PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

COGNITIVE STYLE AND COGNITIVE MAPPING:

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY IN ACCOUNTING DECISION MAKING
Yusnaini Yusnaini1*, Kencana Dewi2, Agil Novriansa3
1,2,3
Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Sriwijaya, Indralaya,
South-Sumatera, Indonesia

*Coresponding author e-mail: [email protected]

Yusnaini Yusnaini, Kencana Dewi, Agil Novriansa -- Cognitive Style And Cognitive
Mapping: Experimental Study In Accounting Decision Making -- Palarch’s Journal Of
Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214x

Keywords: cognitive style, sensors, intuitive, cognitive mapping.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine whether there are differences in

performance when groups with a variety of cognitive styles use the same performance
report format for tasks that involve identifying problems and formulating responses in
detail. Furthermore, this research will test the role of cognitive mapping in reducing
cognitive bias in decision making. The experimental design was used through a three
by two (3x2) factorial design (betwen-subject). The scenario uses a complex
production assignment schedule. Cognitive style instruments are measured using
dimensions from the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). There are three working
group configurations, the sensors dyad members, the intuitive dyad and the
combination member of both. Group decision making performance can be seen from
the achievement of optimal production units, optimal profits and speed of time. The
test results show that the performance of the pair of sensor-intuitive is higher than
sensors dyad. While there is no difference in performance between sensor-intuitive
pairs and intuitive-intuitive dyad cognitive styles. The results of the use of mapping
model showed that there was no difference in performance between groups of sensor
dyad with sensor-intuitive dyad. This result indicate that causal cognitive mapping can
reduce the bias or deficiencies that exist in the cognitive style of the sensor. The
implication of this study that organizations will benefit from understanding both
individual and group cognitive styles.

I. Introduction

To achieve an optimal decision, adequate information is needed,

both information from the internal and external environment relating to
the decision to be taken. In the decision making process, many decision

7151
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

makers only base on simple and easy methods [1]. This happens because
of the limited capacity of the ability to process information, so they only
adopt simple ways by using mental strategies or heuristics to overcome
the complexity of the problems that occur [2]. Analysis and high
benefits of performance information reports will be influenced by the
perception, interpretation, and utilization of information by users of the
report [3].
The results of studies in accounting and psychology suspect that
different people will process information differently [4]. This depends
on the structure of their knowledge, experience, and cognitive
characteristics of a person ([5]; [3]; [6]). One of the challenges of a
management control system designer is how to understand the
differences that influence the use of information feedback contained in
performance reports [4].

[7] state that a person's differences in processing information can be

traced in a variety of cognitive style literature. Some characteristics of
cognitive style are (1) simple versus complex; (2) adapter versus
innovator [8]; (3) field-dependence versus field independence [9]; (4)
analytic versus intuitive [10]; (5) Sersor versus intuitive [4]; (6)
individualist versus collectivist [11]. This study will examine the
cognitive dimensions of sensors and intuitive. Sensing decision makers
(sensors) are someone who prefers a detailed model for processing
information, paying more attention to each element and concentrating
on facts and forms. While intuitive decision makers tend to prefer
"global types" in processing information, perceiving problems as a
whole ([12]; [7]). Differences in the nature of sensors and intuitive will
lead to differences in perceptions about information and problems even
if given information with an identical format ([13]; [14]).
Differences in cognitive style cause different perceptions in
utilizing financial information and performance reports. Thus the
organization will face problems in designing and preparing reports [4].
Thus it will raise the question whether the report has met the same
standards for various users, it is a problem that is serious enough to
overcome cognitive differences. Meanwhile, some authors suggest
creating various accounting formats to accommodate various cognitive
styles when processing information ([7]; [15]; [16]), but in an
organizational approach this raises various problems.
As an alternative approach to improving report design, what is very
good for current group orientation is to form a combination of workers
consisting of members of different cognitive styles [4]. This group will
lead to a variety of cognitive styles in solving complex business
problems using accounting performance reporting standards. While
analysis of standard performance reports can help users in formulating
problems and developing more specific responses, the cognitive style
literature assumes that the intuitive force will focus on the formulation
of the problem while the sensor force will emphasize specific details.
Groups or groups consisting of intuitive and sensor styles have the
advantage of using more comprehensive information, and potentially
will result in better decision performance. Previous literature suspected

7152
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

that increasing group diversity would lead to conflict between groups

([17]; [18]; [4]), the study controlled for conflicting tasks in pairs. The
results of the study show that there are differences in performance
between group pairs, sensors dyad have higher performance than
intuitive dyads.
To neutralize the occurrence of cognitive biases on the cognitive
style of decision makers, cognitive mapping methods or tools can be
used. This cognitive map stems from psychological research developed
by [19] in experimental studies of animals and humans. This cognitive
map includes concepts about various aspects and human life, namely
aspects of environmental decisions and beliefs about causal
relationships. This cognitive map can be a lens of interpretation that
helps a decision maker choose various important and certain aspects of
the problem to be analyzed. As it develops, cognitive maps are
increasingly being used in various studies. Axelrod (1976 in [20])
developed methods for presenting cognitive maps diagrammatically.
This mapping is often used to present an individual's view of the world,
used to present various thoughts among strategic decision-making
groups, so it is very useful in studies relating to complex decision-
making problems. Causal cognitive mapping techniques have become
the most useful way of providing strategic understanding of the
environment and industrial strength. Several studies on the use of causal
cognitive mapping techniques in determining strategic decisions have
been carried out. Causal cognitive mapping techniques are seen as able
to overcome these limitations and become useful tools in management
studies ([20]; [21]).

