首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
   检索      


Detecting deception: adversarial problem solving in a low base-rate world
Authors:Paul E Johnson  Stefano Grazioli  Karim Jamal  R Glen Berryman
Institution:Department of Information and Decision Sciences, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA;Department of Management Science and Information Systems, Red McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, USA;Department of Accounting and MIS, School of Business, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Department of Management and Economics, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Abstract:The work presented here investigates the process by which one group of individuals solves the problem of detecting deceptions created by other agents. A field experiment was conducted in which twenty-four auditors (partners in international public accounting firms) were asked to review four cases describing real companies that, unknown to the auditors, had perpetrated financial frauds. While many of the auditors failed to detect the manipulations in the cases, a small number of auditors were consistently successful. Since the detection of frauds occurs infrequently in the work of a given auditor, we explain success by the application of powerful heuristics gained from experience with deceptions in everyday life. These heuristics implement a variation of Dennett's intentional stance strategy, which is based on interpreting detected inconsistencies in the light of the Deceiver's (i.e., management's) goals and possible actions. We explain failure to detect deception by means of perturbations (bugs) in the domain knowledge of accounting needed to apply these heuristics to the specific context of financial statement fraud. We test our theory by showing that a computational model of fraud detection that employs the proposed heuristics successfully detects frauds in the cases given to the auditors. We then modify the model by introducing perturbations based on the errors made by each of the auditors in the four cases. The resulting models account for 84 of the 96 observations (i.e., 24 auditors × four cases) in our data.
Keywords:
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号