the joint and moderating role of personality and cognitive style on decision making

The Joint and Moderating Role of Personality and Cognitive Style on Decision MakingAuthor(s): Ferdinand A. GulSource: The Accounting Review, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 264-277Published by: American Accounting AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/247298 .Accessed: 12/06/2014 18:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Accounting Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAccounting Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:10:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaasochttp://www.jstor.org/stable/247298?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW Vol. LIX, No. 2 April 1984

NOTES

The Joint and Moderating Role of

Personality and Cognitive Style

on Decision Making

Ferdinand A. Gul

ABSTRACT: This experiment focuses on the interaction between tolerance for ambiguity, a personality variable, and field dependence, a cognitive style variable, and how this interaction moderates the relationship between accounting information and managers' decision confidence. The rationale for this exploratory study stems from the fact that previous studies have not explicitly recognized 'cognitive processes at work' when considering the effects of tolerance for ambiguity. The results show that tolerance for ambiguity alone was associated with no significant effects, but when field dependence was taken into account, the interacting effects on decision confidence were significant. The results also provide some support for the hypothesis that tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence interact to moderate the accounting information/decision confidence relationship.

A CCOUNTING researchers have been interested in the effects of individual psychological differences on

decision making (e.g., Dermer [1973]; Lusk [1973]; San Miguel [1976]). One facet of research in this area focuses on an understanding of these individual differences among the users of accounting information. The objective of these studies is to facilitate the preparation of accounting information that is most suited to the user's information processing needs. Implicit in this type of research is that knowledge of individual differences may be able to guide the design of information systems toward more effec- tive user decisions. Benbasat and Dexter [1979, p. 736] point out that "such studies could eventually lead to better information systems designs based on an

understanding of the user's characteristics."

Individual psychological differences involve two related dimensions: personality and cognitive style. Personality refers to the attitudes or beliefs of individuals, while cognitive style refers to the ways or methods by which an individual receives, stores, processes, and transmits information [Pratt, 1980, p. 502]. Unfor-

The helpful comments of two reviewers are gratefully acknowledged and appreciated.

Ferdinand A. Gul is Senior Lecturer in Accountancy, the University of Wollon- gong, Australia.

Manuscript received November 1981. Revisions received September 1982, February 1983,

August 1983, and October 1983. Accepted November 1983.

264


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Guu 65

tunately, there is some disagreement over this distinction among accounting researchers. Birnberg, Shields and McGhee [1980], for example, cite Kagan and Haveman [1976, p. 376] for a definition of personality as "the total pattern of characteristic ways of thinking, feeling and behaving that constitutes the individual's distinctive method of relating to the environment." Following these defi- nitions, cognitive style seems to be sub- sumed under the broad rubric of personality. This is a less desirable viewpoint for purposes of research, and most accounting researchers have implicitly adopted this premise.

The definition adopted in this study is given by Schroder, Driver, and Streufert [1967] and Schroder and Suedfeld [1971], who make a distinction between cognitive styles and personality. Other leading writers in psychology (e.g., Mischel [1973, p. 253]) also recognize this distinction between "cognitive variables" and "personality dimensions." Since individual differences have two facets, it is conceivable that individuals of the same personality type may use different methods of receiving, processing, and trans- mitting information (cognitive styles). Alternatively, individuals with the same cognitive style may have different attitudes and beliefs (personalities). Thus, an examination of any one of these dimensions separately without adequate con- sideration for variations in the other dimension may distort research findings. It is likely that this could have been a contributory factor to the inconsistent or insignificant results that have been gener- ated by previous accounting researchers. Results of studies by Oliver and Flam- holtz [1978] on the effects of tolerance for ambiguity (personality variable) were not consistent with the findings by Dermer [1973]. Similarly, other studies on the effects of personality and cognitive

style have produced discouraging results (e.g., McGhee, Shields and Birnberg [1978] and Faircloth and Ricchiute [1981 ]). Results in psychology have also been inconclusive. Some psychologists [Mischel, 1969; Bem and Allen, 1974], after reviewing many studies, found that the common ceiling was +.30 correla- tions on multiple measurements of personality over time and across situations. Similar criticisms have also been levelled at studies on the effects of cognitive styles [McGhee, Shields and Birnberg, 1978, pp. 694-695].