Based on the foundation of the literature that has been described

previously, researchers are motivated to test the optimal decisions of the
group consisting of sensors and intuitive cognitive styles and cognitive
mapping to reduce the cognitive influence of decision makers. Some
things that distinguish this study from previous studies are researchers
incorporate causal cognitive mapping techniques in testing the
optimization of decision making. This is to see whether the technique is
able to reduce cognitive biases from decision makers both individuals
and groups. In addition, modifications were made to the research
instruments and statistical analysis methods. Modifications to the
research instrument were carried out based on various considerations
and after conducting a pilot test to see the weaknesses of the research
instrument. The selection of statistical analysis methods was carried out
to find a test tool that could better answer the research hypothesis.
The purpose of this study is to test whether there is a positive effect
on performance when groups with a variety of cognitive styles use the
same performance report format for tasks that involve identifying
problems and formulating responses in detail. Next test the role of
cognitive mapping in reducing cognitive bias in decision making.

II. Literature Review and Hypothesis

7153
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Cognitive Style and Decision Making

A person's cognitive style refers to a person's particular way of

obtaining, storing, retrieving and transforming information ([7]; [22]).
Previous research indicates that one should prioritize understanding
information ([23]; [3]). This study classifies cognitive styles into sensors
(detail type) and intuitive ((global type). Sensor style is perceived as
someone who is more focused on facts, details, and realistic thinking.
Someone with sensor style tends to be oriented to the current condition
with the approach is more concerned with benefits, while the intuitive
style is more focused and concentrated on understanding meaning and
relationships, exploring possibilities, using hunches and speculation, and
oriented to the future is also more theoretical approach. Some
researchers ([12]; [24]; [25]; [7]; [26]; [27]) describe various
characteristics and preferences for these two cognitive styles.
Research in psychology and management has examined the
relationship between a person's perception model (sensing or intuitive)
and the way a person processes information. Based on a review of
previous studies, [24] state that there is enough evidence that managers
with sensors preferences tend to receive and process systematically all
signs and information, whereas managers who are intuitive tend to
process abstract information and perceptual. This shows that someone
will receive the information presented to them in the performance report
in different ways and the results will also make different decision
making.
Some accounting research examines differences regarding
information perception in terms of decision making by sensors and
intuitive types. Previous research on this subject produced this
combination ([28]; [13]). In predicting bankruptcy, [28] found that the
intuitive style had higher performance than sensors, and the impact was
that intuitive managers were better able to perceive and understand the
implications for the levels, trends and trade-offs of various financial
ratios presented. In contrast, [13] and [23] failed to find a similar
difference and the task of decision making given. The study of [7] seeks
to reconcile the differences in findings about information presented to
someone. Both [13] and [23] do not give a person information about
economics and management. [7] state that by not providing additional
information, these authors ignore the benefits of intuitive style in using
information to produce performance patterns. Thus [7] suspect that
information given to someone must be dissertated with sensitivity to the
characteristics of information users.

[3] provide further support for the importance of different

perceptions of information among individuals with different cognitive
styles. In the context of resource allocation, the authors find support for
the proposition that the intuitive style is more focused on broad
consequences and considers information holistically. Furthermore, this
style prefers to identify opportunity costs that are implicitly associated
with various types of expenditure. Research by [4] shows that the way a
person responds to information in the form of accounting reports differs

7154
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

depending on each cognitive style. It also suggests that an accounting

report designer needs to be sensitive about how the information
provided will be interpreted and processed by someone different.
Research by [29] tested cognitive misfit on auditor performance, the
results showed that there was a mismatch between a person's cognitive
style and auditor assignment characteristics.
The study of [7], show that information givers need to be sensitive
to a person's cognitive characteristics, but it also implies that some
individuals may be more suitable for completing specific aspects of a
task based on cognitive disposition in processing relevant information.
Compared with [28] and [13] studies, it shows that someone who is
intuitive according to information of a global type not only results in
superior performance, but also higher performance than individual
sensor styles. This suggests that assigning tasks used in the study
requires information processing closer to the intuitive cognitive style.
The same conclusion can be drawn from the assignments used by [3].
They study involving decision making at the individual level, the
implication is superior results are made by decision makers who receive
information according to their cognitive style.
Research conducted by [30] examined differences in cognitive
styles in various cultural variations. This study distinguishes the
traditional dichotomy between 'intuitive' East and 'analytic' West. The
results show that more intuitive style is owned by managers with Anglo,
Northern European, and Latin European nationalities. While the analytic
style is more widely owned by managers in developing countries and the
Arab region. Research conducted by [31] is a replication and extension
of research conducted by [30] regarding the size of the Cognitive Style
Index (CSI). They research attempts to investigate the construct and
validity of CSI. Participants involved more than a thousand people. The
results show that the maximum likelihood factor analysis obtained is
generally in line with the results of [30]. There is no relationship
between CSI measures with other measures (Cognitive Style Analysis /
CSA). This shows that cognitive style is free of gender, but related to
job level.

