English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The main purpose of this research is to investigate the extent to which auditors and accountants’ brain mapping patterns follow the behavioral patterns in the sequential assessment of evidences when making judgments about going concern opinion. The behavioral protocol used by Asare (1989) was adapted and the method developed by EINA laboratory was used for data collection (electroencephalogram EEG) and construction of the cognitive brain mapping. In addition, the hypotheses formulated by Basu & Waymire (2006), Dickhaut (2009) and Dickhaut et al. (2010) were retrieved to enrich the scientific accounting discussion, using biological (brain) basis to predict the accounting standards evolution. This exploratory research was designed to investigate the relationship between belief-adjustment theory (HOGARTH; EINHORN, 1992) and the underpinnings of neurosciences used to test the behavioral and physiological hypotheses. The sample consisted of 25 participants (12 auditors and 13 accountants). Findings showed that auditors and accountants had similar going concern judgments, especially because they were more sensitive to negative evidences (HOGARTH; EINHORN, 1992). Notwithstanding similar judgments, results showed distinct patterns of brain processing indicating different reasoning to estimate the going concern probability. During the decision process, auditors had homogeneous patterns of brain processing, while patterns from accountants indicated the occurrence of conflicts and greater cognitive effort (ROCHA; ROCHA, 2011). Furthermore, findings showed maximization (minimization) of judgments in brain areas associated with the identification of needs and motivations linked to the individual’s relationship with the related social group. This assumption was reinforced by the absence of significant differences between the regression brain maps of auditors and accountants, showing homogeneous brain behavior (DICKHAUT et al., 2010; ROCHA; ROCHA, 2011; SINGER, 2009).

Neuroaccounting: mapeamento cognitivo cerebral em julgamentos de continuidade operacional