认知神经科学研究与审计人员职业怀疑交叉的未来研究方向

IF 1.1 Q3 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Carmen Olsen , Anna Gold
{"title":"认知神经科学研究与审计人员职业怀疑交叉的未来研究方向","authors":"Carmen Olsen ,&nbsp;Anna Gold","doi":"10.1016/j.acclit.2018.03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Drawing on the literature from cognitive neuroscience and auditing research on professional skepticism (PS), this paper identifies new research questions, determinants, and theories that may resolve current problem areas in PS research. We identify the following PS research areas that neuroscientific perspectives can potentially improve: 1) theory, 2) trust, 3) trait and state skepticism, 4) deception/fraud detection, and 5) skeptical judgment and action. The paper concludes with a discussion of the critical question of whether integrating a neuroscientific perspective in PS research is worthwhile and provides further direction for future research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45666,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Literature","volume":"41 ","pages":"Pages 127-141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.acclit.2018.03.006","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism\",\"authors\":\"Carmen Olsen ,&nbsp;Anna Gold\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acclit.2018.03.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Drawing on the literature from cognitive neuroscience and auditing research on professional skepticism (PS), this paper identifies new research questions, determinants, and theories that may resolve current problem areas in PS research. We identify the following PS research areas that neuroscientific perspectives can potentially improve: 1) theory, 2) trust, 3) trait and state skepticism, 4) deception/fraud detection, and 5) skeptical judgment and action. The paper concludes with a discussion of the critical question of whether integrating a neuroscientific perspective in PS research is worthwhile and provides further direction for future research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45666,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Accounting Literature\",\"volume\":\"41 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 127-141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.acclit.2018.03.006\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Accounting Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0737460717301295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0737460717301295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

本文借鉴了认知神经科学和专业怀疑主义(PS)审计研究的文献,确定了新的研究问题、决定因素和理论,这些问题可能解决PS研究中当前的问题领域。我们确定了以下神经科学视角可以潜在改进的PS研究领域:1)理论,2)信任,3)特征和状态怀疑,4)欺骗/欺诈检测,以及5)怀疑判断和行动。本文最后讨论了在PS研究中整合神经科学观点是否值得的关键问题,并为未来的研究提供了进一步的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Future research directions at the intersection between cognitive neuroscience research and auditors’ professional skepticism

Drawing on the literature from cognitive neuroscience and auditing research on professional skepticism (PS), this paper identifies new research questions, determinants, and theories that may resolve current problem areas in PS research. We identify the following PS research areas that neuroscientific perspectives can potentially improve: 1) theory, 2) trust, 3) trait and state skepticism, 4) deception/fraud detection, and 5) skeptical judgment and action. The paper concludes with a discussion of the critical question of whether integrating a neuroscientific perspective in PS research is worthwhile and provides further direction for future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The objective of the Journal is to publish papers that make a fundamental and substantial contribution to the understanding of accounting phenomena. To this end, the Journal intends to publish papers that (1) synthesize an area of research in a concise and rigorous manner to assist academics and others to gain knowledge and appreciation of diverse research areas or (2) present high quality, multi-method, original research on a broad range of topics relevant to accounting, auditing and taxation. Topical coverage is broad and inclusive covering virtually all aspects of accounting. Consistent with the historical mission of the Journal, it is expected that the lead article of each issue will be a synthesis article on an important research topic. Other manuscripts to be included in a given issue will be a mix of synthesis and original research papers. In addition to traditional research topics and methods, we actively solicit manuscripts of the including, but not limited to, the following: • meta-analyses • field studies • critiques of papers published in other journals • emerging developments in accounting theory • commentaries on current issues • innovative experimental research with strong grounding in cognitive, social or anthropological sciences • creative archival analyses using non-standard methodologies or data sources with strong grounding in various social sciences • book reviews • "idea" papers that don''t fit into other established categories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信