Research conducted by [32] show that analytical supervisors are

more protective and less dominant than their intuitive counterparts.
Research conducted by [33] examines how cognitive styles as measured
through MBTI can influence the outcome of strategic decisions. The
results show that managers who are intuitive / thinking use their
intuition to make cognitive leaps based on information goals to produce
higher quality decisions. Instead, managers who are sensing / feeling use
time to produce socially acceptable decisions. There is no effect on
assertiveness or effectiveness felt in perceiving or judging managers.
This result also shows that extraverted managers are more effective than
introverted ones. Thus cognitive style affects the outcome of actual
decisions as people perceive the performance of one's decisions.
Research conducted by [34] examined the relationship between
personality and cognitive style with manager's decision making style.
Decision making style uses decision making regarding Inventory and

7155
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

cognitive style uses the Myer Briggs Type Indicator measure. The
results show that the 'intuitive' type of personality is significantly related
to the conceptual decision style. Research [4] examine how cognitive
style diversity influences the quality of decisions produced by cognitive
style pairs on complex assignments. The experimental method was
developed by testing differences in cognitive styles based on sensor /
intuitive dimensions. Measurements using the MBTI (Myer Briggs Type
Indicator) instrument. The results showed a significantly better
performance shown by the performance of couples with different
cognitive styles (sensor and intuitive) compared to the same cognitive
style namely sensors dyad. Task conflict is not significant in explaining
differences in performance. They result has implications for designing
management control systems and management personnel.
Research [29] examine the role of "cognitive misfit" on auditor
performance. Cognitive misfit is a mismatch between cognitive style
and the auditor's job characteristics. The results indicate the auditor's
cognitive style significantly interacts with the type of assignment.
Analytic auditors perform higher on this type of analytical assignment
than intuitive assignments. While intuitive auditors perform higher on
the type of intuitive assignments than the analytical type.
Research [35] examined the effect of cognitive style and type of
feedback on the ability of internal auditors to identify and document
audit information through Internal Control Questionnaires (ICQ). The
results show what contradicts researchers' expectations. Cognitive style
does not significantly affect performance with or without feedback.
However, as expected, a significant relationship between cognitive style
and post-feedback task performance was found, with the combination of
cognitive style and feedback resulting in a positive performance
increase.

Causal Cognitive Mapping

Causal cognitive mapping is part of cognitive mapping that

emphasizes cognitive presentation as a form of interaction of cause and
effect relationships [36]. Of the five map types [20], causality is a type
of map that is quite popular to be used in the field of strategic
management research. This is because of some advantages of the
causality map type especially in the context of understanding decision
making. Causality provides great potential for procedural knowledge
(how it works or how to do it) compared to other relationships such as
association, constructs or categories which are more emphasized in
other types of mapping [36]. Causal map shows the causal relationship
between various concepts. Concepts that are considered by a decision
maker to have an interaction are then linked by arrows. This relationship
can be in the form of positive or negative relationships, so to show it is
given a sign (+) and (-).

Theory Of Constraints (TOC)

7156
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

This research instrument is an assignment scenario that utilizes the

Theory of Constraints (TOC) theory. Experimental assignments related
to the constraints faced by participants when determining targets and
performance in dilemmatic production decision makers. TOC is a
management philosophy that helps a company increase profits by
maximizing its production and minimizing all relevant costs or costs
such as saving costs, direct costs, indirect costs, and capital costs. TOC
is an approach to process improvement that focuses on elements that are
constrained to increase output. This is based on the fact that, like a chain
with the weakest links, in some complex systems at a certain time, there
is often one aspect of the system that limits its ability to achieve more of
its goals.

The application of TOC is more focused on managing operational

constraints as a key in improving the performance of the production
system, which in turn can affect overall profitability. Theory of
Constraint (TOC) recognizes that the performance of each company is
limited by its constraints, which then develops a constraint approach to
support the goal, namely the continuous progress of a company
(continuous improvement).

Research Development

Sensors styles are more likely to identify and classify specific

details and apply them in structured patterns (habits) for carrying out
tasks. Instead, intuitive styles are more suited for receiving information
globally, identifying connections and relationships, conceptualizing
nature and problems, and predicting various solutions. Some
organizations stated that to carry out more complex tasks, it involved a
lot of people.
Previous research identifies several factors that cause group
decision performance to differ from individual performance [37].
Specifically, it shows that performance can be moderated when group
members vary in terms of personal characteristics, for example gender
[38], experience [39], culture ([40]; [41]; [42]; [43]), abilities [44] and
personality ([45]; [46]).
Overall there is support for the proposition that there is diversity by
respecting various personal characteristics of members, groups will be
more effective when solving problems cognitively as they produce high
decisions both in quality and quantity ([47]; [45]).
For complex assignments, good performance will depend on
information processing both globally/intuitively and in detail/sensing.
Based on statements related to the benefits of having personal diversity
within the group, it is hoped that the cognitive style sensors will tend to
the detailed elements of the information included in the performance
report in relation to decision making. Instead, the intuitive style will
process information to get a better understanding of the nature of the
task in relation to formulating solutions. Thus, the following is proposed
that a couple consisting of one sensor and one intuitive person will

7157
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

prove a better decision performance than a homogeneous sensor or

intuitive pair.

