Is auditor financial decision-making affected by prior audit report information? A behavioral approach.

The role of financial experts is to provide their professional judgments with an opinion included in the financial reports after reviewing an entity's financial information, following a specific audit process. We investigate whether confirmation bias (through prior audit opinions) occurs among auditors during the audit process and decision-making, and whether experience mitigates this effect. A total of 175 non-experienced auditors run a 2x4 between-subjects experiment (experiment 1) studying how financial information (IV with two levels: negative and neutral/positive) and previous audit report (IV with four levels: absence, negative, moderately negative, and positive) might influence the issuance of the subsequent decision-making (DV). In addition, a total of 32 junior level 1 auditors (less than one year of experience), 31 junior level 2 auditors (up to 3 years of experience) and 20 senior auditors (more than 3 years of experience) run a 2 × 4 × 3 between-subjects experiment (experiment 2) analyzing if experience (IV with three levels of experience: less than one-year, between one and three years, more than three years) mitigates this effect (experiment 2). Results confirm that the previous-year audit report affect auditors' current assessment, showing that positive and negative prior opinions persuade auditors when suggesting the next one. This finding is relevant as auditors' opinions could be conditioned by prior opinions instead of their own expertise. Our evidence also suggests that professional experience mitigates this influence on auditors' assessments. Consequently, this study has relevant implications for partners, audit professionals and audit firm recruiters. A general implication is that auditor training courses should reinforce the auditor's own expertise and criteria based on the deep analysis of financial and economic data rather than on the work of previous auditors.

Internationalizing the business school: A comparative analysis of English-medium and Spanish-medium instruction impact on student performance.

Business degrees have been pioneers in adopting the internationalization of Higher Education Institutions with the option of English as Medium of Instruction (EMI). Research has grown about the EMI versus non-EMI lecturers and students' performance measured through perception, motivation, discursive analysis or satisfaction measures. However, results have not been conclusive in the scarce number of papers comparing quantitative course grades of EMI versus non-EMI students. The aim of this research paper is to prove that there is no difference in attaining learning objectives among students within a Business Administration Degree in Spain regardless the language of instruction. The present observational study considers all enrolled freshman throughout a horizon of six consecutive years allowing more reliable results not affected by the specificities of courses or years. All 212 students in the EMI track were matched to non-EMI track counterparts taking into account all available covariates. Results not only show that there is no difference in the attained learning objectives between the two tracks, but also that EMI students' grades are in fact better than their non-EMI counterparts, which might help to remove the believe many still have on the lower academic attainment of those following an EMI track.

The Role of Cognition in Dishonest Behavior.

Dishonesty has received increased attention from many professionals in recent years for its relevance in many social areas such as finance and psychology, among others. Understanding the mechanisms underlying dishonesty and the channels in which dishonesty operates could enable the detection and even prevention of dishonest behavior. However, the study of dishonesty is a challenging endeavor; dishonesty is a complex behavior because it imposes a psychological and cognitive burden. The study of this burden has fostered a new research trend that focuses on cognition's role in dishonesty. This paper reviews the theoretical aspects of how such cognitive processes modulate dishonest behavior. We will pay special attention to executive functions such as inhibitory processes, working memory, or set-shifting that may modulate the decision to be (dis)honest. We also account for some frameworks in cognitive and social psychology that may help understand dishonesty, such as the Theory of Mind, the role of creative processes, and discourse analyses within language studies. Finally, we will discuss some specific cognitive-based models that integrate cognitive mechanisms to explain dishonesty. We show that cognition and dishonest behavior are firmly related and that there are several important milestones to reach in the future to advance the understanding of dishonesty in our society.

Gender Differences in Individual Dishonesty Profiles.

Dishonesty has an enormous impact on all aspects of our society. It causes huge financial losses annually, so efforts to understand dishonest behavior have increased. However, one of the main questions yet to be answered is whether dishonesty varies according to gender. Do men behave more dishonestly than women? Although the literature points to a yes, there is still no consensus on the matter. We examined gender differences in dishonesty in a large sample (N = 2,452) using a model recently developed by Pascual-Ezama et al. It is a variation of the classic die-under-the-cup task. It enabled us to identify individual dishonesty profiles and look for gender differences between them. The results show that the men were more prone to behave dishonestly than women with small rewards, who seem satisfied without maximizing the potential reward. However, the differences vanished when there was no reward. The men also showed more radical dishonest behavior than the women. The results also suggest that gender differences might be shaped by factors other than gender.

