Iranian Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance

Iranian Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance

Judgment and Decision-Making in Accounting and Auditing: The Perspective of the Individual, Task, and Environment

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Kazem Rahimi
Alireza Mehrazin
Zahra Noori Toupkanlu
Mohsen Moradi
Department of Accounting, Neyshabur Branch, Islamic Azad University, Neyshabur, Iran
10.22067/ijaaf.2026.46780.1509
Abstract
Considering the individual, task, and environment perspectives, this study examined judgment and decision-making in accounting and auditing. The research variables included auditor financial knowledge, auditor experience, audit environment risk, internal controls in the audit environment, time-budget pressure in auditing, and the quality of judgment and decision-making. These variables were based on a researcher-designed questionnaire and previous researchers' questionnaires, including those of Boone (1996), Bagley (2010), and Krishnan (2012), each of which has investigated these variables. A ten-year study of Tehran Stock Exchange-listed companies was conducted from 2012 to 2022. Data were collected through standardized questionnaires. The R software analyzed and fit the data to the ten research hypotheses. The results indicated a significant correlation between financial knowledge, experience, environmental risk, internal controls, and financial knowledge with the quality of judgment and decision-making by accountants. However, no significant correlation was found between work pressure and the quality of judgment and decision-making. The findings highlighted the importance of employing highly knowledgeable and skilled accountants, creating a secure environment, improving internal controls, and reducing high work pressure. Accountants can improve their judgment and decision-making by establishing such environments to improve data entry and processing accuracy.
Keywords
Judgment and Decision-making in Accounting
Judgment and Decision-making in Auditing
Individual Perspective
Task and Environment
Tehran Stock Exchange
Subjects
  1. Al-Najjar, B. and Clark, E. (2017). Corporate governance and cash holdings in MENA: Evidence from internal and external governance practices. Research in International Business and Finance, 39, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.07.030
  2. Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), pp. 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800304
  3. Anderson, J. C., Jennings, M. M., Lowe, D. J. and Reckers, P. M. (1997). The Mitigation of Hindsight Bias in Judges' Evaluation of Auditor Decisions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 16(2), pp. 1–18.
  4. Asare, S. K. and McDaniel, L. S. (1996). The effects of familiarity with the preparer and task complexity on the effectiveness of the audit review process. Accounting Review, 1(1), pp. 139-159.
  5. Ashton, A. H. (1991). Experience and error frequency knowledge as potential determinants of audit expertise. Accounting Review, 218-239.
  6. Ashton, R. H. and Ashton, A. H. (Eds.). (1995). Judgment and decision-making research in accounting and auditing. Cambridge University Press, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge.
  7. Ashton, R. H. and Kramer, S. S. (1980). Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: Some evidence. Journal of Accounting research, 1(1), 1-15.
  8. Bagley, P. L. (2010). Negative affect: A consequence of multiple accountabilities in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(2), pp. 141-157. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2010.29.2.141
  9. Bedard, J. C. (1989). An Archival Investigation of Audit Program Planning. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 9(1), pp. 1-22.
  10. Bedard, J. C. and Biggs, S. F. (1991). Pattern recognition, hypotheses generation, and auditor performance in an analytical task. Accounting Review, 1(1), pp. 622-642.
  11. Bonner, S. E. (1994). A model of the effects of audit task complexity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(3), pp. 213-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(94)90033-7
  12. Bonner, S. E. (1999). Judgment and decision-making research in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 13(4), p. 385.
  13. Bonner, S. E., Davis, J. S. and Jackson, B. R. (1992). Expertise in corporate tax planning: The issue indentification stage. Journal of Accounting Research, 30(1), pp. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491190
  14. Boo, E. F. and Sharma, D. (2008). Effect of regulatory oversight on the association between internal governance characteristics and audit fees. Accounting & Finance, 48(1), pp. 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00229.x
  15. Boone, M. (1996). Decision-Making in Health: Northern and Rural Health Planning. In Management, Technology and Human Resources Policy in the Arctic (The North) (pp. 461-468). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, Van Godewijckstraat, Dordrecht.
  16. Boritz, J. E. (1986). The effect of research method on audit planning and review judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 24(2), pp. 335-348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491137
  17. Brown, C. E. and Solomon, I. (1991). Configural information processing in auditing: The role of domain-specific knowledge. Accounting Review, 66(1), pp. 100-119.
  18. Butler, S. A. (1985). Application of a decision aid in the judgmental evaluation of substantive test of details samples. Journal of Accounting Research, 513-526. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490824
  19. Butt, J. L. and Campbell, T. L. (1989). The effects of information order and hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(5-6), pp. 471-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(89)90012-3
  20. Cahan, S. F. and Sun, J. (2015). The effect of audit experience on audit fees and audit quality. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 30(1), pp. 78-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X14544503
  21. Chong, V. K. and Monroe, G. S. (2015). The impact of the antecedents and consequences of job burnout on junior accountants' turnover intentions: a structural equation modelling approach. Accounting & Finance, 55(1), pp. 105-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12049
  22. Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G. and Wright, A. M. (2002). Corporate governance and the audit process. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(4), pp. 573-594. https://doi.org/10.1506/983M-EPXG-4Y0R-J9YK