These insignificant and inconsistent results, particularly in previous accounting research, may be attributed to the fact that these variables were studied separately without adequate considera- tion of the confounding effects of the other dimensions [Gul, 1981]. Pratt [1980, p. 502] recognizes this possibility:

While personality and cognitive style may be related, in that attitudes and beliefs provide a basis for organizing or processing information, individuals with the same personalities may use different cognitive processes in arriving at decisions.

This viewpoint is also shared by psychologists (e.g., Loomis and Moskowitz [1958] and Mischel [1979]), who stress that personality traits are only one dimension of response and therefore have limited explanatory power.

Bearing these ideas in mind, research on the effects of individual differences in decision making could more productively examine the effects of personality variables, taking into account the fact that different cognitive processes are at work in decision making. Leading psychologists like Mischel [1973, p. 252], for example, point out:

... while cognitive and symbolic processes have received increasing attention



266 The Accounting Review, April 1984

FIGURE 1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY, COGNITIVE STYLES, ACCOUNTING INFORMATION,

AND DECISION MAKING

Personality Cognitive Style

Accounting it Decision Information Making

both in the laboratory and in therapeutic applications their implications for personality psychology have not yet been thoroughly explored and their impact on the basic traditional assumptions of personality psychology until recently has been limited.

What is needed is to develop studies based on a theory that simultaneously incorporates personality and cognitive styles into the experimental designs by studying their interactional relationship. Further, following the suggestion by McGhee, Shields and Birnberg [1978, p. 681], these variables could interact and act as "mediating variables between the receipt of information and resultant decisions." Such a research design is conceptually more appealing and consistent with current behavioral theory [Pratt, 1980, p. 504], which emphasizes the interactional and moderating aspects in behavior predictions [Bowers, 1973; Anastasi, 1976, p. 178; Endler and Mag- nusson, 1976]. These ideas may be con- ceptualized in terms of Figure 1, which depicts the relationship between personality, cognitive style, accounting information, and decision making. More specifically, the diagram illustrates that personality and cognitive styles interact to moderate the accounting information/ decision making relationship.

The purpose of this exploratory study is to provide evidence concerning the

ideas outlined earlier. The paper is divided into six sections. First, the two psychological variables representing personality and cognitive styles are examined. Included in this section is a statement of hypotheses. The following sections contain the experimental method used to test the hypotheses, analysis, results, discussion, and a summary.

USER PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES

This study focuses on tolerance for ambiguity (a personality variable) and field dependence cognitive style. Both these variables have attracted the attention of accounting researchers [Dermer, 1973; Lusk, 1973; Gul, 1981]. More specifically, this study examines the notion that tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence interact to moderate the accounting information/decision confidence relationship. In addition, the main effects of each of the variables are also examined.

Confidence in decisions, which is the dependent human information processing variable studied, can be defined as the self-rated confidence in the correctness of the decision [Taylor, 1975, p. 77]. The variable has been investigated previously in some of the controversial studies which have examined the relationship of psychological variables to decision making [McGhee, Shields and Birnberg, 1978; Oliver and Flamholtz, 1978]. In



Gui 267

addition, the dimensions of tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence are hy- pothesized to differentiate individuals on the basis of their levels of confidence in decisions (see later definition). On this basis, it was appropriate to study decision confidence.

"Tolerance for ambiguity" measures the extent to which one feels threatened by ambiguity or ambiguous situations and the relationship of ambiguity to confidence in decisions [Budner, 1962; Dermer, 1973]. As McGhee, Shields and Birnberg [1978, p. 683] point out, persons who are intolerant of ambiguity are expected to be less confident in their decisions and to seek more information in ambiguous situations or when faced with ambiguous information than individuals classified as tolerant of ambiguity. Other writers, however, suggest that 'intolerants' may react differently. Pratt [1980, p. 503], for example, argues:

There are a number of ways in which 'intolerants' might reduce perceptions of uncertainty [Dunnette, 1976, p. 1403]. They may ignore uncertainty, fail to recognize uncertainty (Kates [1962]; Cyert and March [1963 ]; White [1964]) or act as if there were certainty. Any of these explanations suggest that 'intolerants' would show greater confidence and seek less information than 'tolerants.

