At its most rigorous level, the model is cast in the form of a computer program.

The computer is the ultimate novice. Having to “explain” one’s model to the
computer forces one to be precise, complete and internally consistent. In addition,
the computer model (program) can be applied to the same cases that were solved
by the human decision maker, thereby allowing detailed, step-by-step comparisons
of the model’s reasoning with that of the decision maker.

Computer models have been used extensively and successfully in cognitive

psychology. They provide a disciplined way to express a decision-making theory. If,
for example, a certain knowledge structure is hypnotized to account for observed
behavior, a computer model which contains just that knowledge structure can be
used to simulate the behavior. If the hypnotized is correct, then the computer
model will make the same kinds of decisions and inferences as the human decision
maker. If not, the differences between the observed behavior generated by the
computer model will identify those decision-making elements still unaccounted for
by the model.

Cognitive modeling has been shown to be as feasible research approach in

accounting. Bouwman (1983) developed a computer model of financial statement
analysis and Peters (1990) modeled inherent risk assessment. However, there is no
question that it is a time intensive methodology. In the other hand, cognitive
modeling provides a level of modeling rigor unmatched by any other approach.
Moreover, less time-intensive form of cognitive modeling provides research
opportunities as well. Johnson et al. (1989) developed a flowchart model of the
issuance of the audit opinion. Bouwman et al. (1987) modeled the information usage
and decision-making processes of financial analysts. Although flowchart models
don’t provide the same level of rigor as computer models, they are particularly
useful in developing comprehensive overviews of a decision-making process. In
conclusion, cognitive modeling, whether flowchart or computer model, provides a
unique opportunity to add rigor to descriptive of decision-making behavior.

5.5 Expert Case Studies

What exactly is the nature of the expertise of an audit partner in a major

accounting firm? Bonner and Pennington (1991) have shown that the appropriate
answer to this question involves a lot more than “an audit partner is expert
auditing.” Auditing involves many sub-tasks. In some sub-tasks, experience and
expertise have been shown to make a difference; in others, it has not. Moreover,
Shanteau (1991a, 1992b) stresses that expertise involves a lot more than just
knowledge, and includes psychological traits, cognitive skills and problem-solving
skills. Consequently, knowledge may not even be the most critical component of
audit expertise.

The most direct way to identify the nature of expertise in accounting and
auditing is to study acknowledge experts in the profession. Research is needed
that adopts an “expert-focus” as opposed to the more commonly used “task focus.”
With a “task focus,” a study compares the performance of different decision
makers on a same or similar task. While this allows the identification of