Based on the theoretical foundation and reference of relevant

research results, the following hypotheses are constructed:

H1 : The pair consisting of sensors and intuitive will perform higher than
the pair who only sensors for more complex decision tasks.

H2 : A pair consisting of sensors and intuitive will perform higher than

couples who are only intuitive for more complex decision tasks.

Furthermore, to test the decrease in cognitive biases of the cognitive

style of decision making, the causal cognitive mapping method was
used. The following hypothesis is proposed:

H3 : Reduced cognitive bias when decision makers use causal cognitive

mapping techniques before making decisions based on cognitive style.

III. Method

The subjects in this study were students majoring in Accounting.

Demographic variables that were asked were age, gender, grade and
relevant subjects. This study uses an experimental design to investigate
the proposed hypothesis. The research experiment was designed with
three by two (3x2) factorial design and between-subject. Participants are
conditioned on the composition of pairs of cognitive styles namely
homogenous sensors, homogenous intuitive and a combination of
sensors and intuitive based on MBTI indicators. The group consisting of
the pair carries out experimental tasks by collaborating and discussing to
produce the best performance from the group. Assignment performance
is measured by unit of production, optimal profit and assignment time of
a production case scenario in a company. To test cognitive abilities in
completing experimental tasks, the assignment scenario is designed in
such a way as to form task complexity.
The experimental task is based on the theory of constraints on the
limitations of machine capacity and production capability. This task
involves a series of interdependent decisions regarding how much
production must be made in order to achieve optimal profits. The
limited resources of the number of production machines and the ability
of the company to produce in one period are important considerations
for members of each pair of experiments. Participants are proxied as
production managers and expert staff of production department a
manufacturing company. As managers of the production, they need to
set production targets for each production machine that can maximize
the company's overall production. The production process involves three

7158
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

types of products, each of which is produced by its own machine (3

machines). The case scenario shows that the company is in financial
difficulty so one of the machines is planned not to be operated for
efficiency. Participants are asked to make decisions that will produce
optimal profits from the removal of one of these production machines.
Tasks are designed so that high performance is needed both in
identifying and analyzing in detail the problem.
For conditions without mapping, participants are asked to directly
conduct an analysis for decision making on a given problem. As for
conditions with mapping, participants are asked to map before making a
decision based on information provided by researchers. Thus it can be
seen the effect or role of mapping on bias in cognitive style.
There are 40 pairs or 120 participants who will work together and
discuss the case to be resolved. To provide an understanding of the task
of the experiment, the researcher provides an experimental script
containing the company profile and production data both the production
unit, cost of goods, selling price, machine capacity etc. Then, guided by
the researcher, participants are asked to read the case illustrations by
perceiving themselves as figures in the case illustrations. Before doing
the actual task, participants are given exercises to make it easier to
understand the tasks and instructions. Participants are given information
about the company's background regarding the production process
including the role and capacity of each machine. In addition,
participants were given an explanation of the condition of the company
and what alternative decisions can be taken by giving some
consideration. These considerations relate to production units per period
that can be done, the capacity of each production machine, and
simulations or examples of decisions taken to achieve optimal efficiency
and profit.

For the conditions of treatment with mapping, participants begin by

paying attention to instructions or task requests and familiarize
themselves with the causal cognitive mapping technique that will be
used. Each participant received a booklet containing instructions and
experimental material in accordance with their position under
predetermined treatment conditions.

Result

Table 1 shows the results of MBTI cognitive style testing for all
participants (panel A) and for participants who took part in carrying out
the experimental task (panel B).

Table 1. MBTI Test Results

Panel A: All Participants who have completed the MBTI Task (140)

Cognitive Style
Sensors Intuitive
Theoretical Range 0–50 50 - 100

7159
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Actual Range 8,3 – 47 56-98

Mean 25,65 81,33
Standart Deviation 12,33 10,82

Panel B: Participants in the Experiment (120)

Sensors Intuitive
Theoretical Range 0–50 50 – 100
Actual Range 8,3 – 42 58-92
Mean 28,69 75,75
Standart Deviation 10,14 9,27

Panel A shows that of the 140 participants involved, the cognitive

sensor style received an average score of 25.65 (SD 12.33) while the
intuitive cognitive style scored an average score of 81.33 (SD 10.82). Of
the 140 participants involved, only 120 people can continue the
experimental assignments (see table 1). Panel B shows that of the 120
experimental participants, the cognitive sensor style received an average
score of 28.69 (SD 10.14) while the intuitive cognitive style obtained an
average score of 75.75 (SD 9.27).
Table 2 shows a description of the performance of the production
decision-making of three pairs of both the sensor-pair, the intuitive-
intuitive pair and the sensor and intuitive pair. There are 16 pairs of
sensors, 18 intuitive pairs and 15 pairs of sensor and intuitive dyad.

