior memory performance, it is also possible that group processing of evidence encouraged greater attention, comprehension, and recall. Such effort-inducing, involvement-enhancing techniques seemigly mitigate biases.The benefits of using audit teams extend to superior comprehension and recall of evidence and to judgments that are less biased. We may also conclude that since ^rowp judgments were found to be less biased, audit firms need not reassess their procedures for evidence evaluation to overcome a bias (recency) replicated to varying degrees in a plethora oi' studies. However, the wide range of group responses also revealed a level of disagreement between groups, even though their judgments, on average, were less biased.Memory errors can expose auditors to excessive audit risk. However, group assistance can improve memory accuracy without over or undermining confidence. Since groups exhibit greater validity in their confidence regarding the correctness of their recognition responses, it could be the basis for better decision strategies. For example, group members may not engage in lengthy discussions or exert much effort when the group is confident that an item is correct. For items about which the group is not confident that they arc correct, group members could use their efforts to identify correct memories or to figure out the correct response. Thus, member confidence could significantly infiucnce decisionprocesses. This study builds upon Kennedy's (1993) and Cushing and Ahlawat's (1996) work by explaining bow factors (other than accountability, documentation) that are relevant to an auditing environment, mitigate recency effects. A team effort stimulated more accurate recognition of relevant evidence, suggesting greater attention to and comprehension of audit evidence. Although controlled experimentation is one of the best available means of learning about auditor behavior, and thus improving the efiiciency and effectiveness of the audit process, a cautionary note against relying too heavily on experimental evidence is called for. since audit settings differ from experimental settings in important

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Hasil penelitian ini memberikan wawasan tambahan ke dalam proses penilaian auditor profesional. Penelitian ini menyelidiki apakah pengambilan keputusan kelompok dapat memoderasi keparahan efek kebaruan diprediksi oleh Hogarth dan Einhorn (1992) Model keyakinan-penyesuaian. Meskipun manajer berpengalaman yang ditemukan rentan terhadap efek kebaruan, hasil menunjukkan bahwa kerja tim marah keparahan bias kebaruan. Efek kebaruan dilaporkan dalam beberapa percobaan dengan praktisi audit, dan direplikasi di sini di uji H ^ ,. itu diringankan dalam uji H ^^. ketika kelompok membuat penilaian. Menariknya, pilihan laporan audit tidak sistematis terpengaruh oleh perintah bukti. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa sementara penilaian rentan terhadap penahan dan proses penyesuaian, pelaporan pilihan (laporan audit) mungkin lebih rentan terhadap efek konteks. Auditor dapat mencapai penilaian yang berbeda tentang status berlangsung concern dari klien, tetapi masih konsisten dalam pilihan mereka dari laporan audit jika, misalnya, mereka memiliki ambang batas yang berbeda.
Dalam perikatan audit nyata, tim audit yang terlibat dalam banyak kegiatan, yang meningkatkan keterlibatan kognitif mereka dan dengan demikian dapat menjadi dasar untuk mitigasi bias kebaruan. Bias penilaian seperti kebaruan mungkin bahkan tidak mungkin dalam pengaturan pemeriksaan nyata karena penilaian tim audit cenderung menjadi bias karena urutan bukti diterima dan dievaluasi. Namun, standar deviasi besar diperoleh untuk dua kondisi kelompok menunjukkan bahwa ada perbedaan antara kelompok ahli. Hasil penelitian juga menunjukkan bahwa skeptisisme profesional tidak (terlalu) diperburuk atau dikurangi dalam grup karena tanggapan kelompok yang bertentangan (mitigasi) informasi tidak negatif (positif) seperti yang respon individu.
Penyelidikan memori dan keyakinan individu dan kelompok memberikan wawasan ke dalam superioritas memori kelompok lebih memori individu. Pengolahan kelompok bukti itu sendiri meningkatkan memori anggotanya. Hasil penelitian juga mengungkapkan bahwa meskipun penilaian individu yang rentan terhadap efek kebaruan, memori mereka tidak. Efek Order, tampaknya, tidak bertahan dalam memori jangka panjang. Hasilnya, tetap, menunjukkan bahwa mengurangi efek rangka berhubungan dengan pengakuan kelompok 'yang lebih besar untuk informasi faktual. Konteks kelompok bisa diminimalkan efek urutan karena sejumlah alasan. Ada kemungkinan bahwa kehadiran orang lain meminimalkan jumlah perubahan bahwa manajer (atau kelompok secara keseluruhan) bersedia untuk membuat setelah setiap bagian tertentu dari informasi, atau kelompok yang digunakan strategi aditif untuk menggabungkan informasi, bukan sebuah anchoring dan strategi penyesuaian. Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh kinerja memori unggul, juga mungkin bahwa pengolahan sekelompok bukti mendorong lebih perhatian, pemahaman, dan mengingat. Upaya-merangsang, teknik keterlibatan-meningkatkan seperti seemigly mengurangi bias.
Manfaat menggunakan tim audit yang mencakup pemahaman superior dan mengingat bukti dan penilaian yang kurang bias. Kami juga dapat menyimpulkan bahwa sejak ^ penilaian rowp ditemukan kurang bias, perusahaan audit tidak perlu menilai kembali prosedur mereka untuk evaluasi bukti untuk mengatasi bias (kebaruan) direplikasi ke berbagai tingkat di sejumlah oi 'studi. Namun, berbagai tanggapan kelompok juga mengungkapkan tingkat perselisihan antara kelompok, meskipun penilaian mereka, rata-rata, kurang bias.
Kesalahan Memory dapat mengekspos auditor untuk risiko audit yang berlebihan. Namun, bantuan kelompok dapat meningkatkan akurasi memori tanpa atas atau merusak kepercayaan. Sejak kelompok menunjukkan validitas lebih besar dalam keyakinan mereka mengenai kebenaran tanggapan pengakuan mereka, itu bisa menjadi dasar untuk strategi keputusan yang lebih baik. Misalnya, anggota kelompok tidak boleh terlibat dalam diskusi panjang atau mengerahkan banyak usaha ketika kelompok yakin bahwa item benar. Untuk item tentang kelompok mana yang tidak yakin bahwa mereka busur benar, anggota kelompok dapat menggunakan upaya mereka untuk mengidentifikasi kenangan benar atau untuk mengetahui respon yang benar. Dengan demikian, kepercayaan diri anggota secara signifikan dapat infiucnce keputusan
proses.
Penelitian ini dibangun berdasarkan Kennedy (1993) dan Cushing dan Ahlawat (1996) karya menjelaskan faktor busur (selain akuntabilitas, dokumentasi) yang relevan dengan lingkungan audit, mengurangi efek kebaruan. Upaya tim dirangsang pengakuan yang lebih akurat dari bukti yang relevan, menunjukkan perhatian yang lebih besar dan pemahaman dari bukti audit. Meskipun eksperimen terkontrol adalah salah satu cara terbaik yang tersedia untuk belajar tentang perilaku auditor, dan dengan demikian meningkatkan efiiciency dan efektivitas proses audit, catatan penting terhadap terlalu mengandalkan pada bukti eksperimental disebut untuk. karena pengaturan audit yang berbeda dari pengaturan eksperimental di penting