The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1030-9616.htm

Big data
Auditor judgment and environment
decision-making in big data
environment: a proposed
research framework 55
Adli Hamdam, Ruzita Jusoh, Yazkhiruni Yahya and Received 15 April 2020
Revised 21 August 2020
Azlina Abdul Jalil 21 November 2020
27 November 2020
Accounting Department, Faculty of Business and Accountancy, 7 December 2020
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and 12 December 2020
Accepted 13 December 2020
Nor Hafizah Zainal Abidin
Accounting Department, Kulliyyah of Economics and Management Sciences,
International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The role of big data and data analytics in the audit engagement process is evident.
Notwithstanding, understanding how big data influences cognitive processes and, consequently, on the
auditors’ judgment decision-making process is limited. The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual
framework on the cognitive process that may influence auditors’ judgment decision-making in the big data
environment. The proposed framework predicts the relationships among data visualization integration, data
processing modes, task complexity and auditors’ judgment decision-making.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology to accomplish the conceptual framework is
based on a thorough literature review that consists of theoretical discussions and comparative studies
of other authors’ works and thinking. It also involves summarizing and interpreting previous
contributions subjectively and narratively and extending the work in some fashion. Based on this
approach, this paper formulates four propositions about data visualization integration, data processing
modes, task complexity and auditors’ judgment decision-making. The proposed framework was built
from cognitive theory addressing how auditors process data into useful information to make judgment
decision-making.
Findings – The proposed framework expects that the cognitive process of data visualization integration
and intuitive data processing mode will improve auditors’ judgment decision-making. This paper also
contends that task complexity may influence the cognitive process of data visualization integration and
processing modes because of the voluminous nature of data and the complexity of business processes. Hence,
it is also expected that the relationships between data visualization integration and audit judgment decision-
making and between processing mode and audit judgment decision-making will be moderated by task
complexity.
Research limitations/implications – There is a dearth of studies examining how big data and big
data analytics affect auditors’ cognitive processes in making decisions. This paper will help
researchers and auditors understand the behavioral consequences of data visualization integration
and data processing mode in making judgment decision-making, given a certain level of task
complexity.
Originality/value – With the advent of big data and the evolution of innovative audit procedures, the
constructed framework can be used as a theoretical foundation for future empirical studies concerning
Accounting Research Journal
Vol. 35 No. 1, 2022
pp. 55-70
This research project was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education of Malaysia through the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1030-9616
Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS – FP089-2018A). DOI 10.1108/ARJ-04-2020-0078
ARJ auditors’ judgment decision-making. It highlights the potential of big data to transform the nature and
practice of accounting and auditing.
35,1
Keywords Big data, Auditor judgment, Data visualization, Data processing mode, Task complexity,
Cognitive theory
Paper type Conceptual paper

