The Effect of Hani and Mumford's Learning Styles on Auditor's Professional Profession: Preferential Learning Theory Test

Subject Areas : Management Accounting

reza nematikoshteli ¹

1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting, islamshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, islamshahr, Iran

Received: 2022-01-16 Accepted : 2022-01-16 Published : 2021-11-22

Keywords: learning styles, Professional judgment, structural equations, Preferential Learning,

Abstract :

Learning styles are considered to be the preferred methods for individuals to receive and process information. Hence, professional judgment is a function of the auditor's performance that can be influenced by learning styles. Therefore, increasing the quality of professional judgment improves the performance of auditors and ultimately improves the quality of auditing. In this regard, the purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of Mumford's learning styles on the auditor's professional judgment. the research method is a descriptive survey and from the perspective of the purpose, it is of an applied type that the standard questionnaire has been used.  The research sample is 512 auditors working in trusted auditing firms of the stock exchange who were selected by a simple random sampling method. Also, research hypotheses were tested by modeling structural equations using LISREL software. The results show that Hani and Mumford's learning styles have a significant effect on the auditor's professional judgment. Thus, pragmatist, Reflector, Activist, and Theorist learning styles have the most impact on the auditor's professional judgment, respectively. The results of this research can help audit firms in hiring new auditors and when hiring employed auditors, to consider the type of learning styles they have, to increase the quality of auditing by improving decision-making and professional judgment.

References:

• حک‍‍‍ی‍‍‍می، ثریا؛ ح‍‍‍‍جازی، الهه؛ غلامع‍‍‍لی­ لواس‍‍انی، مسعود. (1393). بررسی رابطه سب‍‍‍‍ک­های یادگ‍‍‍یری و وی‍‍‍ژگی­های شخصی‍‍‍تی با پیشرفت تحصیلی در دانشجویان دانشگاه تهران. ف‍‍‍صلنامه شن‍‍‍اخت و تف‍‍‍اوت­های فردی، سال سوم، شماره 6، صص 1-25.


• حیدر، مجتبی؛ نیکومرام؛ هاشم. (1396). سبک­های تفکر و تردید حرفه­ای در حسابرسی (آزمون نظریه خود حکومتی ذهن). دوف‍‍‍صلنامه حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری، سال سوم، شماره 5، صص 151-185.


• رهنمای­رودپشتی، فریدون؛ رستمی­مازویی، نعمت. (1394). مروری بر تئوری­های روان­شناختی در تحقیقات حسابداری مدیریت، فصلنامه حسابداری مدیریت، دوره 8 ، شماره 26، صص 1-20.


• ک‍‍وارویی، رعنا؛ مومنی، عصمت؛ حاجی زین­العابدینی، محسن. (1394). بررسی رابطه استراتژی­های یادگ‍‍‍یری با رفتار اطلاع­جویی. فص‍‍‍لنامه مطالعات دانش­شن‍‍اسی، سال دوم، شماره 5، صص 59-78.


• نعمتی­کشتلی، رضا. (1400). تأثیر راهبردهای یادگیری شناختی بر بی­طرفی حسابرس: آزمون نظریه راهبردهای یادگیری خودتنظیمی. دوفصلنامه حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری، دانشگاه خوارزمی، سال ششم، شماره 11 (آماده انتشار)، صص 5-7.


• نعمتی­کشتلی، رضا. (1400). تأثیر استراتژی­های یادگیری شناختی کرتون بر ارزیابی ریسک تقلب. دوفصلنامه حسابداری دولتی، سال هفتم، شماره 2، صص 79-94.


• هومن، حیدرعلی. (1395). مدل­یابی معادلات ساخ‍‍تاری با کاربرد نرم افزار لیزرل (با اصلاحات). چاپ هفتم، تهران: انتشارات سمت.


• Antonanzas, J. L. and Lorente, R. (2017). Study of Le‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍arning strategies and cognitive capacities in hearing and non-hearing pupils. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237: 1196-1200.


• Brigham, K. H.; De Castro, J. O.; and Shepherd, D. A. (2004). The Mismatch between Entrepreneurs and their firm: The role of cognitive fit/misfit. IE working paper, Submitted for Review at the Academy of Management Journal: 2-26.


• Ba‍‍‍l‍‍‍‍‍kir, I. (2000). Eff‍‍‍ect of Analyt‍‍‍ical R‍‍eview Res‍‍‍ults, Op‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍timism, and Pa‍‍‍ttern fo‍‍‍r Copi‍‍‍‍ng on Aud‍‍‍it Effo‍‍‍rt of A‍‍ccounting estimates, Thesis (Ph.D.).


• Brasel, K. R.; Hatfield, R. C.; Nickell, E. B.; and Parsons, L. M. (2019). The Effect of Fraud Risk Assessment Frequency and Fraud Inquiry Timing on Auditors Skeptical Judgments and Actions. Accounting Horizons, 33(1): 1-15.


• Chin, w. w. (1998). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1): vii-xvi.


• Ch‍‍e‍‍‍‍n, M. H.; Cha‍‍‍‍ng, Y. Y.; a‍‍‍nd Lo, Y. H. (2‍‍015). Crea‍‍‍‍tivity cogni‍‍‍‍tive st‍‍yle, confli‍‍‍ct, a‍‍‍‍nd care‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍er su‍‍‍‍‍ccess f‍‍‍or creat‍‍‍‍ive entr‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍eprene‍‍‍‍urs. Jour‍‍‍‍nal of Bu‍‍‍siness R‍‍‍esearch, 68(4): 906-910.


• Chung, J.; Cohen, J. and Monroe, G. S. (2008). The effect of moods on Auditors' inventory valuation decisions Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27(2): 137-159.