Do Not Tell Me More; You Are Honest: A Preconceived Honesty Bias.

According to the previous literature, only a few papers found better accuracy than a chance to detect dishonesty, even when more information and verbal cues (VCs) improve precision in detecting dishonesty. A new classification of dishonesty profiles has recently been published, allowing us to study if this low success rate happens for all people or if some people have higher predictive ability. This paper aims to examine if (dis)honest people can detect better/worse (un)ethical behavior of others. With this in mind, we designed one experiment using videos from one of the most popular TV shows in the UK where contestants make a (dis)honesty decision upon gaining or sharing a certain amount of money. Our participants from an online MTurk sample (N = 1,582) had to determine under different conditions whether the contestants would act in an (dis)honest way. Three significant results emerged from these two experiments. First, accuracy in detecting (dis)honesty is not different than chance, but submaximizers (compared to maximizers) and radical dishonest people (compare to non-radicals) are better at detecting honesty, while there is no difference in detecting dishonesty. Second, more information and VCs improve precision in detecting dishonesty, but honesty is better detected using only non-verbal cues (NVCs). Finally, a preconceived honesty bias improves specificity (honesty detection accuracy) and worsens sensitivity (dishonesty detection accuracy).

Cheaters, Liars, or Both? A New Classification of Dishonesty Profiles.

Experimental studies of dishonesty usually rely on population-level analyses, which compare the distribution of claimed rewards in an unsupervised, self-administered lottery (e.g., tossing a coin) with the expected lottery statistics (e.g., 50/50 chance of winning). Here, we provide a paradigm that measures dishonesty at the individual level and identifies new dishonesty profiles with specific theoretical interpretations. We found that among dishonest participants, (a) some did not bother implementing the lottery at all, (b) some implemented but lied about the lottery outcome, and (c) some violated instructions by repeating the lottery multiple times until obtaining an outcome they felt was acceptable. These results held both in the lab and with online participants. In Experiment 1 (N = 178), the lottery was a coin toss, which permitted only a binary honest/dishonest response; Experiment 2 (N = 172) employed a six-sided-die roll, which permitted gradations in dishonesty. We replicated some previous results and also provide a new, richer classification of dishonest behavior.

Peer effects in unethical behavior: standing or reputation?

Recent empirical evidence shows that working in an unsupervised, isolated situation under competition, can increase dishonest behavior to achieve prestige. However, could working in a common space, in the presence of colleagues affect cheating? Here, we examine how familiar-peer influence, supervision and social incentives affect worker performance and dishonest behavior. First, we show that working in the presence of peers is an effective mechanism to constrain honest/dishonest behavior compared to an isolated work situation (experiment 1). Second, we demonstrate that the mere suspicion of dishonesty from another peer is not enough to affect individual cheating behavior (experiment 2), suggesting that reputation holds great importance in a worker's self-image acting as a strong social incentives. Third, we show that when the suspicion of dishonesty increases with multiple peers behaving dishonestly, the desire to increase standing is sufficient to nudge individuals' behavior back to cheating at the same levels as isolated situations (experiment 3).

Can we predict individual investors' behavior in stock markets? A psychological approach / ¿Es posible predecir el comportamiento de los inversionistas en los mercados bursátiles? Una aproximación psicológica

Understanding financial markets and investors' behavior is one of the biggest objectives in finance. However, most of the research obtained conclusions about individual investors, but they are not studying real individual investors' behavior: they analyzed stock price evolution or used aggregate investor data that essentially belongs to founds and big investors. Psychology has improved financial knowledge and solved many of those financial limitations. Because of that, we decided to apply one of the most valid psychological models to study human behavior, in order to better understand real individual investors' behavior: the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). The model was applied to 127 real investors obtained by the "snowball" technique. According to results, TPB seems to be a good model to understand individual investor's behavior, while explaining 63% of the investments' intentions and 48% of the investments' behavior.