56
1. Introduction
In the big data era, data are considered as new business assets that can fundamentally
transform and revolutionize the global economy. Big data includes social media information,
surveillance videos, stock market transaction data, risk assessment data from competitors,
market trends, customer behavior data, structured and unstructured data, including
numbers, text, images, sound, videos. Among the data analytics tools that are expected to
increase in popularity include predictive models, machine learning techniques, artificial
intelligence, statistical analytics, visualization techniques, data warehouses and database
management systems (DBMS) (Brown-Liburd et al., 2015).
Despite the growing use of Big Data and Big Data analytics by business organizations,
both the accounting and auditing professions have been initially slow to take advantage of
this development and innovation (Vasarhelyi et al., 2015). Accountants and auditors are
facing a paradigm shift in their roles and the way they do things. Nevertheless, it is still
unclear whether and how accounting and auditing practices within the organization will
change, even though Big Data is being recognized as a new force that will essentially
transform the pathway in which organizations operate. Besides, the auditing profession
does not seem to respond quickly to technology adoption (Alles, 2015; Vasarhelyi et al.,
2015). Auditors are unwilling or unable to adapt when it comes to obtaining the required
new technologies and techniques related to audit in the big data environment, which
threatens to change both the auditors’ role in society and how auditors are viewed in society
(Alles, 2015; Vasarhelyi et al., 2015). In adapting to the new realities, many auditing firms
have begun to deploy big data analytics tools in supporting their audit works, albeit at a
slow pace. Among the data analytics tools that are expected to increase in popularity include
predictive models, machine learning techniques, artificial intelligence, statistical analytics,
visualization techniques, data warehouses and DBMS (Brown-Liburd et al., 2015). Although
the use of big data analytics reduces the effect of auditors’ lack of experience, knowledge
and cognitive limitations in providing unbiased audit judgment, data analytics output
depends mostly on the auditors’ ability to handle big data (Fawad, 2019). Yet, there is still a
lack of consensus on this issue that warrants further attention and more empirical evidence
on how auditors perform judgment and decision-making within a big data environment.
Furthermore, although the potential of big data may be appealing to the auditing
profession, its actual integration into audits has not yet reached maturity. One potential
issue that may affect audit judgment and decision-making in the big data environment
concerns the way auditors perform their cognitive process. According to Brown-Liburd et al.
(2015) and Fawad (2019), little is known as to how big data should be synthesized into a
cognitive process that leads to quality, relevant and trustworthy information for auditors to
make the judgment and decision-making. Thus, how auditors frame and analyze data
visualization in big data situations needs to be further explored. Recognizing patterns in the
structured and unstructured or financial and nonfinancial data (i.e. complex data anomalies
or data inconsistencies) could suggest errors or fraud that may impose a great challenge to
the auditors (Brown-Liburd et al., 2015). To address this issue, a study is required to
examine how big data visualization integration could influence auditors’ evaluation of
evidences in producing quality judgment and decision-making. Specifically, to our Big data
knowledge, no study has been conducted to understand better the influence of data environment
visualization integration, data processing mode and task complexity on the way auditors
make judgments and decisions in the big data environment. This paper proposes a
conceptual framework for such a study. The framework is an extension of primarily Rose
et al.’s (2017, 2019) work and insights. The methodology to accomplish this conceptual
framework is based on a thorough review of the literature, which consists of theoretical
discussions, and comparative studies of other authors’ work and thinking. It also involves 57
summarizing and interpreting previous contributions subjectively and narratively, as well
as extending the work in some fashion. Based on this approach and from the perspective of
cognitive theory, this paper formulates four propositions about data visualization
integration, data processing mode, task complexity and auditors’ judgment and decision-
making.
Data visualization integration relates to an analysis of outputs that result from the
integration and matching of information from big data and traditional audit evidence (Rose
et al., 2017). To Moeckel (1991), integration deals with identifying and establishing
important relationships among information from separate sources. Big data usually is
unstructured, and it may be difficult to identify unique transactions, products or even
customers (Yoon et al., 2015). Suppose auditors cannot present pertinent data, formats or
output analyses at relevant times within the audit procedure. In that case, it can create
problems such as the opportunity of selection traps and biases, audit inefficiencies or even
lead to audit disasters and failures (Rose et al., 2017). Data integration can also cause data
incompatibility as big data lacks a common identifier (Tang and Karim, 2017). As such,
performing data visualization integration can prove difficult, as it requires both a thorough
understanding of the structured and unstructured data sets and sufficient competency in
information technology. However, auditors tend to be hesitant to move toward full
integration of data analytics in their audit process or to include data visualization
integration in their reports (Gepp et al., 2018). As such, to change auditors’ perception about
the importance of data visualization integration, this paper argues that having better
visualization integration of data based on both traditional and big data audit evidences will
help auditors perform effective judgment and decision-making.
Furthermore, there is also a need to understand how auditors process data analytics
evidence and information in making their audit judgment. When visualizing and integrating
big data, auditors are using either intuitive or deliberative data processing mode. According to
Wolfe et al. (2016), auditors may face difficulties identifying important red flag patterns,
abnormalities and anomalies in data. Therefore, it is essential to understand which processing
modes affect audit judgment and decision-making. Decision-makers who use intuitive
processing are better at recognizing evidence that does not conform to expectations (Zhong,
2011). Wolfe et al. (2016) demonstrate that auditors who engage in intuitive processing
activities are more sensitive to patterns that challenge expectations. However, Rose et al. (2017)
do not find support for their contention that auditors who engage in intuitive processing mode
and perform data visualization after reviewing preliminary procedures are more likely to
recognize relevant patterns than auditors engaging in deliberative processing mode. Besides,
their argument that auditors exposed to an intuitive processing mode are more likely to
recognize patterns in visualization than those exposed to a deliberative processing mode is also
not supported by the same study. Therefore, further studies are required to confirm the work of
Rose et al. (2017) on data processing modes in different contexts to provide additional insights
into whether intuitive or deliberative processing mode is better for improving auditors’
professional judgment in the big data environment.
ARJ Moreover, in extending Rose et al.’s (2017, 2019) work, this paper argues that different
35,1 task complexity levels may play an essential role in inducing data visualization integration
and processing mode to affect audit judgment and decision-making. Auditors may
experience high task complexity in a big data environment because of information overload
coming from structured and unstructured data of multiple sources. As a result, high task
complexity can cause auditors to face difficulty in making audit judgments because the
58 effects of information overload from large volumes of accounting information may
potentially lead to suboptimal financial and auditing judgments (Brown-Liburd et al., 2015).
Although some judgment and decision-making studies have examined task complexity as a
moderating variable (Tan and Kao, 1999; Pelham and Neter, 1995; Tan et al., 2002; Mohd-
Sanusi and Mohd-Iskandar, 2007; Mohd-Iskandar and Mohd-Sanusi, 2011), no study as yet
has looked into task complexity together with data visualization integration and processing
modes. As such, this paper proposes task complexity as a moderating variable in examining
the associations between data visualization integration and processing mode with auditors’
judgment decision-making.
In summary, this paper offers several contributions to the extant auditing and judgment
decision-making literature. Considering the literature of auditing and auditors’ judgment
and decision-making in a big data environment is still scant, the proposed framework that
extends the work of Rose et al. (2017, 2019) would further lay the theoretical foundation for
future empirical research applied within a big data environment. The conceptual framework
explaining the theoretical linkages, based on cognitive theory, among data visualization
integration, data processing mode, task complexity and auditor professional judgment and
decision-making provides new insights to the extant literature. This proposed framework
differs from Rose et al. (2017, 2019) in two ways. Although Rose et al. (2017, 2019) use the
term “data visualization,” this paper slightly modifies this term and labels it “data
visualization integration,” as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Another difference
relates to the inclusion of task complexity as a moderating variable into the extended
framework, which offers another theoretical contribution of this paper. This paper also
underlines practical implications for auditors to understand their capabilities and courses of
action to make judgments and decisions by using digital realities of computer-aided
information (such as large data sets, compact graphic representation and sophisticated
statistical analysis) within different task complexity.
The remainder of this paper is structured in the following order. Section 2 describes the
relevant literature relating to big data and data analytics, auditing in the big data
environment, auditor judgment and decision-making and theoretical arguments for
developing propositions. Section 3 presents a proposed research framework and its
underlying theory. Finally, Section 4 offers conclusions.