Table 2. Descriptive Production Decisions

Sensor_Intuitive
Sensors Pairs Intuitive Pairs Pairs
N (Pairs) 16 18 15
Production Unit
Mean 525,31 650,56 680,00
St. Dev. 158,907 203,223 196,214
Min 250 350 350
Max 850 900 100
Optimal Profit
Mean 1893645.3125 2318643.3335 2537610.0
St. Dev. 715024.641 835756.491 866709.105
Min 851000 805000 805000
Max 3375000 3770000 3770000
Time
Mean 42,06 53,06 45,67
St. Dev. 5,543 6,121 5,136
Min 30 38 35
Max 55 60 55

Performance on production decision making can be seen from the

unit of production decided to be produced, the optimal profit to be

7160
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

generated and the length of time in decision making. Based on the

average production unit decided, the pair of sensors decides 525 units,
the intuitive-intuitive pair is 650, while the sensor-intuitive pair is 680
units. Based on the optimal profit that can be generated, the pair of
sensors produces an average of 1893645.3125, while the intuitive-
intuitive pair produces an average profit of 2318643.3335. Furthermore,
the sensor-intuitive pair produces an average profit of 2537610.0. The
time required by the sensor pair is 42.06 minutes, the intuitive pair is
53.06 minutes while the sensor-intuitive pair is 45.67 minutes.

Post Test Results

Post test result of the experimental procedure is to test the chances

of conflict in the team and the level of cohesiveness in the team. Conflict
is measured by four questions using the likert scale 1-7 which shows the
tendency from the absence of conflict (1) to the very vulnerable to
conflict (7). In addition to the chances of conflict, the level of
cohesiveness in the team was also measured through five questions with
a likert scale of 1-7. The scale shows a tendency from not compact (1) to
very compact (7).
Table 3 in panel A shows the opportunities for conflict within the
team. The sensor pair shows an average of 2.47, while the intuitive pair
shows a score at 2.17 while the sensor pair intuitive shows a score of
2.42. The scores on the three pairs indicate the low level of chance of
conflict in the decision making process of the three cognitive style pair
models. Panel B shows the opportunity for teamwork. The sensor pairs
show an average of 4.60, while the intuitive pair shows a score at 4.49
while the sensor pair intuitive shows a score of 4.93. The scores on the
three pairs show the tendency of team cohesiveness in the decision
making process on the three models of cognitive style pairs.

Table 3. Descriptive Post Test

Panel A: Conflict Opportunities in Teams

Sensor_Intuitiv
Intuitive e
Question Total Sensors Pairs Pairs
Pairs
1. 2,00 2.19 1.97 1.83
2. 2,35 2.44 2.19 2.43
3. 2,15 2.19 2.03 2.27
4. 2,88 3.06 2.50 3.13
Total 9,38 9,88 8,69 9,66
(Mean) (2,35) (2,47) (2,17) (2,42)
Panel B : Team Opportunities for
cohesiveness
Sensor_Intuiti
Intuitive ve
Question Total Sensors Pairs Pairs Pairs

7161
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

1. 4.84 4.78 4.64 5.13

2. 5.05 5.06 5.06 5.03
3. 4.39 4.12 4.14 4.97
4. 4.51 4.53 4.19 4.87
5. 4.53 4.53 4.44 4.63
Total 23,32
(4,66) 23,02 (4,60) 22,47 (4,49) 24,63 (4,93)
(Mean)

Hypothesis Testing Results

Hypothesis one (H1) which states that a pair consisting of sensors

and intuitive will perform higher than couples who only sensors for
more complex decision tasks. Hypothesis two (H2) which states that a
pair consisting of sensors and intuitive will perform higher than couples
who are only intuitive for more complex decision tasks. To test the two
hypotheses, a one way anova analysis tool was used. The test results can
be seen in table 4.

Table 4. Hypothesis Test Results Without Mapping

N Descriptive Hypothesis
Cognitive Style
Mean Std. Dev. Sig St. Eror
Panel A: (H1)
Sensors Pair 16 525,31 158,907
0,026 67, 443
Sensor_Intuitive 15 680,00 196,214
Panel B: (H2)
Intuitive pair 18 650,56 203,223
0,656 65,605
Sensor_Intuitive 15 680,00 196,214
* Signifikansi pada level 0,05

Table 4 panel A shows that the results of performance testing

between sensor pairs and sensor-intuitive pairs are significantly different
(0.026). This shows that the performance of the sensor and intuitive pair
is higher than the sensor and sensor pair which can be seen from the
mean value. Thus first hypothesis is supported. Panel B shows that
second hypothesis not supported with a significance value of 0.656,
which means that there is no difference in performance between the
sensor-intuitive pair and the intuitive-intuitive pair. The result of both
hypothesis test shows that intuitive cognitive style is better able to show
performance in complex decision making and requires a lot of
consideration.

