Testing of the review and primary effects on long series audit information and its mitigation methods with group discussions

Yolanda Christina Rambing, Intiyas Utami, Ika Kristianti


This study aims to examine the recency effect that occurs due to the effect of sequences on long series audit information and test the effectiveness of mitigation by using group discussion to improve the decision quality. It consists of recency effect and primacy effect. The recency effect is a bias that occurs when an individual making a decision by weighing the final information received is greater than the overall information received. In addition, the primacy effect is a bias that occurs when an individual makes a decision by weighing the initial information compared to the last information received. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a method for mitigating the recency effect by using group discussion. This study used a 2x2x2 experimental design for a subject with 81 participants from accounting students. The results show that: (i) the quality of individual decision that experienced the recency effect due to positive-negative and negative-positive sequential information after group discussion became better than it was before group discussion, (ii) the quality of individual decision that experienced the recency effect due to positive-negative simultaneous information could not be mitigated by group discussion, (iii) group discussion is an effective method for overcoming the recency effect on sequential information rather than on simultaneous information.


Two until five, Keywords


Arnold, V., S. G. Sutton., S. C. Hayne., C. A. P. Smith 2000, ‘Group decision making: the impact of opportunity-cost time pressure and group support systems’. Behavioral Research in Accounting Vol. 12:69

Ashton, A. H., dan R. H. Ashton 1988. ‘A sequential belief revision in auditing’. The Accounting Review, October: 623-641.

Ashton, R. H., dan J. Kennedy 2002, ‘Eliminating recency with self review: the case of auditors’ ‘going concern’ judgments’. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

Ayunanda, T. I., dan I. Utami 2014, ‘Urutan, cara dan bentuk informasi: pengujian eksperimental efek risensi dan keputusan audit’. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XVIII.

Chalos, P., dan M. C.C. Poon 2000, ‘Participation and performance in capital budgeting teams’. Behavioral Research in Accounting Vol. 12: 199-229.

Cushing, B. £., dan S. S. Ahlawat 1996, ‘Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: the effect of documentation’. A Journal of Practice and Theory Vol. 15: 110-122.

Daigle, R. J., R.E. Pinsker., dan T. J. Pitre 2015, ‘The impact of order effect on nonprofessional investors’ belief revision when presented a long series of disclosures in an experimental market setting’. Amerika Accounting Association Vol. 29:313-326.

Hogarth, R. M., dan H. J. Einhorn 1992, ‘Order effect in belief updating: the belief – adjustment model’. Cognitive Psychology 24:1-55.

Hollingshead, A. B 1996, ‘The rank-order effect in group decision making’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68 (3): 181-193.

Isenberg, D. J., 1986, ‘Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (June): 1141-1151

Nasution, D., dan Supriyadi 2007, ‘Pengaruh urutan bukti, gaya kognitif, dan personalitas terhadap proses revisi keyakinan’. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi X.

Kelly, K 2010, ‘The effects of incentives on information exchange and decision quality in groups’. Amerika Accounting Association Vol. 22:43-65.

Patel, A 2001, ‘Auditors’ belief revision: recency effects of contrary and supporting audit evidence and source reliability’

Pinsker, R. 2007, ‘Long series of information and nonprofessional investors’ belief revision’. Behavioral Research In Accounting Vol. 19:197–214.

Pinsker, R. 2011, ‘Primacy or recency? A study of order effects when nonprofessional investors are provided a long series of disclosures’. Behavioral Research in Accounting Vol. 23: 161-183.

Rutledge, R. W., dan A. M. Harrell 1994, ‘The Impact of Responsibility and Framing of Budgetary Information on Group Shifts’. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6: 93-109.

Solomon, I. 1982, ‘Probability assessment by individual auditors and audit teams: An empirical investigation. Part 2’. Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 689-710.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v22i2.1204


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Journal of Economics, Business & Accountancy Ventura

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstracting & Indexing



Hasil gambar untuk ccbyncsa

Copyright @ 2010 Pusat Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi (PPPM STIE)