The lack of consensus on the way intolerants are supposed to react, and results by recent accounting researchers which were either inconsistent [Oliver and Flamholtz, 1978] or weak [McGhee, Shields and Birnberg, 1978], lead to H1.

H1: There is no difference in confidence in decisions between tolerants and intolerants when faced with ambiguous accounting information.

The cognitive style variable examined is the field dependence versus field independence dimension [Witkin, et al., 1971]

which has attracted the attention of other accounting researchers [Lusk, 1973; Ben- basat and Dexter, 1979]. Individuals are classified as either field dependent (FD) or field independent (FI) on the basis of the Embedded Figures Test (EFT). The test presents relatively complex visual figures and subjects have to find simple figures incorporated in the complex figures. The main feature of the test is that subjects arrive at a correct perception by ignoring interfering context.

On the basis of the time taken to identify the simple figures, subjects are categorized as field dependent or field independent. Extensive research has led to conclusions regarding the relationships of field dependence to many aspects of behavior beyond the perceptual sphere. In problem-solving situations, FD individuals demonstrate more diffi- culty than F individuals. In social behavior, FD individuals are likely to use the prevailing frame of reference to define their attitudes, beliefs, and feelings, and even their self-view [Witkin, 1976]. FE individuals demonstrate more independent opinions and dislike systems and routines [Pemberton, 1952]. FD individuals have also demonstrated a greater degree of acceptance for social stimuli and new information [Ruble and Naka- mura, 1972; Goodenough, 1976]. In particular, FD individuals have been shown to be more receptive than F individuals to ambiguous information and situations [Witkin and Goodenough, 1977, p. 664]. In a recent study [Gul and Zaid, 1981], FD individuals were found to be more confident in decisions than FI individuals when they were faced with ambiguous accounting information. These viewpoints lead to H2.

H2: Individuals who are field dependent will have greater confidence in decisions than individuals who are field independent when they




are faced with ambiguous accounting information.

The third aspect of the study focuses on the interacting (or joint) effects of tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence on confidence in decisions. In other words, is there an interaction between tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence such that the effects of tolerance for ambiguity are different for FD individuals than F1 individuals? Alter- natively, is the difference in confidence between high tolerants and low tolerants different depending on whether they are FD or FI? Based on the literature [Endler and Magnusson, 1976; Pratt, 1980], interaction is expected. Since the author has no a priori notion regarding the nature of the interaction effects, the hypothesis for interaction is stated in general terms. This leads to H3:

H3: Tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence interact to affect individuals' confidence in decisions.

The three foregoing hypotheses focus on the direct effects of tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence. The next issue concerns the effects of the two variables on the accounting information/ decision-making relationship. In other words, we may say that accounting information changes the level of decision confidence. The nature and extent of this change may be a function of (1) tolerance for ambiguity, (2) field dependence, and (3) the tolerance for ambiguity/field dependence interaction. These possibili- ties lead to H4.

H4: Tolerance for ambiguity, field dependence, and their interaction will moderate the accounting information/decision confidence relationship.

Method

Subjects were 46 male managers drawn

from a cross-section of electronic companies in Malaysia. All participants had some personnel responsibility for hiring and dismissing staff and their companies had at some time in the past laid off employees' during slack periods. The average age of the participants was 33 years, with 33 percent of the managers in their 40's and 50's and 67 percent in their late 20's and 30's. The average total working experience was 11 years. Forty- three percent of the subjects held university degrees, while the remaining 57 percent held at least the school certificate.2

A laboratory method was used to test H1 through H4. Following a pre- and post-test design, subjects were provided with the Excellent Electronics Case Study developed by Flamholtz [1974] and used to evaluate human resources accounting (HRA) information by Tomassini [1977] and Oliver and Flamholtz [1978]. The first part of the case provided conven- tional accounting information on the estimated payroll savings as a result of a layoff. The second part of the case con- tained additional HRA data on the estimated cost of rehiring and replacement of the work force. After each part, subjects were requested to make a decision regarding personnel layoff and to answer a question regarding their confidence' in having made an optimal decision. The question which was used in the Oliver and Flamholtz [1978] study read as follows:

Select a number between 0-100 that indicates your level of certainty that the decision you have made is optimal. Zero should be used to represent total uncertainty, and 100 should represent total

' The case study used in the experiment concerned the use of HRA data connected with employee lay-offs.