7162
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Third hypothesis is tested by comparing the decisions of the sensor

groups with the sensor-intuitive group. The sensor groups were
compared between those who did not use mapping and the groups that
did the mapping. The sensor-sensor group is the group that produces the
lowest decision score among the three groups of pairs. One way anova
analysis is used to test third hypothesis. Table 5 shows the results of
hypothesis testing.

Table 5. Hypothesis Test Results with Mapping

Cognitive Style N Descriptive Hypothesis

Mean Std. Dev. Sig St. Eror
Panel A: Without Mapping
Sensors Pair 16 525,31 158,907
0,026 67, 443
Sensor_Intuitive 15 680,00 196,214
Panel B: With Mapping
Sensors Pair 16 573,44 173,481
0,119 65,419
Sensor_Intuitive 15 680,00 196,214
* Signifikansi pada level 0,05

Table 5 panel B shows that there is no significant difference

between the sensor-sensor and sensor-intuitive group decisions (sig
0.119). This shows that the process of causal cognitive mapping has a
different impact on the outcome of decisions when participants process
information more deeply and map the causal relationship of each
information in decision making. Thus the bias generated from the
information processing in the cognitive mapping sensor groups has
decreased bias (debiasing).

Analysis of Conflict and Cohesiveness

At the end of the experiment session, participants were given a

debriefing question, namely regarding conflict and cohesiveness in the
team. It aims to see whether in addition to cognitive style, the level of
conflict and team cohesiveness are factors that influence the
performance of participants in group decision making. To test this, a
covariate analysis was performed, which included the metric
independent variable as covariate in the model. The aim is to reduce
error variance by eliminating the influence of non-categorical variables
(metrics or intervals) that we believe bias the results of the analysis. In
this case the covariate variable is the level of conflict and team
cohesiveness, while the independent variable is the cognitive style.
Table 6 shows the results of covariate testing.

7163
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Table 6. Ancova - Production Decisions

Source SS df MS F p
Main Effect
Cognitive Composition 183437.145 2 91718.573 2.490 0.018
Covariate
Task Conflict 4369.883 1 4369.883 0.119 0.731
Error 3463062.329 94 36841.089

The Ancova test results in table 6 show that the composition of

cognitive styles has an influence on production decision making (p =
0.018) while task conflict does not directly influence the production
decision making process (p = 0.731). Thus testing hypotheses on
cognitive style variables can be directly tested against production
decision making.

Discussion

This study uses the Theory of Constraints (TOC) in developing

research instruments. TOC is a management philosophy that helps a
company increase profits by maximizing production and minimizing all
relevant costs such as savings, direct costs, indirect costs, and capital
costs. Experimental assignment scenarios relate to the constraints faced
by participants when determining targets and performance in dilemmatic
production decision making. The case scenario shows that the company
is in a state of financial difficulties which causes one of the planned
machines not to be operated. There are three production machines with
different capacities that should be taken into consideration in making
production unit decisions.
The results of studies in accounting and psychology suspect that
different people will process information differently [4]. This depends
on the structure of their knowledge, experience, and cognitive
characteristics of a person ([5]; [3]; [6]). Likewise in this study grouping
homogeneous and mixed cognitive styles to see if there are differences
in production decision making between groups of cognitive style pairs.
Theoretically, the intuitive cognitive style is able to make decisions
more optimally than the sensor style ([7], [3], [32], [33], [4] and [29]).
This is because the intuitive cognitive style is more focused and
concentrated on understanding meaning and relationships, exploring
various possibilities, using hunches and speculation, and oriented to the
future is also more theoretical approach. The research scenario shows
the need for more in-depth considerations from participants regarding
production constraints, financial considerations and consideration of
limited production capacity.
The results showed that the performance of the sensor and intuitive
pair is higher than the sensor and sensor pair which can be seen from the
mean value. Thus first hypothesis is supported. The results of testing of
second hypothesis show that there is no difference in performance
between the sensor-intuitive pair and the intuitive-intuitive pair. The
both result of testing the hypothesis shows that intuitive cognitive style
is more capable of showing performance in complex decision making

7164
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

and requires a lot of consideration than cognitive sensor style. However,

the bias or deficiencies that exist in the cognitive style of the sensor can
be reduced through a debiasing tool, namely causal cognitive mapping
tested. The results show no difference in performance between the
sensor-pair pair with the sensor-intuitive pair when participants use the
mapping model in decision making process. In this case participants are
asked to consider all the possibilities that can be found to achieve
optimal performance through mapping the opportunities and constraints
faced by the experimental scenario.
The results of this study imply that organizations will benefit from
understanding both individual and group cognitive styles. This can be
one of the considerations for many companies to test psychologically
when recruiting and training their employees. The availability of
information that will be managed by groups and individuals in their
cognitive processes becomes one of the considerations that will help the
organization in making complex decisions. Organizations or companies
can manage groups to solve problems in the company. Weaknesses in
groups with a homogeneous cognitive style can be overcome by
providing more and more detailed information such as qualitative and
quantitative information in the form of reports, graphs and others. In
addition this becomes one of the challenges of a management control
system designer for how to understand the differences that influence the
use of information feedback contained in performance reports [4].