2. Literature review and development of propositions

2.1 Big data and data analytics
The term “big data” has not been consistently defined (Vasarhelyi et al., 2015) and is still
confused and vague (Dagiliene and Kloviene, 2019). Although big data has different
interpretations and approaches, its fundamental definition must relate to its enormous size
(Vasarhelyi et al., 2015). Brown-Liburd et al. (2015) define big data as data that consists of
large, unstructured and complex data from financial and nonfinancial sources. To Gartner
Research (2014) and Buhl et al. (2013), big data consists of high-volume, high-velocity, high-
variety and high-veracity information. Volume is the most easily attributed to big data
because the large volume would literally be big. Variety refers to different forms of data or
multiplicity of data sources (Cao et al., 2015) or a combination of unstructured and
structured data, whereas velocity refers to the speed and real-time of data access and Big data
process. Veracity refers to the trustworthiness, correctness and reliability of the data. Over environment
time, other “Vs” such as “Variability,” “Visualization” and “Value” (Faroukhi et al., 2020) has
been added to. Variability refers to variance in meaning where it mostly focuses on properly
understanding and interpreting the correct meanings of raw data that depends on its
context. Visualization is related to the data presentation that is accessible and readable.
Value refers to the ability of the data to give new insights for building knowledge.
There is a new approach to information management in a big data environment called
59
data analytics. Although big data refers to data characteristics (Arnaboldi et al., 2017), data
analytics refers to the collection of tools developed to make sense of big data (Gepp et al.,
2018; Salijeni et al., 2018). Data analytics is essentially analyzing large and varied data sets
from various databases and in different formats, including structured and unstructured, to
uncover information that can help organizations make informed business decisions in real-
time (Gepp et al., 2018; Salijeni et al., 2018). For auditors, data analytics involves inspecting,
cleaning, transforming and modeling big data to discover and communicate useful
information and patterns (i.e. correlations and anomalies) that enable them to suggest a
conclusion and assist in decision-making (Cao et al., 2015; Brown-Liburd et al., 2015). The
use of traditional audit methods and tools, such as computer assisted audit techniques and
Microsoft Excel, maybe less suitable to effectively and efficiently analyze big data (Brown-
Liburd et al., 2015).

2.2 Auditing in big data environment

Current accounting and audit literature in big data and data analytics has outlined some
challenges, especially in the areas of performance of substantive, risk assessment and
analytical procedure (Alles, 2015; Cao et al., 2015; Krahel and Titera, 2015; Wang and
Cuthbertson, 2015; Yoon et al., 2015; Alles and Gray, 2016; Appelbaum, 2016; Rose et al.,
2017, 2019). Big data completely changes the way auditors gather and evaluate audit
evidence and perform judgment and decision-making (Rose et al., 2017, 2019; Brown-Liburd
et al., 2015; Vasarhelyi et al., 2015). Although the prospects of using big data offer much
promise to financial statement auditors, issues such as ambiguity of information (Brown-
Liburd et al., 2015), information overload (Yoon et al., 2015) and auditing standards that
have not kept pace (Krahel and Titera, 2015; Appelbaum, 2016) provide strong hindrances to
the usage of big data in the auditing context. Although big data complements traditional
audit evidence in terms of conventional audit criteria such as cost-benefit, reliability,
relevance and sufficiency, the challenge to auditor’s professional judgment is making sense
of the large amounts of information obtained from data analytics (Yoon et al., 2015).

2.3 Auditor judgment and decision-making

Solomon and Trotman (2003) refer to judgment as subjective assessments made as a prelude
to taking action. Bonner (1999) defines judgment as mental activities of forming an idea,
opinion or estimate about an object, events or a phenomenon wherein these activities
influence the individual to make predictions for future events. Judgment and decision-
making research, which focuses on understanding individuals’ and groups’ judgments and
decisions, has found that the judgment and decision-making process greatly influences an
individual’s behavior (Trotman et al., 2011). As such, Ashton (2010) states that the judgment
and decision-making in the accounting and auditing research is a behavioral study on
human beings, as it focuses on the approach adopted and the selection process performed by
auditors and accountants while performing the audit processes and procedures relating to
ARJ risk assessments, materiality level, selection of the audit process, the appropriateness of
35,1 audit evidence and types of the audit report to be issued.
After making the judgment, decision activities will follow that involve making choices
among variables and predictions. Solomon and Trotman (2003) assert that decision refers to
actions that people take to perform a task or solve a problem. Bonner (1999) states that
decision activities are about making up one’s mind regarding the issues at hand and taking
60 a course of actions resulting from judgment activities. For example, audit judgment may
involve an auditor’s judgment on several critical aspects, such as the competency of the
client’s management, the materiality level of financial statement, the amount of material
information and the effectiveness of the client’s internal control. In turn, the auditor must
decide the appropriate means to acquire the essential knowledge to verify each element of
the financial statements, the type and amount of evidence to gather and, ultimately, the
report to be issued (Solomon and Trotman, 2003).
Owing to technological innovations and advancements nowadays, causing the enormous
volume of information cues and the complexity of accounting transactions will undoubtedly
affect how the auditors react and analyze the information effectively. Besides, the
technology also allows auditors to collect, manage and analyze the data more effectively,
which potentially leads to better judgment and decision- making process. Indeed, it will
dramatically change the way auditors make decisions and collect evidence in the big data
environment (Brown-Liburd et al., 2015; Moffitt and Vasarhelyi, 2013; Kogan et al., 2011).

2.4 Data visualization integration and auditor judgment and decision-making

Data visualization is a data analytics tool (American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, 2017) and is considered part of technology adoption (Buchheit et al., 2020).
According to Rose et al. (2017), data visualization involves illustrating and combining data
sets to discover hidden patterns to develop key insights. Data visualization assists users in
finding meaningful and framing relevant patterns of information for decision-making. Data
visualization in the context of big data has changed how information is presented, which
engages human cognitive and visual abilities through graphics and visuals (Appelbaum
et al., 2017) to help auditors gain better insights, draw better conclusions and improve audit
judgment (Alawadhi, 2015).
Rose et al. (2019) report that auditors attend more to the reliability of the underlying data
used generated from data visualization, as it promotes a higher level of consciousness,
attention, alertness and improves information processing. These cognitive processes are
created due to visualizations through big data and data analytics, which promote higher
levels of arousal and stimulation. This, in turn, influences auditors to be more likely to
consider the reliability of the underlying data, whether by confirming or disconfirming audit
evidence from specific accounts or information, which later affect judgment and decision-
making (Rose et al., 2017). Furthermore, measuring the arousal level objectively among
auditors is important because arousal levels significantly affect individuals’ responses to
stimuli, the intensity of attention and effort intensity (Kahneman, 1973; Howells et al., 2010).
Generally, in the context of the big data environment, auditors collect information from
both quantitative and qualitative and subjective and objective information for their audit
evidence (Louwers et al., 2017). Chang and Luo (2019) and Yoon et al. (2015) argue that data
visualization complements rather than supplements traditional audit evidence. This is
particularly important when traditional evidence is insufficient in detecting any fraud cases.
Integration of audit evidence from various contexts forms new challenges for an auditor
because the decision to determine the sufficiency and relevancy of audit evidence depends
exclusively on the auditors’ judgment (Brown-Liburd et al., 2015). Moeckel (1991) argued
that audit evidence integration is challenging, but it is essential to establish the auditors’ Big data
judgment quality. As suggested by behavioral audit research, auditors tend to make environment
systematic mistakes or biases in judgment because of cognitive biases and the relevance and
trustworthiness of the evidence (Chang and Luo, 2019). This is because significant patterns
in big data are not easy to detect by the auditor, as data sets are varied and huge where
various information and patterns can appear because of their voluminous nature (Brown-
Liburd et al., 2015; Carraway, 2013). It requires auditors to apply relevant visualization
techniques that complement the traditional audit approaches in validating audit evidence. 61
Furthermore, Rose et al. (2017) provide evidence to suggest that data visualizations
provides less value when they are viewed before traditional audit evidence. In the same vein,
Hammersley (2011) proposes that auditors must outline a hypothesis or initial expectation
about audit evidence before implementing data visualization integration. Developing initial
expectations based on traditional audit evidence before analyzing audit analytics evidence
will help auditors use data visualization integration effectively in their judgment and
decision-making. Hence, the following proposition is developed:

P1. Data visualization integration enhances auditor judgment and decision-making.

2.5 Data processing mode and auditor judgment and decision-making

Research in psychology specifies two types of information processing modes in an
individual’s decision-making: intuitive processing and deliberative processing (Kahneman,
2011). Intuitive and deliberative thinking processes are based on cognitive styles
representing an individual’s preferred methods in acquiring and processing information
during the problem-solving process, which entails distinctive styles because of individuals’
differences (Griffith et al., 2016). Intuitive mode refers to thinking fast, effortlessly and
unconsciously where decisions are made automatically in the heuristics process (Kahneman,
2011). Deliberative mode refers to thinking slow, effortful, sequential, which engages more
awareness, systematic reasoning and control (Stanovich and West, 2000; Kahneman, 2011;
Kahneman and Frederick, 2007). Deliberative thinking requires significant cognitive effort
and consists of a logical judgment gained from past learning and experience (Croskerry,
2009). There is a circumstance where reasoning or deliberation is not always beneficial for
the quality of judgments and decision-making (Wilson and Schooler, 1991).
Furthermore, literature has highlighted that the dual processing mode’s effects and
outcomes may not be uniform because of individuals’ differences, task characteristics and
situational factors. For instance, systematic errors in judgment may happen when people
use intuitive processing mode because it relies more on the heuristic bias (Tversky and
Kahneman, 1974). Such errors could be prevented when people use deliberative processing
mode (Usher et al., 2011). However, the automatic decision when using intuitive thinking
mode in the complex decision scenario can lead to optimal judgment (Usher et al., 2011;
Wilson and Schooler, 1991; Dijksterhuis, 2006), whereas fast responses for complex decision
neither enhance nor deteriorate decision-making (Calvillo and Penaloza, 2009; Woolley et al.,
2015). A study by Dijkstra et al. (2013) shows that the impact of deliberation and intuition
processing modes on judgments of various stimuli is moderated by experience and
knowledge. For example, experienced individuals without formal training or professional
background tend to make poorer judgments with deliberation processing mode than when
relying on intuition processing mode.
When formulating audit opinions, auditors are expected to be rational and objective.
Auditors may be better at identifying pattern anomalies using a more intuitive pattern
analysis approach (Cheng, 2011). Accordingly, when auditors engage in intuitive processing
ARJ (versus deliberative processing) before evaluating audit evidence, they will be able to
35,1 recognize anomalies and instances where evidence factors do not conform to expectations
(Rose et al., 2017). According to Zhong (2011) and Small et al. (2007), processing mode may
change based on the decision context. With big data and data analytics, there is an
opportunity for auditors to strengthen their potential to identify meaningful patterns,
anomalies and illustrations in data by manipulating processing mode to make judgments
62 and decisions. In such a context, intuitive processing mode may be dominant. Hence, the
following proposition is put forth:

P2. Auditors with intuitive data processing mode tend to make better judgment and
decision-making than those with deliberative data processing mode.