  23. DeZoort, F. T. and Salterio, S. E. (2001). The effects of corporate governance experience and financial‐reporting and audit knowledge on audit committee members' judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(2), pp. 31-47.
  24. Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), pp. 288-307.
  25. Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), pp. 301-325. https://doi.org/10.1086/467037
  26. Frederick, D. M. and Heiman-Hoffman, V. B. (1994). The Structure of Auditors' Knowledge of Financial Statement Errors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13(1), pp. 1-22.
  27. Frederick, D. M. and Libby, R. (1986). Expertise and auditors' judgments of conjunctive events. Journal of Accounting Research, 1(1), pp. 270-290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491134
  28. Gul, F. A., Wu, D. and Yang, Z. (2013). Do individual auditors affect audit quality? Evidence from archival data. The Accounting Review, 88(6), pp. 1993-2023. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50536
  29. Hoag, M., Myring, M. and Schroeder, J. (2017). Has Sarbanes-Oxley standardized audit quality?. American Journal of Business, 32(1), pp. 2-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-05-2015-0016
  30. Hooper, C. and Trotman, K. T. (1996). Configural information processing in auditing: further evidence. Accounting and Business Research, 26(2), pp. 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1996.9729504
  31. Humphrey, C. (2008). Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), pp. 170-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810854392
  32. Kadous, K. and Magro, A. M. (2001). The effects of exposure to practice risk on tax professionals' judgements and recommendations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(3), pp. 451-475. https://doi.org/10.1506/TF76-653L-R36N-13YP
  33. Kadous, K., Magro, A. M. and Spilker, B. C. (2008). Do effects of client preference on accounting professionals' information search and subsequent judgments persist with high practice risk?. The Accounting Review, 83(1), pp. 133-156. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.1.133
  34. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11(2), pp. 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90022-1
  35. Kida, T. (1984). The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors' use of judgment data. Journal of Accounting Research, 21(1), pp. 332-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490714
  36. Klayman, J. and Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), p. 211. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211
  37. Krishnan, T. N. (2012). An exploratory study on executive management education through technology mediated distance learning in India. Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(7), pp. 389-397. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851211267965
  38. Libby, R. and Lewis, B. L. (1982). Human information processing research in accounting: The state of the art in 1982. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7(3), pp. 231-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(82)90004-6
  39. Libby, R. and Luft, J. (1993). Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(5), pp. 425-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)90040-D
  40. Libby, R. and Tan, H. T. (1995). The role of knowledge and memory in audit judgment. Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing, 1, pp. 176-206.
  41. Lord, C. G., Ross, L. and Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), p. 2098. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
  42. Nelson, M. and Tan, H. T. (2005). Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(s-1), pp. 41-71. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2005.24.s-1.41
  43. Ng, T. B. P. and Tan, H. T. (2003). Effects of authoritative guidance availability and audit committee effectiveness on auditors' judgments in an auditor‐client negotiation context. The Accounting Review, 78(3), pp. 801-818. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.801
  44. Phillips, F. (1999). Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(1), pp. 167-189. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491402
  45. Poursoltani Zarandi, S., Beheshtifar, M. and Nikpour, A. (2024). Presenting a human resource auditing model with the approach of functional and macro level strategies in hospitals affiliated to social security organization. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 15(4), pp. 209-216.
  46. Roychowdhury, S. (2006). Earnings management through real activities manipulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(3), pp. 335-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2006.01.002
  47. Sharaf, H. A. and Mautz, R. K. (1960). An operational concept of independence. Journal of Accountancy, 109(000004), p. 49.
  48. Solomon, I. and Trotman, K. T. (2003). Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: The first 25 years of AOS. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), pp. 395-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00023-5
  49. Solomon, I., Shields, M. D. and Whittington, O. R. (1999). What do industry-specialist auditors know?. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(1), pp. 191-208. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491403
  50. Tan, H. T. and Kao, A. (1999). Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(1), pp. 209-223. https://doi.org/10.2307/2491404
  51. Trotman, D. (2006). Evaluating the Imaginative: Situated Practice and the Conditions for Professional Judgement in Imaginative Education. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 7(3), pp. 1-20.
  52. Trotman, K. T. and Sng, J. (1989). The effect of hypothesis framing, prior expectations and cue diagnosticity on auditors' information choice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(5-6), pp. 565-576. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(89)90019-6
  53. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), pp. 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  54. Waller, W. S. and Felix Jr, W. I. (1984). The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(3-4), 383-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(84)90021-7
  55. Watkins, A. L., Hillison, W. and Morecroft, S. E. (2004). Audit quality: A synthesis of theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Accounting Literature, 23, p. 153.
  56. Wright, A. and Ashton, R. H. (1989). Identifying audit adjustments with attention-directing procedures. Accounting Review, 64(4), pp. 710-728.
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.