IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijoais/v12y2011i1p40-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of decision aid structural restrictiveness on decision-making outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Seow, Poh-Sun

Abstract

Decision aids are often designed to direct decision-makers' attention to potential problems or solutions prompted by the decision aid; but in most instances, it is impossible to prompt all possible issues that should be considered in making a decision. Decision aids can induce decision-making biases whereby users focus only on the issues identified by the decision aid and fail to adequately consider other issues that are not identified by the decision aid. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether restricting how users interact with computerized decision aids affects their performance by limiting their ability to consider other possible problems that may not be prompted by the decision aid. Decision aids often restrict the way a user interacts with a decision aid by the rules embedded within computerized decision aids. A more restrictive design imposes more limits on users by forcing users to adapt their decision-making process to match the decision aid. An experiment was conducted by varying the differential effect of both a more restrictive and less restrictive decision aid on users' decision-making outcomes. Results indicate that more restrictive decision aid affects users' decision-making process by increasing their decision-making bias through reducing their ability to identify items not specifically prompted by the aid. This study shows that the degree of restrictiveness is an important aspect of decision aid design and has implications for both future research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Seow, Poh-Sun, 2011. "The effects of decision aid structural restrictiveness on decision-making outcomes," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 40-56.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijoais:v:12:y:2011:i:1:p:40-56
    DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2010.03.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089510000163
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.accinf.2010.03.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Poppy Lauretta McLeod & Jeffrey K. Liker, 1992. "Electronic Meeting Systems: Evidence from a Low Structure Environment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 195-223, September.
    2. Vicky Arnold & Philip A. Collier & Stewart A. Leech & Steve G. Sutton, 2004. "Impact of intelligent decision aids on expert and novice decision‐makers’ judgments," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 44(1), pages 1-26, March.
    3. Mark S. Silver, 1988. "Descriptive Analysis for Computer-Based Decision Support," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 904-916, December.
    4. Bonner, Se & Lewis, Bl, 1990. "Determinants Of Auditor Expertise," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28, pages 1-20.
    5. Gerardine DeSanctis & Marshall Scott Poole, 1994. "Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 121-147, May.
    6. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    7. MacGregor, Donald & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1988. "Structuring knowledge retrieval: An analysis of decomposed quantitative judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 303-323, December.
    8. Robert Anson & Robert Bostrom & Bayard Wynne, 1995. "An Experiment Assessing Group Support System and Facilitator Effects on Meeting Outcomes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(2), pages 189-208, February.
    9. Stephen K. Asare & Arnold M. Wright, 2004. "The Effectiveness of Alternative Risk Assessment and Program Planning Tools in a Fraud Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 325-352, June.
    10. Bradley C. Wheeler & Joseph S. Valacich, 1996. "Facilitation, GSS, and Training as Sources of Process Restrictiveness and Guidance for Structured Group Decision Making: An Empirical Assessment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 429-450, December.
    11. Pincus, Karen V., 1989. "The efficacy of a red flags questionnaire for assessing the possibility of fraud," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(1-2), pages 153-163, January.
    12. Rose, Jacob M. & Wolfe, Christopher J., 2000. "The effects of system design alternatives on the acquisition of tax knowledge from a computerized tax decision aid," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 285-306, April.
    13. Glover, Steven M. & Prawitt, Douglas F. & Spilker, Brian C., 1997. "The Influence of Decision Aids on User Behavior: Implications for Knowledge Acquisition and Inappropriate Reliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 232-255, November.
    14. Mohammad Abdolmohammadi & Catherine Usoff, 2001. "A longitudinal study of applicable decision aids for detailed tasks in a financial audit," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 139-154, September.
    15. Purvis, S. E. C., 1989. "The effect of audit documentation format on data collection," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 14(5-6), pages 551-563, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivy Munoko & Helen L. Brown-Liburd & Miklos Vasarhelyi, 2020. "The Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Auditing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 209-234, November.
    2. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Koreff, Jared & Weisner, Martin & Sutton, Steve G., 2021. "Data analytics (ab) use in healthcare fraud audits," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    4. Lawson, Bradley P. & Muriel, Leah & Sanders, Paula R., 2017. "A survey on firms' implementation of COSO's 2013 Internal Control–Integrated Framework," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 30-43.
    5. Rikhardsson, Pall & Yigitbasioglu, Ogan, 2018. "Business intelligence & analytics in management accounting research: Status and future focus," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 37-58.