2.6 Moderating role of task complexity

Task complexity refers to the inconsistency and difficulty of the task (Bonner, 1994). Task
complexity has always been commonly associated with task structure (Simon, 1973) and
task difficulty (Kahneman, 1973). Although task difficulty deals with the amount of mental
processing and attention competence, task structure is defined by the specification of what
needs to be done in a task (Bonner, 1994). Task complexity has popularly played a role in
audit judgment and decision-making researches (Bonner, 1994; Trotman, 1998; Trotman
et al., 2015). How auditors apply judgment and decision-making within auditing tasks’
complexity has become an increasingly critical topic (Bucaro, 2019). Given the highly
complex nature of most audit tasks, clear comprehension of task complexity and its effect on
auditors’ judgment in the big data context needs further investigation. Judgment
performance deteriorates when auditors could not make their true and fair judgment
because of the high volume of information and task. However, Tan et al. (2002) discover that
performance declines with increasing complexity, but only under a combination of high
accountability and low knowledge or low accountability and high knowledge. They further
reveal that judgment performance is unaffected by increasing task complexity in conditions
of high accountability and high knowledge.
Although the moderating role of task complexity is well established in the field of audit
(Abdolmohammadi and Wright, 1987; Tan et al., 2002; Mohd-Iskandar and Mohd-Sanusi,
2011, 2011; Alissa et al., 2014; Mohd-Sanusi et al., 2018), the extent to which it moderates
data visualization integration and data processing mode toward an auditor’s professional
judgment is still unexplored. In the context of big data, information overload is expected, as
tasks turn out to be more complex, which leads to auditors exceeding their optimum
competencies and capabilities in both quantitative and qualitative skills (Marsh and Ahn,
2006; Simnett, 1996; DeShon et al., 1996). As a result, it creates an inverse relationship
between task complexity and the accuracy and certainty of auditors’ judgment decision-
making quality (Wongpinunwatana, 2003). Cao et al. (2015) state that the auditors must deal
with massive and messy data sets and focus on causation, undoubtedly leading to task
complexity. This situation is expected to influence data visualization integration and data
processing mode, which affects the auditors’ judgment and decision-making. Moreover,
individuals may depend on task features and requirements before using which processing
mode to enhance judgment and decision-making (Ayal et al., 2015). Given the enormous
amount of accounting information, auditors may face difficulties in combining all audit
evidence via data visualization integration because of voluminous data from a large number
of tasks. Besides, they cannot effectively implement intuitive thinking mode when it comes
to many audit tasks. The auditors may need more time to digest and deliberate the massive
amount of data. Besides, information overload may cause underutilization of collected
knowledge and information, and hence may affect the effectiveness of the task (Bonner, Big data
1994; Devine and Kozlowski, 1995; Meyer, 1998; Haas and Hansen, 2007). Also, Appelbaum environment
et al. (2017) highlight the data reliability issue in big data analytic, making the auditing task
more complex and challenging.
Accordingly, based on the preceding arguments, it is expected that task complexity
moderates the relationships between data visualization integration and auditor judgment
and decision-making as well as between data processing mode and auditor judgment and
decision-making. When task complexity is low, auditors dealing with a high level of data 63
visualization integration and intuitive or deliberative processing tend to make better
professional judgments than when task complexity is high. In other words, the positive
relationships between data visualization integration and audit judgment performance and
between intuitive processing mode and audit judgment performance will be stronger under
low task complexity. This is because simple tasks tend to require a smaller demand for
decision-makers’ capabilities than complex tasks (Wood, 1986). Performing data
visualization integration process, which links the traditional audit approach and data
analytics certainly improves the low complexity audit process’s efficiency when all the
procedures are now automated and well-suited to quickly analyzing and adapting to new
data. However, when the audit task is complex, material and involves high audit risk, it
requires more procedures and evidence, causing difficulty for auditors to integrate multiple
pieces of evidence (Moeckel, 1991) from big data and data analytics. This brings to the
formulation of the following propositions:

P3a. The positive influence of data visualization on auditors’ judgment and decision-
making is stronger under low task complexity than high task complexity.
P3b. The positive influence of data processing mode (intuitive and deliberative) on
auditors’ judgment and decision-making is stronger under low task complexity
than high task complexity.

3. Proposed research framework and its underlying theory

From the above discussion on the literature relating to the theoretical linkages between the
variables, a research framework is proposed, as shown in Figure 1. The research framework
depicts the relationship among independent variables (data visualization integration and
data processing mode), a moderating variable (task complexity) and a dependent variable
(auditor judgment and decision-making). The proposed research framework is warranted
due to the complex nature of big data and data analytics usage in auditing, which currently
receives little attention.
This paper adopts cognitive theory to address how auditors process data into useful
information to make judgments and decisions. The cognitive theory posits that judgment is

Task Complexity

Data Visualization
Integration
Auditor Judgment and
Decision-making Figure 1.
Proposed research
Data Processing Mode framework
ARJ driven by inner forces, possibly shaped and controlled by social influence, external and
35,1 internal environment as well as individual factors (Trotman et al., 2011). This theory’s core
concept is to observe the reproduction of an observed behavior by schematizing triadic
reciprocal causation of behavioral and environmental factors (Bandura, 1999).
This theory is used in most judgment and decision-making researches, which evaluate
the quality of judgment, describe the process of how judgments are made, determine factors
64 that impact these judgments, develop and test underlying theories of cognitive processes by
which judgments are made and improve the judgment process (Trotman et al., 2011).
Cognitive theory is used to assess auditors’ ability to process information and perform tasks
(Trotman, 1995) and the auditors’ capacity to complete information encoding, retrieval and
analysis of tasks that contribute to problem-solving (Libby and Luft, 1993). As auditors are
exposed to numerous information within the time constraint, auditors’ cognitive processes
such as attention paid to information cues, retrieval of information from short-term and
long-term memory may be distorted by cognitive weaknesses and emotional factors (Fawad,
2019; Brown-Liburd et al., 2015). Arguably, with big data and data analytics, the social
cognitive theory helps explain how the information fed through the audit process would
consciously or unconsciously affect the human brain functions such as construing, planning,
motivating and regulating the decisions and actions.
The proposed framework aims to develop a deeper understanding of the cognitive
process that underlies judgment. Such a process requires searching for information
involving a sequential process, which starts from extracting evidence, progressing into data
visualization integration and processing mode and finally forming an audit opinion. The
proposed framework examines auditors’ cognitive processes by recognizing the auditors’
ability to visualize patterns and integrate both structured and unstructured data to identify
anomalies and trends. Data processing mode (intuitive or deliberative) would analyze the
interactions between integrating the information cues obtained from data visualization with
knowledge and experience and translating information obtained into quality audit
judgment. The cognitive theory would also explain the interactions among the ability,
knowledge and experience of an individual in making judgments given a certain level of
task complexity. Arguably, auditors who review data visualization integration and
engage in intuitive processing mode may easily recognize audit evidence patterns and make
better judgment and decision-making when having low task complexity than high task
complexity.