2 This is the minimum educational qualification for white-collar employment in Malaysia and is the basic literacy level to join the government civil service.

I Weber [1978, p. 3741 used a similar technique to measure decision confidence. His scale ranged from zero to ten.



Gul 269

certainty; it follows that intermediate numbers represent intermediate degrees of uncertainty. Please print the number selected in the space provided.

HRA, which is still a substantive issue in accounting, is considered appropriate for this experiment for a number of reasons. Both tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence have been identified as dimensions that are suitable for experiments that involve ambiguous information and situations. As pointed out earlier, tolerance for ambiguity attempts to measure the extent to which one feels threatened by ambiguous information [Oliver and Flamholtz, 1978, p. 142]. HRA being a new and unfamiliar tool could be viewed as ambiguous information [Oliver and Flamholtz, 1978]. Dermer [1973] reported evidence that individuals low on tolerance for ambiguity often avoid behavioral accounting information. He speculated (p. 518) that there may be little point in providing HRA data to individuals intolerant of ambiguity. Similarly, field dependence has been shown to be sensitive in differ- entiating individuals' attitudes towards ambiguous information. Witkin and Goodenough [1977], in evaluating several studies, concluded that field dependent people make more use of ambiguous information than field independent people (pp. 662-664). In a recent study [Gul and Zaid, 1981], field dependent subjects were more confident in their decisions than field independent ones when they were provided with HRA information. Moreover, since the setting of the case study concerns lay-offs in an electronics company and since subjects were from similar companies which had experienced some lay-offs previously, the experimental task had some real-world relevance for the subjects.

Subjects were provided with the first part of the case followed by the second part of the case. This was followed by the

Embedded Figures Test4 [Witkin, et al., 1971] to determine field dependency. Finally, subjects were administered the tolerance for ambiguity test [Mac- Donald, 1970].5

No significant relationships were found between demographic variables and field dependence, tolerance for ambiguity, or decision confidence. Further, no significant relationship was found between field dependence and tolerance for ambiguity.

The experiments were conducted by the author assisted by a research as- sistant with each individual manager separately in his own office. Appoint- ments were individually arranged with the managers at their convenience. At the end of the experiment, which lasted between 35 and 60 minutes, subjects were debriefed.

ANALYSIS

The tests are designed to test three issues. The first examines the independent effects of personality and cognitive style on confidence in decisions. Second, the interactive effect of personality and cognitive styles on confidence in decisions is investigated. The third issue concerns whether the interactive effect acts pri- marily to moderate the relationship between HRA information and decision confidence. To test these issues, a two- step procedure was adopted. The first consists of a two-way ANOVA with categorical values for tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence as independent variables and confidence in de-

4 For reliability and validity data, see Witkin, et al. [1971, p. 19]. Using the Tryon's variance method, Witkin, et al. [1971, p. 19] report a reliability of .90 for males with an average age of 33.7 years.

5 MacDonald [1970] points out that the scale is superior to previous versions of the test. The split-half reliability coefficient was .86 (by Kuder-Richardson Formula 20, K-R 20). Cross-validation yielded an r of .63 (by K-R 20). The scale has also demonstrated high retest reliability of six months with a stability coefficient retest reliability of .63. For validity data see MacDonald [1970, pp. 795-796].