This research contributes scientific research into accounting by

increasing cognitive style testing from the individual level to testing at
the group level. This research builds unique instruments related to
complex assignments for decision making. The instrument is built with
complicated scenarios by providing data as well as limitations that will
be considered by participants. The instrument was built with several
tests to produce the suitability of the cognitive style of decision makers.
This instrument was also built by giving a time limit in decision making
which was not done in previous studies [4].
Further research can be done in the form of more complex and
unbalanced groups such as two sensors and one intuitive person or vice
versa. This is to see the dominance of cognitive style in decision
making. Future studies can provide target instructions and an incentive
system that will be given to participants when they are able to achieve
the targets set. In addition, researchers can then consider a number of
moderation factors such as experience, abilities, and personal
knowledge of the participant's cognitive style.

Reference

[1] Bazerman, Max H. 1994. Judmental in Managerial Decision Making.

Singapore. Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2] Tversky, A., dan Kahneman, D., 1974, Judgment Under Uncertainty:
Heuristics and Biases, Science Journal, Vol. 185, Page 1124-1131.

7165
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

[3] Chenhall, R., and D. Monis. 1991. The Effect of Cognitive Style and
Sponsorship Bias of The Treatment of Opportunity Cost in Resource
Allocation Decision. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16: 27-46.
[4] Cheng, Mandy M., Peter F. Luckett, Axel K-D Schulz,. 2003. The Effects
of Cognitive Style Diversity on Decision Making Dyads: An Empirical
Analysis in The Context of a Complex Task. Journal of Behavioral
Research in Accounting 15 (1): 39-62.
[5] Christ, M. 1993. Evidence on The Nature of Audit Planning Problem
Representations: An Examination of Auditor Free Recalls. The
Accounting Review 68 (2): 304-323.
[6] Gul, F. 1984. The Joint and Moderating Role of Personality and Cognitive
Style on Decision Making. The Accounting Review LIX (2): 264-277.
[7] Ho, J. L., and W. Rodgers. 1993. A Review of Accounting Research on
Cognitive Characteristics. Journal of Accounting Literature 12: 101-
130.
[8] Kirton, M.J. 1984. Adaptors and innovators: Cognitive style and
personality. Working paper, Occupational Research centre. Hatfield
Polytechnic
[9] Witkin, H. A. P. K. Oltman, E. Easkin, and S. A. Karp. 1971. A Manual
for The Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
[10] Ruble, T. L., and R.A. Cosier. 1990. Effects of Cognitive Style and
Decision Setting on Performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 46: 283-295.
[11] Gil, David Naranjo, Gloria Cuevas-Rodriguez; Alvaro Lopez-Cabrales
and Jose M. Sanchez. 2012. The Effect of Incentive System and
Cognitive Orientation on Team’s Performance. Behavioral Research in
Accounting. 24 (2): 177-191.
[12] Bradley, J. H, and F.J. Hebert. 1997. The Effect of Personality Type on
Team Performance. Journal of Management 18(5): 337-353.
[13] Rodgers, W., and T.J. Housel. 1987. The Effect of Information
Individuals’ Perceptual Processes. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and
Finance 7: 67-88.
[14] Blaylock, B. K., and L. P. Rees. 1984. Cognitive Style and The
Usefulness of Information. Decision Science 15: 74-91.
[15] Yusnaini, Yusnaini, Imam Ghozali, Susiana S, Manatap B.L.G., Yulia
Saftiana. 2018. Do Cognitive Style And Fairness Affect Accounting
Students’ Performance?. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies
Journal, Vo. 22 (3): 11-22.
[16] Yusnaini, Yusnaini, Burhanuddin B., Arista Hakiki. 2020. The Role of
the Supply Chain Management in Responsibility of Indonesian
Government Auditors in Detecting Corruptions: Analysis of Cognitive
and Moral Effects. International Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vo. 9 (1): 1048-1056.
[17] Jehn, and J. Chatman. 2000. The Influence of Proportional and
Perceptual Conflict Composition on Team Performance. International
Journal of Conflict Management 11(1): 36-73
[18] Jehn, K. A. 1995. A Multimethod Examination of The Benefits and
Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:
256-282.

