Content area
Full text
INTRODUCTION
In 1974, Ashton conducted the first research study which systematically analyzed auditors' judgments. Since that time, considerable research effort has examined numerous issues related to the audit judgment process.(1) The results suggest that auditors are subject to many of the heuristics and biases (e.g., representativeness, anchoring and adjustment, and order effects) identified in cognitive psychology. However, these biases are often mitigated or modified in an audit setting (Smith and Kida 1991). Tetlock (1985a) has suggested that the cognitive research paradigm is too restrictive if judgment and decision-making are to be fully understood. In particular, he argues that it is necessary to consider the effects of the social environment faced by a decision maker. He proposed that it is necessary "to identify the behavioral strategies that people have developed for coping with fundamental or invariant features of natural decision environments (features likely to be present at least to some degree in all social and organizational settings)" (306).
One feature of most natural decision environments is the need for individuals to account for (or justify) their judgments to themselves and others (Schlenker 1980; Schlenker and Weigold 1989; Staw 1980; Tetlock 1985a). Tetlock (1985a, 307) has stated:
Accountability is a critical rule and norm enforcement mechanism: the social psychological link between individual decision makers on one hand and the social systems to which they belong on the other. The fact that people are accountable for their decisions is an implicit or explicit constraint upon all consequential acts they undertake.
Accountability would seem to be an especially important part of the judgment process for certain professions (e.g., medicine, legal, and auditing). Because of the consequences of their work product, professionals in these fields are always faced with the prospect of being held accountable for their judgments or actions. In auditing, Ashton et al. (1989, 130) have stated that "because of the environment, the professional auditor must be prepared to justify, document, and take responsibility for his/her judgments and decisions." Until recently, examination of such accountability effects has received little attention in audit judgment research.
The importance of accountability to the auditor's judgment process is supported by a questionnaire study conducted by Gibbins and Emby (1984; Emby and Gibbins 1988. The Gibbins and Emby study examined the qualities and...