TABLE I

ANOVA- TOLERANCE FOR AMBIGUITY/FIELD DEPENDENCE AND DECISION CONFIDENCE

Source Ss df Ms F

Field Dependence 5042.9 1 5042.9 18.25**** Tolerance for Ambiguity 128.95 1 128.95 0.47 Interactions 859.7 1 859.7 3.11* Within Cell 11606.5 42 276.34

****p

Gui 271

FIGURE 2 EFFECTS OF FIELD DEPENDENCE AND TOLERANCE FOR AMBIGUITY ON DECISION CONFIDENCE

Confidence FD (87. 1)

80 -

75 -

FD (75.1)

70 -

65 -

60 - Fl (62.8) Fl (57.5)

55 -

50 -

HT LT

more confident in their decisions than Fl individuals, regardless of the levels of tolerance for ambiguity. However, this difference appears to be more pronounced for LT individuals than for HT individuals. In other words, when tolerance for ambiguity interacts with field dependence there are significant differences in confidence in judgments. H2 is also supported, since field dependence showed a significant (F = 18.25, p < 0.005) main effect. Tolerance for ambiguity, as expected, showed no direct effects, thus also supporting H1.

The significant interactions suggest the need to test for simple main effects [Kirk, 1968, pp. 263-266]. These tests are designed to establish:

(i) if there are significant differences

in decision confidence scores between HT and LT for subjects who are FD and those who are FI; and

(ii) if there are significant differences in decision confidence scores between FD and F for subjects who are HT and those who are LT.

The results, as summarized in Table 2, show that there are significant differences between FD and F for the LT group. Similarly, there was a marginally significant difference between HT and LT for the FD group and between FD and F1 for the HT group. No differences were found for the other sub-grouping. These results provide overall support for H3.

Moderating Effects Results, as shown (in Table 3), showed




TABLE 2

ANOVA-SIMPLE MAIN EFFECTS ON DECISION CONFIDENCE

Source Ss dj Ms F

Between Tolerance for Ambiguity for Field Independent 161.37 1 161.37 0.58

Between Tolerance for Ambiguity for Field Dependent 827.28 1 827.28 2.99* Between Field Dependence for Low Tolerance 5033.54 1 5033.54 18.21****

Between Field Dependence for High Tolerance 869.16 1 869.16 3.14* Within Cell 11606.5 42 276.34

****p

Gui 273

FIGURE 3

EFFECTS OF FIELD DEPENDENCE AND TOLERANCE FOR AMBIGUITY ON CHANGES IN DECISION CONFIDENCE

Confidence FD (22.2)

20-

15 - Fl (14.6)

10 - FD (10.0)

5 -

FI (4.6)

H I

HT LT

DISCUSSION

The results provide support for the notion that tolerance for ambiguity and field dependence interact to affect individuals' confidence in decisions. More significantly, the results provide some evidence for the notion that these two variables interact to moderate the accounting information decision confidence relationship. This means that the effect of HRA information on decision confidence is moderated by tolerance fo- ambiguity and field dependence acting jointly. In other words, decision confidence is multiply determined by HRA information, tolerance for ambiguity, and field dependence (see Figure 1). In the context of this study, it can be said that HRA caused changes in decision confidence among the subjects. But these changes were more pronounced for FD/

HT subjects than for the other three subgroups (see Figure 3). Taken separately, however, each variable showed no significant moderating effects.

The significant direct effects of field dependence (Table 1) provided clear support for H2. The results are consistent with field dependence theory, which pre- dicts that FD individuals are more confident in judgements when faced with ambiguous-type information than their F! counterparts [Witkin and Good- enough. 1977 ]. The results are also consistent with other accounting studies that have examined this dimension [Lusk. 1973; Benbasat and Dexter, 1979] and recent evidence in psychology [Gul and Zaid, 1981]. The suggestion here is that field dependence may in its own right be a useful dimension for predicting behavior. It is possible that it is able to tap a particular dimension of individual



274 The Accounting Review. April 1984

cognitive differences that is sensitive to accounting information.

The findings of this study raise a number of observations regarding some accounting research efforts that have examined the effects of personality [Mc- Ghee, Shields & Birnberg, 1978; Fair- cloth and Ricchiute. 1981] and cognitive styles [McGhee, Shields and Birnberg, 1978]. The insignificant results obtained in these studies may be due to the fact that they ignored the interaction effects of personality and cognitive styles. In the McGhee, Shields and Birnberg [1978] study, the effects of personality (tolerance for ambiguity) and cognitive style (decision style) were examined separately. Had the joint effects of these two variables been examined, the results could have been different. Accounting studies that have examined other aspects of the effects of personality (e.g., Faircloth and Ricchiute [1981]-tolerance for ambiguity, and Weber [1978]-dogmatism) and found no significant effects can be reevaluated in the light of the findings obtained in this investigation.

