Predecisional distortion of information by auditors and salespersons

Management Science

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 13-27

  Russo, J Edward ^a   Meloy, Margaret G ^a   Wilks, T Jeffrey ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN ENGINEERING; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MANAGEMENT SCIENCE; PERSONNEL; STUDENTS; SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL;

ACCOUNTABILITY; BIAS IN JUDGMENTS; INFORMATION DISTORTION;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 0033884694     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.46.1.13.15127     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Arens, A., J. Loebbecke. 1991. Auditing. An Integrated Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. Aschenbrenner, K. M., D. Albert, F. Schmalhofer. 1984. Stochastic choice heuristics. Acta Psych. 56 153-166.
3. Barad, E. 1987. Wishful thinking and objectivity among sports fans. Social Behavior 2 231-240.
4. Bockenholt, U., D. Albert, K. M. Aschenbrenner, F. Schmalhofer. 1991. The effects of attractiveness, dominance, and attribute differences on information acquisition in multiattribute binary choice. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 49 258-281.
5. Busemeyer, J. R., J. T. Townsend. 1993. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. 100 (3) 432-459.
6. Chaiken, S., D. Maheswaran. 1994. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J. Personality and Social Psych. 66 (3) 460-473.
7. Cuccia, A., K. Hackenbrack, M. Nelson. 1995. The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting. Accounting Rev. 70 (2) 227-248.
8. Doney, P. M., G. M. Armstrong. 1996. Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 24 (1) 57-65.
9. Elliott, A. J., P. G. Devine. 1994. On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance. J. Personality and Social Psych. 67 382-394.
10. Frey, D. 1986. Recent research on selective exposure to information. L. Berkowitz, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, 41-80.
11. Gilovich, T. 1991. Chapter 5: Seeing what we want to see: Motivational determinants of belief. How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. The Free Press, New York, 75-87.
12. Glover, S. 1997. The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditor's processing of nondiagnostic information. J. Accounting Res. 35 213-226.
13. Hackenbrack, K., M. Nelson. 1996. Auditors' incentives and their application of financial accounting standards. Accounting Rev. 71 (1) 43-59.
14. Hastorf, A. H., H. Cantril. 1954. They saw a game: A case study. J. Abnormal and Social Psych. 49 129-134.
15. Hirst, D. E. 1992. Discussion of the effects of accountability on judgment: Development of hypotheses for auditing. Auditing: A J. of Practice & Theory (Supplement) 11 139-151.
16. Hoffman, V., J. Patton. 1997. Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments. J. Accounting Res. 35 227-237.
17. Jarvis, W. B. G., R. E. Petty. 1996. The need to evaluate. J. Personality and Social Psych. 70 (1) 172-194.
18. Johnson, E. J., J. W. Payne. 1985. Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Sci. 31 394-414.
19. Keinan, G., N. Friedland, Y. Ben-Porath. 1987. Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under physical threat. Acta Psych. 64 219-228.
20. Koehler, J. J. 1993. The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56 28-55.
21. Kunda, Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psych. Bull. 108 480-498.
22. Lerner, J. S., P. E. Tetlock. 1999. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psych. Bull. 125 (2) 255-275.
23. Meloy, M. G. 1999. Affect-driven distortion of product information. Working Paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
24. Mill, J. S. 1926. On Liberty. MacMillan, New York.
25. Montgomery, H. 1983. Decision rules and the search for dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, A. Vari, eds. Analyzing and Aiding Decision Processes. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
26. Olsen, R. A. 1997. Desirability bias among professional investment managers: Some evidence from experts. J. Behavioral Decision Making 10 65-72.
27. Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman, E. J. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
28. Peterson, R. A., M. Sauber. 1983. A mood scale for survey research. Patrick Murphy et al., eds. American Marketing Association Educator's Proceedings, The American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 409-414.
29. Poses, R. M., M. Anthony. 1991. Availability, wishful thinking, physicians' diagnostic judgments for patients with suspected bacteremia. Medical Decision Making 11 (3) 159-168.
30. Russo, J. E. 1987. Toward intelligent product information systems. J. Consumer Policy 10 109-138.
31. _, B. A. Dosher. 1983. Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learning, Memory and Cognition 9 676-696.
32. _, V. H. Medvec, M. G. Meloy. 1996. The distortion of information during decisions. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66 (1) 102-110.
33. _, M. G. Meloy, V. H. Medvec. 1998. The distortion of product information during brand choice. J. Marketing Res. 35 (4) 438-452.
34. Schwarz, N., B. Knauper, H. J. Hippler, E. Noelle-Neumann, L. Clark. 1991. Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quart. 55 570-582.
35. Shelton, S. 1998. The effect of experience on the use of nondiagnostic evidence in auditor judgment. Working Paper, DePaul University, Chicago, IL.
36. Siegel-Jacobs, K. 1993. Effects of procedure- and outcome-oriented accountability on judgment quality. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
37. Simonson, I. 1989. Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects, J. Consumer Res. 16 158-174.
38. _, S. M. Nowlis. 1997. Components of accountability: The effects of providing reasons and being evaluated on consumer choice. Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA and Arizona State University,
39. _, P. Nye. 1992. The effects of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organ. Behavior and Human Decision Processes 51 416-446.
40. Smith, J. F., T. Kida. 1991. Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. Psych. Bull. 109 (3) 472-489.
41. Sniezek, J. A., T. Buckley. 1991. Level of confidence depends on level of aggregation. J. Behavioral Decision Making 4 263-272.
42. Svenson, O. 1992. Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre-and postdecision processes. Acta Psych. 80 143-168.
43. Tetlock, P. E. 1985. Accountability: the neglected social context of judgment and choice. B. Staw, L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT: 297-332.
44. _. 1992. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. M. Zanna, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York.
45. _, R. Boettger. 1989. Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. J. Personality and Social Psych.: Attitudes and Social Cognition 57 388-398.
46. _, _. 1994. Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. J. Behavioral Decision Making 7 1-23.
47. Wilks, T. J. 1999. Predecisional distortion of evidence and real-time audit review. Working Paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
48. Wilson, T. D., N. Brekke. 1994. Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psych. Bull. 116 (1) 117-142.