Entender los mercados financieros y el comportamiento de los inversionistas es uno de los objetivos principales en materia de finanzas. Sin embargo, se encuentra que la mayor parte de las conclusiones de estas investigaciones sobre los inversionistas no estudian el comportamiento de los mismos: normalmente se encuentra un análisis de la evolución de los precios de las acciones o datos utilizados de inversionistas que pertenecen esencialmente a los grandes mercados. La psicología ha mejorado el conocimiento financiero y ha resuelto muchas de las limitaciones en finanzas. Debido a esto, se ha decidido aplicar uno de los modelos psicológicos más válidos para estudiar el comportamiento humano, con el fin de comprender mejor el comportamiento de los inversionistas. Este modelo es la Teoría del Comportamiento Planeado ([TPB]; Ajzen, 1991). El modelo se aplicó a 127 inversionistas reclutados por la técnica de "bola de nieve". Según los resultados, el TPB parece ser un buen modelo para comprender el comportamiento de los individuos, al tiempo que explicó el 63 % de la intención de inversión y el 48 % de la conducta de inversión.

La metodología Delphi como técnica de estudio de la validez de contenido / The Delphi Method as a technique to study Validity of Content

Encontrar procedimientos que nos garanticen altos niveles de validez es uno de los grandes retos de la metodología en psicología hoy en día. En el presente estudio presentamos la metodología Delphi como técnica para el estudio de la validez de contenido. Esta metodología presenta una ventaja esencial respecto a los métodos de expertos tradicionales: su aplicación es flexible y dinámica permitiendo una mayor retroalimentación entre los expertos participantes. Se aplicó la metodología Delphi en la elaboración de un cuestionario sobre el comportamiento de inversores individuales en bolsa (Pascual-Ezama, et al., 2010) y se calcularon los índices de congruencia (Rovinelli y Hambleton, 1977) a lo largo de las distintas fases del Delphi. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto que la metodología Delphi puede ser una buena herramienta que nos permita garantizar altos niveles de validez de contenido en un cuestionario. Se discuten también las ventajas e inconvenientes de los métodos de expertos habituales respecto a la metodología Delphi, y cómo el presente estudio aúna metodologías esencialmente cuantitativas con metodologías más cualitativas como el método Delphi. Este nexo entre métodos tan dispares es, sin duda, uno de los campos a explorar y desarrollar en la metodología actualmente (AU)

Finding procedures that may guarantee high levels of validity is one of the big challenges in methods in psychology nowadays. In the pre-sent study, we show the Delphi method as a technique to study the validity of content. This method shows an important advantage regarding to traditional expert methods: it is flexible and dynamic in its application, allowing the presence of feedback between the expert participants. We applied the Delphi method during the development of a questionnaire of individual investors’ behavior in the stock exchange (Pascual-Ezama, et al., 2010), also calculating congruency indexes (Rovinelli y Hambleton, 1977) along the different stages of the Delphi application. The results show that the Delphi method may be a good tool in order to guarantee high levels of validity of content in a questionnaire. Advantages as well as disadvantages of the traditional expert methods and the Delphi method, and how the present study joins quantitative and qualitative methods like the Delphi, are discussed. This link between those different types of methods is, with no doubt, one of the fields to explore and develop in methodology nowadays (AU)

Research participation improves student's exam performance.

Although there have been several attempts to explore for beneficial effects of research participation in social sciences, most of them have mainly explored satisfaction and students learning perceptions (e.g., Bowman & Waite, 2003). Very few works have studied learning by measuring exam performance. Moreover, participation has been usually conceptualized as a mixture of active and passive participation, including in the same measure different practices such as filling up questionnaires, running experiments or reading and answering questions about a journal article or a scientific conference. The present work tries to determine if there is an advantage due to research participation comparing exam performance, satisfaction and perceived learning of the matter Research Methods in Psychology, in three different groups (non-participating, passive and active participating). As we can see in the results, the mere participation benefits exam performance. Results are discussed in terms of the use of research participation as a new powerful active method in education.