In psychology there has been some skepticism about the role of traditional personality theory [Buss, 1977]. Some psychologists have challenged the belief that consistencies in behavior are both temporally and situationally stable. This, however, does not mean that personalities are unimportant or do not exist; what it does mean is that personality may affect behavior not directly, but jointly with other variables. Mischel [1973], for example, suggests that behavior is a function of personality variables, the situation, and the personality-situational interaction. Indeed, Mischel [1979] almost a decade later points out that his much-cited earlier work [1969] was un- fortunately taken "as a broad side attack on personality." He clarifies that his attempt was not to "undo personality

but to defend individuality In fact, he uroes future research to move beyond "the person-situation debate" (p. 752) to the study of persons in a way that recognizes both personality and cognitive processes of the subjects and the scientists.

In evaluating the results of this study, several limitations should be noted. First, the usual caveats about laboratory methods apply. In addition, the size of the sample and the nature of the population (i.e., a group of volunteer managers) samples may affect the generalizability of the results. The results obtained here may also be unique to the nature of the experimental task employed. It is possible that the contribution of the interacting and moderating effects of personality and cognitive styles will vary depending on the situation and the experimental task involved [Argyle and Little, 1972; Anastasi, 1976, p. 180].

SUMMARY

This study investigated the effects of tolerance for ambiguity (a personality variable) and field dependence (a cognitive style variable) on decision-making behavior. The main rationale for the study stems from the fact that previous accounting studies on the effects of individual psychological differences on decision making have studied personality and cognitive styles separately. This investigation was based on the theory that studies should examine the simultaneous effects of personality and cognitive style to assess their interaction effects. The results provide preliminary support for the hypotheses that personality and cognitive style interact to moderate the accounting information/decision-making relationship, as depicted in Figure 1.

These findings have important implications for accounting research that examines issues concerning the relation-



Gui 275

ship of individual psychological differences and human information processing or decision making. In the past, conflict- ing [Libby and Lewis, 1977] or weak [McGhee, Shields and Birnberg, 1978; Weber, 1978] results have been obtained. As a result, these researchers have concluded that personality variables do not appear to be useful for describing, understanding, or predicting human information processing" [McGhee, Shields and Birnberg, 1978, pp. 695-96]. The results obtained here and recent views in psychology [e.g., Mischel, 1979] suggest that this conclusion may not be war- ranted if two important conceptual issues are recognized. First is the fact that there is a distinction between personality and cognitive style, and second, these two dimensions may interact to affect and moderate the accounting information/ decision-making relationship. The results of this study suggest that future accounting research in this area may be potentially more productive if this premise is adopted. This view is also consistent with contemporary ideas in psychology. Mischel [1979], in a recent discussion on the interface of cognition and personality, concludes (p. 752):

In the decade now ending, many of us have come to recognize increasingly that an adequate analysis of behavior cannot proceed without serious attention to the cognitive processes ...

This investigation selected two user psychological variables that have been developed in psychology. Among the broad group of cognitive styles, field dependence has shown some consistent predictive ability, and the results obtained here and elsewhere [Lusk, 1973] suggest that it may be a useful dimension for further accounting research. Other dimensions of cognitive styles, such as category width [Pettigrew, 1958] and decision styles [Mock and Vasarhelyi, 1976] may also be usefully investigated to see if similar or different patterns emerge. In addition, other dimensions in personality, such as dogmatism [Ro- keach, 1960], should be tested jointly with cognitive styles to identify interactive relationships. Other types of accounting information and decision-making variables (e.g., decision accuracy, decision consensus) which are theoretically suitable for testing with particular dimensions should also be studied and may provide some interesting evidence.