7166
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

[19] Tolman, C, E., 1948. Cognitive Maps in Rats And Men. The
Psychological Review, Vol 55, hal 189-208.
[20] Huff, Anne S. (Edited). 1990. Mapping Strategic Thought. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
[21] Hodgkinson, Gerard P., Nicola J. Bown, A. John Maule, Keith W.
Glaister dan Alan D. Pearman. 1999. Breaking the Fame: An Analysis
of Strategic Cognition and Decision Making Under Uncertainty.
Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 20.
[22] Kogan, N. 1973. Creativity and Cognitive Styles: A Life-Span
Perspective. In Life-Span Developmental Pychology: Personality and
Socialialization. Edited by P. B. Balter, and K. W. Schaie. New York,
NY: Academic Press.
[23] Maseleno, A., Huda, M., Jasmi, K. A., Basiron, B., Mustari, I., Don, A.
G., & bin Ahmad, R. (2019). Hau-Kashyap approach for student’s level
of expertise. Egyptian Informatics Journal, 20(1), 27-32.
[24] Rodgers. 1992. The Effect of Information Selection, Information
Processing and Task Complexity on Predictive Accuracy of Auditors.
Accounting, Organizations and Society 221(7/8): 699-719.
[25] Gardner, W. L., and M. J. Martinko. 1996. Using The Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator to Study Managers: A Literature Review and Research
Agenda. Journal of Management 22: 45-83.
[26] Bayne, R. 1995. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator – A Critical Review
and Practical Guides. Lonson, UK.: Chapman $ Hall.
[27] Macintosh, N. B. 1990. The Social Software of Accounting and
Information System. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
[28] Myers, I. B., and M. McCaulley. 1988. Manual: A Guide to The
Development and Use of The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
[29] Casey, C. J. Jr. 1980. The Usefulness of Accounting Ratios For
Subjects’ Prediction of Corporate Failure: Replications and Extensions.
The Accounting Review 18: 603-613.
[30] Fuller, Lori R. and Steven E. Kaplan. 2004. A Note about the Effect of
Auditor Cognitive Style on Task Performance. Behavioral Research in
Accounting. Vol. 16: 131-143.
[31] Allinson, Christopher W. and John Hayes. 2000. Cross-National
Differences in Cognitive Style: Implications for Management.
International Journal of Human Resource Management Vol. 11(1): 161-
170.
[32] Sadler-Smith, Eugene, David P. Spicer and Florence Tsang. 2000.
Validity of The Cognitive Style Index: Replication and Extension.
British Journal of Management. Vol. 11: 175-181.
[33] Armstrong, Steven J, Christopher W. Allinson and John Hayes. 2004.
The Effects of Cognitive Style on Research Supervision: A Study of
Student-Supervisor Dyads in Management Education. Academy of
Management Learning and Education. Vol 3 (1): 41-63.
[34] Hough, Jill R. and dt Ogilvie. 2005. An Empirical Test of Cognitive
Style and Strategic Decision Outcomes. Journal of Management Studies
42:2, March.
[35] Ahmed, Ambrien, N. Hasnain and M. Venkatesan. 2012. Decision
Making in Relation to Personality Types and Cognitive Styles of

7167
 PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020)

Business Students. The IUP Journal of Management Research. Vol. XI

(2): 20-29.
[36] Bryant, Stephanie, Uday Murthy and Patrick Wheeler. 2009. The Effect
of Cognitive Style and Feedback Type on Performance in an Internal
Control Task. Behavioral Research in Accounting Vol.21 (1): 37-58.
[37] Jenkins, Mark. 1998. The Theory and Practice of Comparing
Causal Maps. Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Theory,
Methods and Research. Edited by Colin Eden and J.C. Spender. Sage
Publications Ltd.
[38] Sutton, S. G., and S. C. Hayne. 1997. Judgment and Decision Making:
Part III. In Behavioral Accounting Research: Foundations and
Frontiers, Edited by V. Arnold, and S. G. Sutton, 134-163. Sarasota, Fl:
American Accounting Association.
[39] Wood, W. 1987. Meta Analytic Review of Sex Differences in Group
Performance. Psychological Bulletin 102: 53-71.
[40] Trotman, K. T., and P. W. Yetton. 1985. The Effect of The Review
Process on Auditor Judgments. Journal of Accounting Research 23:
257-267.
[41] Watson, W., K. Kurma., and L. Michaelsen. 1993. Cultural Diversity’s
Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing
Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups. Academy of Management
Journal 36: 590-602.
[42] Jackson, S. E. 1992. Team Composition In Organizational Settings:
Issues in Managing an Increasingly Diverse Workforce. In Group
Processes and Productivity, Edited by S. Worchel, S. W. Wood, and J. A.
Simpson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
[43] McLeod, P. L., S. A. Label, And T. J. Cox, Jr. 1989. Ethnic Diversity
and Creativity in Small Groups. Small Groups Research 27: 248-264.
[44] Murray, A. I. 1989. Top Management Group Heterogeneity and Firm
Performance. Strategic Management Journal 10: 125-141.
[45] Triandis, H. C., E. R Hall, and R B. Ewen. 1965. Member
Heterogeneity and Dyadic Creativity. Human Relations 18: 33-55.
[46] Hoffman, R. L., and R. F. Meier. 1961. Quality and Acceptance of
Problem Solutions by Members of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous
Groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62: 401-107.
[47] Hoffman, R. L. 1959. Homogeneity of Member Personality and Its
Effects on Group Problem Solving. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology 58: 27-32.
[48] Lichtenstein, R., J. Alexander, K. Jinnett, and E. Ullman. 1997.
Embedded Intergroup Relations in Interdisciplinary Teams: Effects on
Perceptions of Level of Team Integration. The Journal of Applied
Behavior Science 33(4): 413-434

7168