Research participation improves student’s exam performance

Although there have been several attempts to explore for beneficial effects of research participation in social sciences, most of them have mainly explored satisfaction and students learning perceptions (e.g., Bowman & Waite, 2003). Very few works have studied learning by measuring exam performance. Moreover, participation has been usually conceptualized as a mixture of active and passive participation, including in the same measure different practices such as filling up questionnaires, running experiments or reading and answering questions about a journal article or a scientific conference. The present work tries to determine if there is an advantage due to research participation comparing exam performance, satisfaction and perceived learning of the matter Research Methods in Psychology, in three different groups (non-participating, passive and active participating). As we can see in the results, the mere participation benefits exam performance. Results are discussed in terms of the use of research participation as a new powerful active method in education (AU)

Aunque ha habido varios intentos por estudiar los posibles efectos beneficiosos de la participación en investigaciones en ciencias sociales, la mayoría de ellos han estudiado la satisfacción y la percepción de aprendizaje de los alumnos (e.g., Bowman & Waite, 2003), y muy pocos trabajos han tomado medidas del rendimiento en los exámenes. Además, la participación ha sido habitualmente conceptualizada como una mezcla entre participación activa y pasiva, incluyendo en la misma medida prácticas muy distintas tales como rellenar cuestionarios, pasar experimentos o leer y responder a una serie de cuestiones sobre un artículo o una conferencia científica. El presente trabajo pretende determinar si existe beneficio en el rendimiento en un examen, la satisfacción y el aprendizaje percibido por los alumnos en la materia de Métodos de investigación en psicología, en tres grupos distintos (grupo de no participación, participación pasiva y participación activa) gracias a la participación en una investigación en psicología. Como se puede ver en los resultados, la mera participación beneficia la ejecución en el examen. Los resultados son discutidos en términos del uso de la participación de nuestros estudiantes en investigaciones, como un nuevo y potente método activo de educación (AU)

[Development and validation of a questionnaire about the main variables affecting the individual investor's behavior in the Stock Exchange]. / Elaboración y validación de una escala sobre las principales variables que afectan a la conducta de los inversores individuales en los mercados bursátiles.

Development and validation of a questionnaire about the main variables affecting the individual investor's behavior in the Stock Exchange. There is a considerable lack of information about the methodology usually used in most of the studies about individual investor's behavior. The studies reviewed do not show the method used in the selection of the items or the psychometric properties of the questionnaires. Because of the importance of investment in the Stock Exchange nowadays, it seems relevant to obtain a reliable instrument to understand individual investor's behavior in the Stock Exchange. Therefore, the goal of the present work is to validate a questionnaire about the main variables involved in individual investors' behavior in the Stock Exchange. Based on previous studies, we elaborated a questionnaire using the Delphi methodology with a group of experts. The internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=.934) and validity evidence of the questionnaire show that it may be an effective instrument and can be applied with some assurance.

Elaboración y validación de una escala sobre las principales variables que afectan a la conducta de los inversores individuales en los mercados bursátiles / Development and validation of a questionnaire about the main variables affecting the individual investor’s behavior in the Stock Exchange

Dentro de los estudios en los que se ha analizado la información relevante para el análisis del comportamiento de los inversores individuales en los mercados bursátiles, hemos encontrado, en términos generales, una enorme falta de información sobre las herramientas utilizadas para la recogida de datos. Debido a la relevancia que está adquiriendo la inversión en los mercados bursátiles hoy en día, el objetivo de este estudio es elaborar y validar una escala sobre las principales variables que afectan a la conducta de los inversores individuales en los mercados bursátiles. Basándonos en la información disponible en estudios anteriores, se seleccionaron un conjunto de ítems a partir de los cuales un grupo de expertos mediante una aproximación a la metodología Delphi elaboró la lista definitiva de ítems que componen el cuestionario. Tanto la consistencia interna (alpha de Cronbach= 0,934) como las evidencias de validez nos permiten concluir que la escala parece ser una herramienta eficaz y puede ser utilizada con ciertas garantías (AU)

There is a considerable lack of information about the methodology usually used in most of the studies about individual investor’s behavior. The studies reviewed do not show the method used in the selection of the items or the psychometric properties of the questionnaires. Because of the importance of investment in the Stock Exchange nowadays, it seems relevant to obtain a reliable instrument to understand individual investor’s behavior in the Stock Exchange. Therefore, the goal of the present work is to validate a questionnaire about the main variables involved in individual investors’ behavior in the Stock Exchange. Based on previous studies, we elaborated a questionnaire using the Delphi methodology with a group of experts. The internal consistency (Cronbach alpha= .934) and validity evidence of the questionnaire show that it may be an effective instrument and can be applied with some asssurance (AU)