The Effects of Dynamic Metacognitive Prompts on Expert Auditor Reasoning Efficac

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of using dynamic, inward oriented reasoning strategies versus linear, outward oriented reasoning strategies on expert auditor reasoning efficacy. The research focused on further examining whether an interaction existed between the types of prompts received and an individual's personal need for structure. The preponderance of literature on expert auditor judgment has focused on the effects of outward oriented professional skepticism on reasoning efficacy. Missing from the literature on expert auditor reasoning quality are the effects of inward oriented metacognitive strategies. This was the first experimental study using expert auditors that examined the combined effects of personal need for structure and dynamic versus linear prompts on reasoning efficacy. The research process included presenting participants with abstract and deontic hypothesis testing tasks after exposure to either a dynamic or linear reasoning prompt. The purpose of the research was to determine whether a statistically significant difference existed between the abstract and deontic selection task scores of participants based on the type of prompt received, and if an interaction existed with the trait of need for structure. Task type (abstract versus deontic) was significant in this study because abstract rule-based tasks represent many of the reasoning challenges presented to auditors. In a quantitative, two group between-participants design, 264 expert auditors participated in hypothesis testing tasks after receiving a brief 4-minute dynamic reasoning prompt or a linear reasoning prompt. The results were interpreted using two-way ANOVAs. The major finding of this research suggests that dynamic reasoning strategies, but not linear strategies enhance reasoning efficacy on abstract tasks.