4. Conclusions
Prior literature has shown that big data and data analytics have the potential to transform
the nature and practice of accounting and auditing (Alles and Gray, 2016; Appelbaum, 2016).
Human thinking and reasoning processes could differ in contemporary audit analytics
approaches because of information overload coming from multiple external and internal
sources, large unstructured and structured data. However, there is limited understanding of
how data analytics affects cognitive processes through data visualization integration and
processing modes and its impact on auditor judgment and decision-making, given a certain
level of task complexity. The lack of empirical work in studying the cognitive processes in a
big data environment draws attention to the importance of developing an appropriate
framework for data analytics’ impact on the quality of auditor’s judgment and decision-
making. As such, this paper responds to calls for the development of a conceptual
framework to provide insights into how big data and data analytics is transforming the
audit process (Walker and Brown-Liburd, 2019).
 There are several reasons why this paper is particularly important. This paper proposes Big data
a conceptual framework that extends Rose et al.’s (2017, 2019) work on the effects of data environment
visualizations and processing modes on auditor judgment and decision-making. One
important theoretical implication in the extended framework is the conceptualization of data
visualization integration as a construct. Although prior literature used the term data
visualization, this paper conceptualizes this construct differently and proposes that it should
be couched as data visualization integration. The justification for creating this new variable
is that when auditors perform data visualization, it involves identifying trends and 65
combining larger data sets to discover hidden patterns. In doing so, auditors also require
data integration that combines all information in the form of quantitative, qualitative,
subjective and objective information into the audit process. Drawing from cognitive theory,
auditors, having data visualization integration, and intuitive data processing mode tend to
make better quality judgments. Arguably, auditors engaging in deliberative thinking mode
tend to have a much less quality judgment compared to intuitive thinking mode.
Another theoretical implication of this paper is that it incorporates a moderating variable
(task complexity) into Rose et al.’s framework. Accordingly, it provides a further theoretical
understanding of the effects of big data from the perspective of the behavioral consequences
of data visualization integration and data processing modes in making judgment and
decision-making given a certain level of task complexity. Given a certain level of task
complexity, it is expected that task complexity will mitigate the effect of data visualization
integration and data processing mode on auditor judgment and decision-making.
Considering that audit tasks vary in complexity and auditors vary in cognitive abilities,
quality judgment and decision-making will be achieved only if the combination of task
complexity and cognitive abilities is at the optimum level. Accordingly, the proposed
framework contributes to the limited existing literature on the role of task complexity in the
big data context, which is particularly essential within the accounting and auditing research
and practice due to the potential of big data to transform the nature and practice of
accounting and auditing (Alles and Gray, 2016; Appelbaum, 2016).
In terms of practical implications, the research framework allows audit researchers and
practitioners to understand the potential of big data and data analytics. Audit practitioners
need to understand the effects of complementing traditional audit evidence with data
visualization integration to fully leverage the benefits of big data and analytics in making
effective and quality audit judgments. Additionally, this framework will provide awareness
of the behavioral consequences of the cognitive process (i.e. data visualization integration
and data processing mode) when dealing with big data. As prior literature provides evidence
that suggests the effect and outcome of dual processing mode may not be uniform because
of individuals’ differences, task characteristics and situational factors, auditors must select
the correct strategies in selecting and analyzing information. This is because, given
information overload, data analytics can facilitate information processing to reduce
auditors’ cognitive errors (Fawad, 2019). In the auditing field, task complexity plays a
critical role in determining auditors’ performance because it will affect the auditors’ mental
workload in making judgment and decision-making. Therefore, for auditors to gain full
advantage of data analytics, auditors may need to undergo training to mitigate cognitive
bias and inaccurate judgments based on the complexity of the task that is being undertaken
when using big data to make their judgment. The proposed conceptual framework also
brings implications to audit firms for using data analytics. Gepp et al. (2018) put forward the
argument that audit firms should be using data analytics even if their clients are not doing
as such so that they would be ahead of their clients. As data visualization integration will
demand a greater skill set, auditors need to be competent in both audit skills and
ARJ information technology. Therefore, to reap the benefits of using data analytics, audit firms
35,1 should provide training intervention and necessary skills for auditors to analyze big data
and mitigate cognitive bias resulting from data visualization integration.
Concerning implications to policy, the conceptual framework provides additional
evidence to standards setters and regulators on the impact of data visualization integration
and how auditing standards may outline the need to complement traditional audit evidence
66 with data analytics. For example, the current sampling methods under the auditing
standard lack proof of effectiveness and consistency. Thus, they should be gradually
abandoned and replaced with population-level audit work when performing audits in the big
data environment (Tang and Karim, 2017; Krahel and Titera, 2015). Moreover, with the
advancement of data analytics, it could promote auditing firms to perform continuous
auditing as audit managed to well-suited quickly in analyzing and adapting to new big data
(Chiu et al., 2014). The role of the ministry of education and universities is important as well
in designing accounting courses with a focus on data analytics skills and information
technology in their effort to produce competent future auditors. This is in line with standard
A7 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, which suggests that
“accounting degree programs include learning experiences that develop skills and
knowledge related to the integration of information technology in accounting and business”
(Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, 2013).
This paper is only a conceptual paper. The ideas (propositions) proposed are not yet
validated and tested by empirical quantitative data. It requires more work in the future to
validate the proposed framework. For future research, it is recommended that the proposed
framework may be used to conduct further empirical studies on auditors by applying
experiments or surveys for testing the propositions. The findings will provide a further
understanding of the relationships among data visualization integration, processing modes,
task complexity and auditor judgment and decision-making in the context of big data and
data analytics. An experimental approach is preferable for this framework, as it enables
researchers to test the underlying cognitive processes by which judgments are made within
a controlled environment. Additionally, using this framework, researchers in this area could
complement quantitative methods by using an interview to confirm prior findings and give
richer evidence. Besides, most of the prior studies were conducted mainly in the context of
Anglo-Saxon countries, whereas limited attention is given to emerging countries. Thus, the
application of this proposed framework in the context of emerging countries will contribute
much needed empirical evidence to the extant literature given different regulatory settings
and different data analytics tools used by the business and audit practitioners. Additionally,
as the proposed conceptual framework only focuses on three variables (data visualization
integration, processing modes and task complexity), future research can also explore other
variables such as auditor characteristics (e.g. expertise, experience, skills and effort).
Moreover, auditors must understand the cost and benefits of using big data and how it
would affect their cognitive bias, such as confirmation bias and overconfidence bias. Future
research can extend the framework by testing both data visualization integration and
processing modes against specific cognitive bias resulting from the use of big data analytics.

