Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.titleCognitive Brain Mapping Of Auditors And Accountants In Going Concern Judgmentsen
dc.title.alternativeMapeamento Cognitivo Cerebral De Auditores E Contadores Em Julgamentos De Continuidade Operacionalpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCarvalho Júniorpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCésar Valentim de Oliveira; Cornacchionept_BR
dc.contributor.authorEdgard; Rochapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorArmando Freitas da; Rochapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorFábio Theotopt_BR
unicamp.authorUniversidade Estadual de Campinas Faculdade de Ciências Médicas Departamento de Neurologia, Campinas SP, Brazilpt_BR Federal da Bahia Faculdade de Ciências Contábeis, Salvador BA, Brazilpt_BR de São Paulo Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade Departamento de Contabilidade e Atuária, São Paulo, SP, Brazilpt_BR Universitário FEI Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica, São Bernardo do Campo SP, Brazilpt_BR
dc.subjectCognitive Brain Mappingen
dc.subjectGoing Concernen
dc.subjectBelief Revisionen
dc.subjectMapeamento Cognitivo Cerebralen
dc.subjectContinuidade Operacionalen
dc.subjectAtualização De Crençasen
dc.description.abstractThis study aims to explain the extent to which brain mapping patterns follow behavioral patterns of auditors and accountants’ judgments when assessing evidence for decisions involving going concern. This multidisciplinary research involved investigating the relation between the theory of belief revision, neuroscience, and neuroaccounting with a sample of auditors and accountants. We developed a randomized controlled trial study with 12 auditors and 13 accountants. Auditors and accountants presented similar judgments about going concern, specially demonstrating greater sensitivity to negative evidence. Despite similar judgments, results showed diverging brain processing patterns between groups, as distinct reasoning was used to reach going concern estimates. During the decision process, auditors presented homogeneous brain processing patterns, while accountants evidenced conflicts and greater cognitive effort. For both groups, the occurrence of maximization (minimization) of judgments is observed in brain areas associated with identification of needs and motivations linked to individuals’ relations with their social group. This was strengthened by the lack of significant differences between the regression maps of auditors and accountants, leading to interpretation of the groups’ findings as homogeneous brain behavior. Despite familiarity with the executed task and knowledge of auditing standards, as a result of the greater use of algorithmic reasoning the auditors’ judgments were similar to that of accountants. On the other hand, the accountants’ greater cognitive effort, due to the experiencing of greater conflict in the decision-making process, made them use more quantic brain processing abilities, which are responsible for conscious reasoning. This was observed in the maximizations (minimizations) of the estimates in brain areas related to concerns with the judgments’ social repercussions, which culminated in some degree of “conservatism” in their decisions. Furthermore, these findings reveal another opportunity to discuss the assumption of the brain as the original accounting institution.en
dc.relation.ispartofRevista Contabilidade & Finançaspt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade, Departamento de Contabilidade e Atuáriapt_BR
dc.identifier.citationRevista Contabilidade & Finanças. Universidade De São Paulo, Faculdade De Economia, Administração E Contabilidade, Departamento De Contabilidade E Atuária, v. 28, n. 73, p. 132 - 147pt_BR
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2017-08-30T17:37:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 S1519-70772017000100132por.pdf: 12856792 bytes, checksum: 20e62967e92624ab470ad0f642671d09 (MD5) S1519-70772017000100132eng.pdf: 12863781 bytes, checksum: b9fd62d17cf8414f42f4db69ffffa1f2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017en
Appears in Collections:Unicamp - Artigos e Outros Documentos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
S1519-70772017000100132por.pdf12.56 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
S1519-70772017000100132eng.pdf12.56 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.