REFERENCES Anastasi, A., Psychological Testing (Macmillan, 1976). Argyle, M. and B. R. Little, "Do Personality Traits Apply to Social Behavior," Journalfor the Theory ojf

Social Behavior (April 1972). pp. 1-35. Bern, D. and A. Allen, "On Predicting Some of the People Some of the Time; The Search for Cross-

Situational Consistencies in Behavior," Psychological Review (November 1974), pp. 506-520. Benbasat, I. and A. S. Dexter, "Value and Events Approach to Accounting: An Experimental Evaluation,"

THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW (October 1979), pp. 735-749. Birnberg, J. G., M. Shields and W. McGhee, "The Effects of Personality on Subjects' Information

Processing: A Reply," THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW (July 1980), pp. 507-5 10. Bowers, K., "Situationism in Psychology: An Analysis and a Critique," Psychological Review (September

1973), pp. 307-336. Budner, S., "Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable," Journal oj Personulity (March 1962),

pp. 29-50. Buss, A. R., "The Trait-Situation Controversy and the Concept of Interaction," Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin (April 1977), pp. 196-201. Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March, A Behavioural Theory of the Firm (Prentice-Hall, 1963).




Dermer, J., "Cognitive Characteristics and the Perceived Importance of Information," THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW (July 1973), pp. 511-519.

Doktor, R. H. and W. F. Hamilton, "Cognitive Style and the Acceptance of Management Science Recommendations,," Management Science (April 1973), pp. 884-894.

Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), The Handbook of'Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Rand McNally, 1976). Endler, N. S. and D. Magnusson (Eds.). Jnteractional Piv choloqv and Personalityv (Hemisphere, 1976).

Faircloth, A. W. and D. N. Ricchiute, "Ambiguity Intolerance and Financial Reporting Alternatives," Accounting, Organizations and Societ~v (March 198 1). pp. 53-67.

Flamholtz, E. G., Human Resources Accounting (Dickenson, 1974). Goodenough, D. R., "The Role of Individual Differences in Field Dependence as a Factor in Learning

and Memory," Psychological Bulletin (July 1976), pp. 675-694. Gul, F. A., "Human Resources Accounting: A Study of the Usefulness of Labour Turnover Costs in

Australian Accounting Firms," Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia (December 1981).

and 0. Zaid, "Field Dependence and Accountants Confidence in Decisions," Psychological Reports (December 1981), pp. 949-950.

Kagan, J. and E. Haveman, Psychology. An Introduction (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976). Kates, R. W., Haazard and Choice Perceptions in Flood Plain Management (University of Chicago, Depart-

ment of Geography, 1962). Kirk, R. E., Experimental Design. Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.,

1968). Libby, R. and B. Lewis, "Human Information Processing Research in Accounting: The State of the Art,"

Accounting, Organizations and Society (No. 3. 1977), pp. 245-268. Loomis, H. K. and S. Moskowitz7 "Cognitive Style and Stimulus Ambiguity,"' Journal of Personalitv

(March 1958), pp. 349-364. Lusk. E. "Cognitive Aspects of Annual Reports: Field Independence/Dependence," Empirical Research

in Accounting. Selected Studies, Supplement to the Journal of'Accounting Research (1973), pp. 191-202.

MacDonald, A. P.. Jr.. "Revised Scale for Ambiguity Tolerance, Reliability and Validity," Psychological Reports (June 1970). pp. 791-798.

McGhee, W., M. Shields and J. Birnberg, "The Effects of Personality on a Subject's Information Process-

ing, THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW (July 1978), pp. 681-697. Mischel, W., "Continuity and Change in Personality,"' American Psychologist (December 1969), pp. 1012-

1018. "Toward a Cognitive Social Learning Reconceptualization of Personality," Psychological Revieiw

(July 1973), pp. 252-283. .On the Interface of Cognition and Personality," American Psychologist (September 1979), pp.

