6 auditors are also told that the name of the group

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: receive instructions collectively, but without any indication that they are part of a group. In the SG settings, I establish group cohesion/identity by asking auditors to introduce themselves to the other auditors in the session, to use nametags, to select a team name, and to work together on the quiz.6 Auditors are also told that the name of the group member with the highest penalty level at the end of the session will be posted on the board for all to view. This treatment is entirely psychological in that there are no explicit economic ties among the auditor group members. 5 6 I randomly assigned managers to settings and investigated the possibility of order or experience patterns on the part of managers. I found no evidence to indicate any such patterns. Auditors could discuss the quiz with each other in the SG setting, so the SG settings may have increased auditors’ understanding of managers’ strategic options. However, auditors’ average scores on quizzes, which measured their understanding of the game, did not differ between the WG and SG settings. 272 The Accounting Review, April 2002 TABLE 2 Summary of the Approach Used to Operationalize the Treatments Procedures for Auditor Group Treatmenta Phase 1 PufferyAction Phase: 5 Roundsb Phase 2 Regular Play Phase: 18 or 19 Rounds Phase 3 Manager’s Actions Disclosed to the Auditor at the End of Regular Play Phase and Resolution Phase: 6 Rounds NP / WG (no-puffery / weak group) No No No puffery Yes YP...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online