    6. Desai, Vikram & Bucaro, Anthony C. & Kim, Joung W. & Srivastava, Rajendra & Desai, Renu, 2023. "Toward a better expert system for auditor going concern opinions using Bayesian network inflation factors," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Arnold, Vicky & Collier, Philip A. & Leech, Stewart A. & Rose, Jacob M. & Sutton, Steve G., 2023. "Can knowledge based systems be designed to counteract deskilling effects?," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Christine R. Ohlert & Barbara E. Weißenberger, 2020. "Debiasing escalation of commitment: the effectiveness of decision aids to enhance de-escalation," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 405-438, February.
    9. Mălăescu, Irina & Sutton, Steve G., 2015. "The effects of decision aid structural restrictiveness on cognitive load, perceived usefulness, and reuse intentions," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 16-36.
    10. Vicky Arnold, 2018. "The changing technological environment and the future of behavioural research in accounting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(2), pages 315-339, June.
    11. Moll, Jodie & Yigitbasioglu, Ogan, 2019. "The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    12. Sutton, Steve G. & Arnold, Vicky & Holt, Matthew, 2023. "An extension of the theory of technology dominance: Capturing the underlying causal complexity," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arnold, Vicky & Collier, Philip A. & Leech, Stewart A. & Rose, Jacob M. & Sutton, Steve G., 2023. "Can knowledge based systems be designed to counteract deskilling effects?," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    2. Youngjin Kim & Starr Roxanne Hiltz & Murray Turoff, 2002. "Coordination Structures and System Restrictiveness in Distributed Group Support Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 379-404, September.
    3. Cardinaels, Eddy, 2008. "The interplay between cost accounting knowledge and presentation formats in cost-based decision-making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 582-602, August.
    4. Chelley Vician & Gerardine DeSanctis, 2000. "The Impact of Role Training in a User-Driven Group Support System Environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 275-296, July.
    5. Lau, Yeng Wai, 2014. "Aggregated or disaggregated information first?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2376-2384.
    6. Mălăescu, Irina & Sutton, Steve G., 2015. "The effects of decision aid structural restrictiveness on cognitive load, perceived usefulness, and reuse intentions," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 16-36.
    7. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2024. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    9. Dennis, Sean A. & Johnstone, Karla M., 2018. "A natural field experiment examining the joint role of audit partner leadership and subordinates’ knowledge in fraud brainstorming," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 14-28.
    10. Clement, Michael B. & Koonce, Lisa & Lopez, Thomas J., 2007. "The roles of task-specific forecasting experience and innate ability in understanding analyst forecasting performance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 378-398, December.
    11. Glover, Steven M. & Prawitt, Douglas F. & Spilker, Brian C., 1997. "The Influence of Decision Aids on User Behavior: Implications for Knowledge Acquisition and Inappropriate Reliance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 232-255, November.
    12. Herron, Eddward T. & Cornell, Robert M., 2021. "Creativity amidst standardization: Is creativity related to auditors’ recognition of and responses to fraud risk cues?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 314-326.
    13. Carlin Dowling & W. Robert Knechel & Robyn Moroney, 2018. "Public Oversight of Audit Firms: The Slippery Slope of Enforcing Regulation," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 353-380, September.
    14. Ruhnke, Klaus, 2023. "Empirical research frameworks in a changing world: The case of audit data analytics," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    15. Dezoort, F. T., 1998. "An analysis of experience effects on audit committee members' oversight judgments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Jagdish PATHAK & Mary LIND & Mohammad ABDOLMOHAMMADI, 2010. "E-Commerce Audit Judgment Expertise: Does Expertise in System Change Management and Information Technology Auditing Mediate E-Commerce Audit Judgment Expertise?," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 14(1), pages 5-20.
    17. Karim Gassemi, 2019. "Collective Strategy Formulation: An Experimental Research Assessing the Positive Impact of Group Decision Support System on Work Group," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 9(5), pages 150-157.
    18. Hux, Candice T., 2017. "Use of specialists on audit engagements: A research synthesis and directions for future research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 23-51.
    19. Sajda Qureshi & Doug Vogel, 2001. "Adaptiveness in Virtual Teams: Organisational Challenges and Research Directions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 27-46, January.
    20. Lisa Frey, 2018. "Tax certified individual auditors and effective tax rates," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 11(1), pages 77-114, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ijoais:v:12:y:2011:i:1:p:40-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-accounting-information-systems/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.