References
Abdolmohammadi, M. and Wright, A. (1987), “An examination of the effects of experience and task
complexity and audit judgments”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Alawadhi, A. (2015), “The application of data visualization in auditing”, PhD dissertation, Rutgers
University.
Alissa, W., Capkun, V., Jeanjean, T. and Suca, N. (2014), “An empirical investigation of the impact of Big data
audit and auditor characteristics on auditor performance”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 495-510.
environment
Alles, M. (2015), “Drivers of the use and facilitators and obstacles of the evolution of big data by the
audit profession”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 439-449.
Alles, M. and Gray, G.L. (2016), “Incorporating big data in audits: identifying inhibitors and a research
agenda to address those inhibitors”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,
Vol. 22, pp. 44-59. 67
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (2017), Guide to Audit Data Analytics,
AICPA. New York, NY.
Appelbaum, D. (2016), “Securing big data provenance for auditors: the big data provenance black box
as reliable evidence”, Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 17-36.
Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (2017), “Big data and analytics in the modern audit
engagement: research needs”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1-27.
Arnaboldi, M., Busco, C. and Cuganesan, S. (2017), “Accountability, social media and big data:
revolution or hype?”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 772-776.
Ashton, R.H. (2010), “Quality, timing, and luck: looking back at Ashton (1974)”, AUDITING: A Journal
of Practice and Theory, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) (2013), available at: www.aacsb.edu/-/
media/aacsb/docs/accreditation/accounting/standards-and-tables/accounting-standards-2013-
update.ashx?la=en&hash=88DDA25A00B242165742153AD3AD8ACF6BFEABF5
Ayal, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R. and Ariely, D. (2015), “Three principles to revise people’s unethical
behavior”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 738-741.
Bandura, A. (1999), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 21-41.
Bonner, S.E. (1994), “A model of the effects of audit task complexity”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 213-234.
Bonner, S.E. (1999), “Judgment and decision-making research in accounting”, Accounting Horizons,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 385-398.
Brown-Liburd, H., Issa, H. and Lombardi, D. (2015), “Behavioral implications of big data’s impact on
audit judgment and decision making and future research directions”, Accounting Horizons,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 451-468.
Bucaro, A.C. (2019), “Enhancing auditors’ critical thinking in audits of complex estimates”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 73, pp. 35-49.
Buchheit, S., Dzuranin, A., Hux, C. and Riley, M. (2020), “Data visualization in local accounting firms: is
slow technology adoption rational?”, Current Issues in Auditing, available at: https://doi.org/
10.2308/ciia-2019-501 (accessed 10 June 2020).
Buhl, H.U., RöGlinger, M., Moser, D.K.F. and Heidemann, J. (2013), “Big data: a fashionable topic with
(out) sustainable relevance for research and practice?”, Business and Information Systems
Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 65-69.
Calvillo, D.P. and Penaloza, A. (2009), “Are complex decisions better left to the unconscious? Further
failed replications of the deliberation-without-attention effect”, Judgment and Decision Making,
Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 509-517.
Cao, M., Chychyla, R. and Stewart, T. (2015), “Big data analytics in financial statement audits”,
Accounting Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 423-429.
Carraway, R. (2013), “Meeting the big data challenge: don’t be objective. Forbes”, available at: www.
forbes.com/sites/darden/2013/02/01/meeting-the-big-data-challenge-dont-be-objective/ (accessed
25 June 2020).
ARJ Chang, C.J. and Luo, Y. (2019), “Data visualization and cognitive biases in audits”, Managerial Auditing
Journal, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-08-2017-1637 (accessed 1 August 2020).
35,1
Cheng, P.Y.K. (2011), “Improving audit judgment and decision making with dual systems cognitive
model”, Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, Vol. 7 No. 10, pp. 1060-1069.
Chiu, V., Liu, Q. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (2014), “The development and intellectual structure of continuous
auditing research”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 37-57.
68 Croskerry, P. (2009), “A universal model of diagnostic reasoning”, Academic Medicine: Journal of the
Association of American Medical Colleges, Vol. 84 No. 8, pp. 1022-1028.
Dagiliene, L. and Kloviene, L. (2019), “Motivation to use big data and big data analytics in external
auditing”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 750-782.
DeShon, R.P., Brown, K.G. and Greenis, J.L. (1996), “Does self-regulation require cognitive resources?
Evaluation of resource allocation models of goal setting”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81
No. 5, pp. 595-608.
Devine, D.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1995), “Domain-specific knowledge and task characteristics in
decision making”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 64 No. 3,
pp. 294-306.
Dijksterhuis, A. (2006), “On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect”, Science,
Vol. 311 No. 5763, pp. 1005-1007.
Dijkstra, K.A., Pligt, J.V.D. and Kleef, G.A.V. (2013), “Deliberation versus intuition: decomposing the
role of expertise in judgment decision making”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 285-294.
Faroukhi, A.Z., Alaoui, I.E., Gahi, Y. and Amine, A. (2020), “Big data monetization throughout big data
value chain: a comprehensive review”, Journal of Big Data, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Fawad, A. (2019), “A systematic review of the role of the big data analytics in reducing the influence of
cognitive errors on the audit judgment”, Spanish Accounting Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 187-202.
Gartner Research (2014), “Hype cycle for big data, 2014”, available at: www.gartner.com/doc/2574616/
hype-cycle-big-data-2014 (accessed 9 August 2020).
Gepp, A., Linnenluecke, M.K., O’Neil, T.J. and Smith, T. (2018), “Big data techniques in auditing
research and practice: current trends and future opportunities”, Journal of Accounting Literature,
Vol. 40, pp. 102-115.
Griffith, E.E., Kadous, K. and Young, D. (2016), “How insights from the ‘new’ JDM research can improve
auditor judgment: fundamental research questions and methodological advice”, Auditing: A
Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 1-22.
Haas, M.R. and Hansen, M.T. (2007), “Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a productivity
perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28
No. 11, pp. 1133-1153.
Hammersley, J.S. (2011), “A review and model of auditor judgments in fraud-related planning tasks”,
Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 101-128.
Howells, F.M., Stein, D.J. and Russell, V.A. (2010), “Perceived mental effort correlates with changes in
tonic arousal during attentional task”, Behavioral and Brain Functions, Vol. 6 No. 1, available at:
www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com
Kahneman, D. (1973), Attention and Effort, Prentice-Hall.
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York, NY, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D. and Frederick, S. (2007), “Frames and brains: elicitation and control of response
