Determinants of confidence and their effect on epistemic judgments: Implications for auditor calibration bias

Steven Ronald Hornik, Florida International University

Abstract

Auditor decisions regarding the causes of accounting misstatements can have an audit effectiveness and efficiency. Specifically, overconfidence in one's decision can lead to an ineffective audit, whereas underconfidence in one's decision can lead to an inefficient audit. This dissertation explored the implications of providing various types of information cues to decision-makers regarding an Analytical Procedure task and investigated the relationship between different types of evidence cues (confirming, disconfirming, redundant or non-redundant) and the reduction in calibration bias. Information was collected using a laboratory experiment, from 45 accounting students participants. Research questions were analyzed using a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subject and within-subject analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). ^ Results indicated that presenting subjects with information cues dissimilar to the choice they made is an effective intervention in reducing the common overconfidence found in decision-making. In addition, other information characteristics, specifically non-redundant information can help in reducing a decision-maker's overconfidence/calibration bias for difficulty (compared to easy) decision-tasks. ^

Subject Area

Business Administration, Accounting|Psychology, Behavioral|Psychology, Industrial

Recommended Citation

Hornik, Steven Ronald, "Determinants of confidence and their effect on epistemic judgments: Implications for auditor calibration bias" (1999). ProQuest ETD Collection for FIU. AAI9929715.
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/dissertations/AAI9929715

Share

COinS