Relationship Between Attribution Styles and Inability to Make Decisions of Auditors Working in Institutions and Auditing Organizations

Mahdavian Rad, Khodadad; Zabihi, Ali; Faghani Makarani, Khosro

Volume 13 - Articles-1402 MEJDS (2023) 13: 35 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Mahdavian Rad K, Zabihi A, Faghani Makarani K. Relationship Between Attribution Styles and Inability to Make Decisions of Auditors Working in Institutions and Auditing Organizations. MEJDS 2023; 13 :35-35
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2195-en.html

Relationship Between Attribution Styles and Inability to Make Decisions of Auditors Working in Institutions and Auditing Organizations

Khodadad Mahdavian Rad¹

, Ali Zabihi ^*²

, Khosro Faghani Makarani³

1- PhD Student in Accounting, Department of Accounting, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran
3- Associate Professor, Faculty Member, Department of Accounting, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran

Abstract: (1379 Views)

Abstract
Background & Objectives: People employ an internal process to make decisions, a decision–making style. Attribution is the process people use to link events and behaviors to their underlying factors. When humans fail at something, they attribute that failure to reasons and justify it over the lack of control. Optimistic people attribute failure to external, unstable, and other reasons. Dedicated and pessimistic people attribute the cause of failure to inner, stable, and general attributes. In auditing, the effect of these characteristics on judgment, decision–making, and the type of auditor's report and its impact on the decisions of clients of auditor services is essential. So, this study investigated the relationship between attributional styles and the inability to make decisions in auditors working in audit firms and the audit organization.
Methods: The current research was applied in terms of purpose and descriptive correlational in terms of method. The statistical population included all auditors working in auditing firms and the auditing organization in 2019. Using the available sampling method, 310 auditors were selected as a study sample. The measurement tools were the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982) and the General Decision–Making Styles Questionnaire (Scott & Bruce, 1995). Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (the Pearson correlation coefficient) in SPSS version 22.
Results: The results showed a negative and significant relationship between the subscales of decision–making inability and attributional styles in the subscales of stability/instability (positive), internal/external (negative), stability/instability (negative), and general/specific (negative) (p <0.01). The highest correlation coefficients were between rational decision–making style and internal/external subscale (negative) (–0.868) and between intuitive decision–making and general/specific subscale (–0.848). There was a positive and significant relationship between the subscales of inability to make decisions and attributional styles in the internal/external (positive) and general/specific (positive) subscales (p<0.01).
Conclusion: Based on the current research findings, there is a significant relationship between attribution styles and the inability to make decisions. It seems necessary to empower decision–making and proper thinking to reduce auditors' problems.

Keywords: Attribution styles, Disability, Decision making, Auditor

Full-Text [PDF 436 kb] (252 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Psychology

References

1. Bhattacharjee S, Moreno K. The impact of affective information on the professional judgments of more experienced and less experienced auditors. J Behav Decis Making. 2002;15(4):361–77. [DOI]

2. Shaghaghy F, Saffarinia M, Iranpoor M, Soltanynejad A. The relationship of decision-making styles and attributional styles in addicted and non-addicted men. Addict Health. 2011;3(3–4):99–104.

3. Fan J. The role of thinking styles in career decision-making self-efficacy among university students. Think Skills Creat. 2016;20:63–73. [DOI]

4. Jaffar N, Salleh A, Iskandar TM, Haron H. A conceptual discussion on the external auditor's personality and detection of fraud. European Journal of Social Sciences. 2006;4(1):66–76.

5. Maricuțoiu LP, Paloș R. Adaptation of the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI) within a Romanian student sample. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;16(1):20–4.

6. Apaydin BB, Cenberci S. Correlation between thinking styles and teaching styles of prospective mathematics teachers. World Journal of Education. 2018;8(4):36–46. [DOI]

7. Yang L, Brink AG, Wier B. The impact of emotional intelligence on auditor judgment. Int J Audit. 2018;22(1):83–97. [DOI]

8. Clayton P, Kimbrell J. Thinking preferences as diagnostic and learning tools for managerial styles and predictors of auditor success. Managerial Finance. 2007;33(12):921–34.

9. Halim HA, Jaafar H, Janudin SE. Factors influencing professional judgment of auditors in Malaysia. International Business Research. 2018;11(11):119. [DOI]

10. Aghaei Chadegani A, Mohamed ZM, Iskandar TM. The influence of individual characteristics on auditors' intention to report errors. Journal of Economics, Business and Management. 2015;3(7):710–4. [DOI]

11. Arab Mazar M, Maseihabadi A, Pouryousof A. Auditor's cognitive style, information load and judgment quality in going concern. Accounting and Auditing Review. 2012;19(2):73–96. [Persian] [Article]

12. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30(3):607–10.

13. Peterson C, Semmel A, von Baeyer C, Abramson LY, Metalsky GI, Seligman MEP. The attributional Style Questionnaire. Cogn Ther Res. 1982;6(3):287–99. [DOI]

14. Jafari A. The prediction of internal-external motivation for learning based on attribution styles and self-efficacy in medical sciences students. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2018;11(1):9–14. [Persian] [Article]

15. Scott SG, Bruce RA. Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55(5):818–31. [DOI]

16. Mikaeili N, Golizad M, Ghasemi Nejad MA. The relationship between individual difference in decision making styles and social adjustment in students. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;4(8):125–38. [Persian]

17. Arslanoğlu C, Doğan E, Acar K. Investigation of decision making and thinking styles of volleyball referees in terms of some variables. J Educ Train Stud. 2018;6(10):21. [DOI]

18. Yaghoubi R, Hakami M, Ranjbaripoor T. Comparison of personality traits and attribution styles among runaway and normal girls in Tehran. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences. 2016;5(12):274–8.

19. Curtis GJ, King G, Russ A. Reexamining the relationship between thinking styles and transformational leadership: what is the contribution of imagination and emotionality? J Leadership Studies. 2017;11(2):8–21. [DOI]

20. Saffarinia M, Mohammadi R, Hasanzadeh S. Decision making styles and mindfulness and mind reading: the study of these structures' relationship in a non-clinical group. Educational Sciences and Psychology Social Cognition. 2017;5(2):120–35. [Persian]