tendencies”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 45-46.
Kogan, A., Alles, M.G., Vasarhelyi, M.A. and Wu, J. (2011), “Analytical procedures for continuous
data level auditing: continuity equations”, (Working paper), Rutgers Accounting Research
Center.
Krahel, J.P. and Titera, W.R. (2015), “Consequences of big data and formalization on accounting and Big data
auditing standards”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 409-422.
environment
Libby, R. and Luft, J. (1993), “Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: ability,
knowledge, motivation, and environment”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 425-450.
Louwers, T., Bley, A., Sinason, D. and Thibodeau, J. (2017), Auditing and Assurance Services,
McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.
Marsh, J.K. and Ahn, W. (2006), “Order effects in contingency learning: the role of task complexity”,
69
Memory and Cognition, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 568-576.
Meyer, C. (1998), “An introduction to complexity and business”, Complexity, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 21-22.
Moeckel, C. (1991), “Two factors affecting an auditor’s ability to integrate audit evidence”, Contemporary
Accounting Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 270-292.
Moffitt, K. and Vasarhelyi, M.A. (2013), “AIS in an age of big data”, Journal of Information Systems,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Mohd-Iskandar, T. and Mohd-Sanusi, Z. (2011), “Assessing the effects of self-efficacy and task
complexity on internal control audit judgment”, Asian Academy of Management Journal of
Accounting and Finance, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 29-52.
Mohd-Sanusi, Z. and Mohd-Iskandar, T. (2007), “Audit judgment performance: assessing the effect of
performance incentives, efforts and task complexity”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 34-52.
Mohd-Sanusi, Z., Mohd-Iskandar, T., Monroe, G.S. and Mohd-Saleh, N. (2018), “Effects of goal
orientation, self-efficacy and task complexity on the audit judgment performance of Malaysian
auditors”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 75-95.
Pelham, B.W. and Neter, A. (1995), “The effect of motivation of judgment depends on the difficulty of
the judgment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 581-594.
Rose, M.A., Rose, J.M., Sanderson, K. and Thibodeau, J.C. (2017), “When should audit firms introduce
analyses of big data into the audit process?”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 81-99.
Rose, M.A., Rose, J.M., Kristian, R., Sanderson, K. and Thibodeau, J.C. (2019), “Psychophysiological
responses to data visualization and visualization effects on auditors’ judgment and audit
quality”, Presented in Hawai’i Accounting Research Conference, pp. 1-17, available at: http://hdl.
handle.net/10125/59294 (accessed 9 August 2020).
Salijeni, G., Samsonova-Taddei, A. and Turley, S. (2018), “Big data and changes in audit technology:
contemplating a research agenda”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 95-119.
Simnett, R. (1996), “The effect of information selection, information processing and task complexity
on predictive accuracy of auditors”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 21 Nos 7/8, pp. 699-719.
Simon, H.A. (1973), “The structure of ill structured problems”, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4,
pp. 181-201.
Small, D.A., Loewenstein, G. and Slovic, P. (2007), “Sympathy and callousness: the impact of
deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 143-153.
Solomon, I. and Trotman, K.T. (2003), “Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the
first 25 years of AOS”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 395-412.
Stanovich, K.E. and West, R.F. (2000), “Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the
rationality debate”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 645-726.
Tang, J. and Karim, K.E. (2017), “Big data in business analytics: implications for the audit profession”,
The CPA Journal, June, available at: www.cpajournal.com/2017/06/26/big-data-business-analytics-
implications-audit-profession/
ARJ Tan, H. and Kao, A. (1999), “Accountability effects on auditors’ performance: the influence of problem-
solving ability, and task complexity”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 209-223.
35,1
Tan, H.T., Ng, T.B.-P. and Mak, B.W.Y. (2002), “The effects of task complexity on auditors’
performance: the impact of accountability and knowledge”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and
Theory, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 81-95.
Trotman, K.T. (1995), Research Methods for Judgment and Decision Making Studies in Auditing,
Coopers and Lybrand.
70
Trotman, K.T. (1998), “Audit judgment research-issues addressed, research methods and future
directions”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 115-156.
Trotman, K.T., Bauer, T.D. and Humphreys, K.A. (2015), “Group judgment and decision making in
auditing: past and future research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 47, pp. 56-72.
Trotman, K.T., Tan, H.C. and Ang, N. (2011), “Fifty-year overview of judgment and decision-making
research in accounting”, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 278-360.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases”, Science,
Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124-1131.
Usher, M., Russo, Z., Weyers, M., Brauner, R. and Zakay, D. (2011), “The impact of the mode of thought
in complex decisions: intuitive decisions are better”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 37.
Vasarhelyi, M.A., Kogan, A. and Tuttle, B.M. (2015), “Big data in accounting: an overview”, Accounting
Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 381-396.
Walker, K. and Brown-Liburd, H. (2019), “The emergence of data analytics in auditing: perspectives
from internal and external auditors through the lens of institutional theory”, Working paper,
available at: www.nhh.no/globalassets/departments/accounting-auditing-and-law/digaudit/audit-
transformation-5-28-19.pdf (accessed 10 August 2020).
Wang, T. and Cuthbertson, R. (2015), “Eight issues on audit data analytics we would like researched”,
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 155-162.
Wilson, T.D. and Schooler, J.W. (1991), “Thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of
preferences and decisions”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 181-192.
Wolfe, C., Christensen, B. and Vandervelde, S. (2016), “Thinking fast versus thinking slow: the effect on
auditor skepticism”, Working paper, Texas A&M University, University of Missouri, and
University of South Carolina.
Wongpinunwatana, N. (2003), “Using computer technologies to disseminate business knowledge”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 761-771.
Wood, R.E. (1986), “Task complexity: definition of the construct”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60-82.
Woolley, A.W., Aggarwal, I. and Malone, T.W. (2015), “Collective intelligence and group performance”,
Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 420-424.
Yoon, K., Hoogduin, L. and Zhang, L. (2015), “Big data as complementary audit evidence”, Accounting
Horizons, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 431-438.
Zhong, C. (2011), “The ethical dangers of deliberative decision making”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Corresponding author
Ruzita Jusoh can be contacted at: geee@um.edu.my

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.