• Donnelly, D. P., J. J. Quirin, and O’Bryan, D. (2003). Auditor acceptance of dysfunctional audit behavior: An explanatory model using auditors’ personal characteristics. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 15(1): 87-110.


• Don Clark, Q. (2000). Learning styles. How we go from the unknown to the known, Http://Learning com.


• Dembo, M. H. (2002). Applying Educational Psychology, New York: Longman.


• D‍‍‍‍uff, A. (2‍‍‍‍004). The R‍‍‍‍ole of Cog‍‍‍‍nitive Le‍‍‍‍‍arning Sty‍‍‍les in Ac‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍coun‍‍‍ting Educ‍‍‍atio‍‍‍n: Devel‍‍‍oping Lea‍‍rn‍‍‍in‍‍‍g Compe‍‍‍tencie‍‍‍s. Journ‍‍‍al of Accoun‍‍‍ting Educ‍‍‍ation, 22(1): 29-52.


• Glo‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ver, S. M. a‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍nd Pr‍‍‍‍‍‍‍awitt, D. F. (2‍‍‍‍014). Enh‍‍‍‍anc‍‍‍‍‍ing Au‍‍‍‍ditor Pr‍‍‍‍‍‍ofessional Skepti‍‍‍cism: The Pr‍‍‍ofession‍‍‍‍‍al Sk‍‍‍eptic‍‍‍‍‍ism Contin‍‍‍‍‍‍uum. Cu‍‍‍‍rrent Iss‍‍‍ues in Au‍‍‍diting, 2(8): 1-16.


• Grigorenko, E. L. and Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking styles. International Handbook of Personality and Intelligence, New York, NY, US: Plenum Press: 205-229.


• Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Peter Honey.


• Hansen, J. D. (1993). The effect of information load and cognitive style on decision quality in a financial distress decision task. Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.


• Knapp, C. A. and Knapp, M. C. (2001). The effects of experience and explicit fraud risk assessment in detecting fraud with analytical procedures. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 26(1): 25-37.


• McGhee, W., Shields, M. D., and Bingberg, J. G. (1978). The Effect of Personality on Subjects Information Processing. The Accounting Review, 55(3): 681-697.


• Mauts, R. K. and Sharaf, H. A. (1961). The Philosophy of Auditing. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.


• Myers, I. B. (1977). Myers Briggs Type Indicator. palo alto, CA: consulting psychologists press.


• Ott, R. L., Mann, M. H., and Moores, C. T. (1990). An empirical investigation into the interactive effects of student personality traits and method of instruction (Lecture or CAI) on student performance in elementary accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 8(1): 17-35.


• Pincas, K. V. (1990). Auditor individual differences and fairness of presentation judgments, Auditing. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 9(1):  150-166.


• Rayner, S. and Riding, R. (1997). Towards a Categorization of Cognitive Styles and Learning Styles. Educational Psychology, 17(2): 5-27.


• Reurink, A. (2018). Financial fraud: A literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(5): 1292-1325.


• Reynaldo, A. C. (2021). Learning Styles and Preferred Learning Modalities in the New Normal. Open Access Library Journal, 8(4): 1-14.


• M. (2014). Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective. Accounting Perspectives, 14(1): 1-50.


• Raslan, I., Hegazy, M., and Eldawla, M. K. (2017). Quality Control Elements and Auditor Fraud Risk Assessment: An Experimental Study. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 16(2): 157-178.


• Saha, S. and Sharma, R. K. (2019). The impact of personality and cognitive style of managers on their work types. Journal of Management Development, 38(1): 58-71.


• Tsui, j. and Gul, F. (1996). Auditors Behavior in an Audit conflict situation: A Research Note on the Role of locus of control and Ethical Reasoning, Accounting, Organizations, and Society: 41- 51.


• Tinajero, C. and Paramo, M. F. (1998). Field dependence independence and strategic learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 29(3):     251-262.


• Urmetzer, S., Lask, J., Vargas-Carpintero, R., and Pyka, A. (2020). Learning to change: Transformative knowledge for building a sustainable bioeconomy. Ecological Economics, 167(1): 106-135.


• W‍‍‍‍ei‍‍‍‍l‍‍‍‍er, A. (20‍‍‍‍05). Inf‍‍‍‍‍or‍‍‍‍‍mation‍‍‍-‍‍‍‍se‍‍‍‍‍eking‍‍‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍beh‍‍‍‍‍avior i‍‍‍n G‍‍‍‍e‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍nera‍‍‍‍‍‍tion Y st‍‍‍u‍‍‍dents: Mot‍‍‍‍iva‍‍‍‍tion, critic‍‍‍‍‍‍‍al thin‍‍‍kin‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍g, a‍‍‍‍n‍‍‍d learni‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ng the‍‍o‍‍‍ry. Th‍‍‍‍e Jo‍‍‍ur‍‍‍nal of Ac‍‍‍‍‍ade‍‍‍‍‍mic Libra‍‍‍‍rianshi‍‍‍‍p, 3‍‍‍‍1(1): 46-53.


• Weinstein, C. E. and Hume, L. M. (1998). Study strategies for lifelong learning (Psychology in the Classroom). (1st Edition), Washington D.C: American psychology Association.


• Woolfolk, A. E. (1995). Educational psychology. 6thed Boston: Allyn and Bacon.


• Zydney, J. M., Warner, Z., and Angelone, L. (2020). Learning through experience: Using design-based research to redesign protocols for blended synchronous learning environments. Computers & Education, 143(1): 103-125.


• Zanich, M. L. (1991). Learning styles/teaching styles. Unpublished Manuscript, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Teaching Excellence Center, Indiana, PA.


• Zhang, L, F. (2001). Thinking styles and personality types revisited, Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6): 112-121.