740-754. Mock, T. J. and M. A. Vasarhelyi, "A Cross-Contextual Investigation of Information Processing Models,

Cognitive Styles and Accounting," Unpublished paper (July 1976), cited in Oliver and Flamholtz

[1978]. Oliver, J. and E. Flamholtz, "Human Resource Replacement Cost Numbers, Cognitive Information

Processing and Personnel Decisions: A Laboratory Experiment," Journal of Business Finance and

Accounting (Summer 1978), pp. 137-157. Pemberton, C., "The Closure Factors Related to Temperament," Journal of Personality (December 1952),

pp. 159-175. Pettigrew, T. F., "The Measurement and Correlates of Category Width as a Cognitive Variable," The

Journal of Personality (December 1958), pp. 532-544. Pratt, J., "The Effects of Personality on Subject's Information Processing: A Comment," THE ACCOUNT-

ING REVIEW (July 1980), pp. 501-506. Ruble, D. N. and C. Y. Nakamura, "Task Orientation versus Social Orientation in Young Children and

Their Attention to Relevant Social Cues," Child Development (June 1972), pp. 471-480.

San Miguel, J. G., "Human Information Processing and its Relevance to Accounting: A Laboratory Study," Accounting. Organizations and Society (December 1976), pp. 357-373.

Schroder, H., M. Driver, and S. S. Streufert, Human Information Processing (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967).

and P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Personality Theory and Information Processing (Ronald Press Co., 1971).



Gul 277

Taylor, R. N., "Age and Experience as Determinants of Managerial Information Processing and Decision Making Performance," Academy of Management Journal (March 1975), pp. 74-81.

Tomassini, L. A., "Assessing the Impact of Human Resources Accounting: An Experimental Study of Managerial Decision Preferences," THE ACCOUNTING REVIEW (October 1977), pp. 904-914.

Weber, R., "Auditor Decision Making on Overall System Reliability, Accuracy, Consensus, and the Usefulness of a Stimulation Decision Aid," Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn 1978), pp. 368- 388.

White, G. F., Choice of Adjustment to Floods (University of Chicago, Department of Geography, 1964). Winer, B. J., Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (McGraw-Hill, 1971). Witkin, H. A., "Cognitive Style in Academic Performance and in Teacher-Student Selections," in S.

Messick (Ed.), Individuality in Learning (Josey-Bass, 1976), pp. 38-72. , P. K. Oltman, E. Raskin and S. A. Karp, A Manualfor the Embedded Figures Test (Consulting

Psychologists Press, 1971). and D. R. Goodenough, "Field Dependence and Interpersonal Behavior," Psychological Bulletin

(July 1977), pp. 661-686.



Article Contentsp.264p.265p.266p.267p.268p.269p.270p.271p.272p.273p.274p.275p.276p.277

Issue Table of ContentsThe Accounting Review, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 163-360Front MatterThe Relationship between Time-Series Models and the Security Market's Expectation of Quarterly Earnings [pp.163-176]The Valuation of Reported Pension Measures for Firms Sponsoring Defined Benefit Plans [pp.177-198]Expectation Models and Potential Information Content of Oil and Gas Reserve Value Disclosures [pp.199-217]Dollar Unit Sampling for Accounts Receivable and Inventory [pp.218-241]An Analysis of the Factors Associated with Lawsuits against Public Accountants [pp.242-263]NotesThe Joint and Moderating Role of Personality and Cognitive Style on Decision Making [pp.264-277]Risk Attitudes, Value-Restricted Preferences, and Public Choice over Lotteries and Information Systems [pp.278-286]Timeliness of Financial Reporting and Financial Distress [pp.287-295]Evidence on the Selective Reporting of Financial Ratios [pp.296-299]

Education ResearchAccounting Students' Performance and Cognitive Complexity: Some Empirical Evidence [pp.300-313]Practitioners' Views on Five-Year Educational Requirements for CPAs [pp.314-324]

Financial ReportingThe Effects of Delays by Accounting Policy-Setters in Reconciling the Accounting Treatment of Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights [pp.325-341]The Curious Accounting Treatment of the Swedish Government Loan to Uddeholm [pp.342-350]

Book Reviewsuntitled [pp.351-352]untitled [pp.352-353]untitled [p.353]untitled [pp.353-354]untitled [pp.354-355]untitled [pp.355-356]Books Received July 21, 1983 to October 20, 1983 [pp.357-360]

Capsule Commentariesuntitled [p.356]untitled [pp.356-357]untitled [p.357]untitled [p.357]

Back Matter

the joint and moderating role of personality and cognitive style on decision making

Documents