Understanding Accountant Decision Behavior Through Theoretical Lenses: An Analytical Study of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Models
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The present study will create a theoretical model that is used to justify accountant decision behavior in terms of cognitive, affective, and behavioral (CAB) dimensions. It is a response to the necessity of a single model that would relate the reasoning, emotion, and ethical behavior to the professional decision-making in the sphere of accounting. The theoretical and analytical research design was applied, which is the systematic literature review and thematic content analysis of 50 peer-reviewed articles published in the years 2018-2025. The CAB framework was used to arrange the data in order to determine the repetitive patterns in the cognitive reasoning, affective influence, and behavioral outcomes. These dimensions were synthesised to form a composite model of accountant decision behaviour through the analysis. Findings revealed that cognitive reasoning had the biggest influence (40%), with the next highest influence was the affective and behavioral factors (30% each). Emotional control, analytical reasoning and professional scepticism were reported to be the best predictors of ethical and professional consistency. The result of thought and emotion was reflected in the behavioral compliance, and the clarity of ethics was stimulated by emotional stability. The research study has established the relevance of combining analytical reasoning and emotional intelligence in accounting education, professional ethics, and during audit training. The CAB model provides suggestions on how to create programs that enhance moral stamina and quality of choice in accountants. The CAB model confirms that cognition triggers decision-making, affect moderates ethical reasoning and behavior is the final act of professional action. It is a holistic approach to theory of how accountants think, feel and behave, which further develops behavioral accounting theory.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
1. Alberti, C. T., Thibodeau, J. C., & Zhou, H. F. (2024). Audit firm culture revealed: Insights from audit engagement leaders’ responses to challenges during COVID-19. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 43(4), 163-184.
2. Almagrashi, A., Mujalli, A., Khan, T., & Attia, O. (2023). Factors determining internal auditors’ behavioral intention to use computer-assisted auditing techniques: an extension of the UTAUT model and an empirical study. Future Business Journal, 9(1), 74.
3. Arkhipova, D., Montemari, M., Mio, C., & Marasca, S. (2024). Digital technologies and the evolution of the management accounting profession: a grounded theory literature review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 32(7), 35-64.
4. Arnold, V. (2018). The changing technological environment and the future of behavioural research in accounting. Accounting & Finance, 58(2), 315-339.
5. Barr-Pulliam, D., Boland, C. M., Dennis, S. A., Hermanson, D. R., Keyser, J. D., Pyzoha, J. S., & Smith, J. L. (2025). Comments of the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the PCAOB’s Proposed Auditing StandardDesigning and Performing Substantive Analytical Procedures and Amendments to Other PCAOB Standards. Current Issues in Auditing, 19(1), C18-C26.
6. Breuer, M., Labro, E., Sapra, H., & Zakolyukina, A. A. (2024). Bridging theory and empirical research in accounting. Journal of Accounting Research, 62(3), 1121-1139.
7. Christensen, B. E., Cline, B. N., Lundstrom, N. G., & Yore, A. S. (2024). Do Auditors View Off-the-Clock Misbehavior by Company Leadership as a Signal of Tone at the Top?. The Accounting Review, 99(5), 171-196.
8. Chukwuani, V. N. International Journal of Advanced Finance and Accounting.
9. Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G., Peytcheva, M., & Wright, A. (2023). Corporate governance and the audit process revisited. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 1-25.
10. Daniel, R., Douglass, A., Kluetz, A., & Persellin, J. (2024). The Effect of Group Dynamics on Individual Ethical Decision Making. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 36(1), 1-19.
11. de Bortoli, A., Bjørn, A., Saunier, F., & Margni, M. (2023). Planning sustainable carbon neutrality pathways: accounting challenges experienced by organizations and solutions from industrial ecology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 28(7), 746-770.
12. Doxey, M., & Sealy, C. (2024). Comparing auditors’ and users’ materiality judgments for ESG and traditional financial disclosures: The roles of disclosure form, valence, and assurance level. Valence, and Assurance Level (January 06, 2024).
13. Efendi, R., Fauzi, F., & Putri, A. (2025). Managerial Accounting Strategies to Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness of Operational Costs. The Journal of Academic Science, 2(5), 1450-1458.
14. Festa, M. M., Jones, M. M., & Witz, P. D. (2024). Auditor materiality disclosures and investor trust: how to address conditional risks of disclosure mandates. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 36(2), 47-70.
15. Hanlon, M., Yeung, K., & Zuo, L. (2022). Behavioral economics of accounting: A review of archival research on individual decision makers. Contemporary Accounting Research, 39(2), 1150-1214.
16. Hardies, K., Ohlrogge, F., Mentens, J., & Vandennieuwenhuysen, J. (2024). A guide for accounting researchers to conduct and report systematic literature reviews. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 36(1), 21-43.
17. Hardies, K., Vanstraelen, A., Janssen, S., & Zehms, K. M. (2020). Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Traits, Behavioral Intentions, and Actions.
18. Kadous, K., Mercer, M., & Zhou, Y. (2025). Why do investors rely on low-quality investment advice? Experimental evidence from social media platforms. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 37(1), 97-115.
19. Li, Y., Goel, S., & Williams, K. J. (2024). Remote audit quality, audit efficiency, and auditors’ job satisfaction: Implications for audit firms and external auditors. Current Issues in Auditing, 18(2), P20-P28.
20. Lowe, D. J., & Reckers, P. M. (2024). The deterrence effects of whistleblowing provisions, corporate governance culture, and Machiavellianism. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 36(1), 45-65.
21. Nelson, M. W. (2025). Experimental and Archival Research in Auditing: Complementarities, Convergence, and Future Directions. The Accounting Review, 100(6), 385-403.
22. Owens, J., Saunders, K. K., Schachner, S., & Thornock, T. A. (2024). How Management Disclosure and Auditor Disclosure Affect Auditor Liability: The Case of the Going Concern Financial Accounting Standard. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 43(4), 143-162.
23. Shamsadini, K., Javanmard, H., & Morady, Z. (2025). Qualitative modeling of factors affecting auditor’s judgment and decision-making. Accounting Research Journal, 38(1), 1-18.
24. Sloan, R. G. (2025). Insights from 100 Years of The Accounting Review: An External Reporting Perspective. The Accounting Review, 100(6), 405-417.
25. Vinson, J. M., Pike, B. J., Chui, L., & Zhou, M. (2024). The Influence of Audit Evidence Framing on Auditors’ Judgment. Behavioral research in accounting, 36(1), 105-120.