Auditors' Susceptibility to Affective Bias via Repeated Client Email Exchanges with Mixed Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M Hawkins ◽  
Kate Sorensen ◽  
Chad M. Stefaniak
Keyword(s):  
Vivarium ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Nicolas Faucher

AbstractGiles of Rome’s view of faith in the reportatio of his questions on book III of the Sentences (q. 38, d. 23) is founded on a likening of faith to rhetoric. The firm intellectual assent that characterizes them both is caused by the will, motivated by emotion, or affective bias. This paper argues that this is made possible by Giles’ move away from Aquinas’ position on the assent produced by rhetorical discourse, which Aquinas thought to be of little certainty, while Giles affirms that, based on the will’s natural control over the intellect, it can be as certain as faithful assent, and that the psychological process that produces it can serve as a model for that which produces faithful assent. The new function Giles gives to rhetoric underlines the evolution of thirteenth-century views on faith, as shown through a comparison of Giles’ view with two other doctrines of faith that use examples similar to the one Giles employs: those of Philip the Chancellor and Peter John Olivi. For the former, faith founded on affective bias is a typical example of non-virtuous faith, while for the latter, just as for Giles, it is the very model of virtuous faith.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-94
Author(s):  
Federico Lauria ◽  
Delphine Preissmann

Intuitively, affect plays an indispensable role in self-deception’s dynamic. Call this view “affectivism.” Investigating affectivism matters, as affectivists argue that this conception favours the non-intentionalist approach to self-deception and offers a unified account of straight and twisted self-deception. However, this line of argument has not been scrutinized in detail, and there are reasons to doubt it. Does affectivism fulfill its promises of non-intentionalism and unity? We argue that it does, as long as affect’s role in self-deception lies in affective filters—that is, in evaluation of information in light of one’s concerns (the affective-filter view). We develop this conception by taking into consideration the underlying mechanisms governing self-deception, particularly the neurobiological mechanisms of somatic markers and dopamine regulation. Shifting the discussion to this level can fulfill the affectivist aspirations, as this approach clearly favours non-intentionalism and offers a unified account of self-deception. We support this claim by criticizing the main alternative affectivist account—namely, the views that self-deception functions to reduce anxiety or is motivated by anxiety. Describing self-deception’s dynamic does not require intention; affect is sufficient if we use the insights of neuroscience and the psychology of affective bias to examine this issue. In this way, affectivism can fulfill its promises


2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 690-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly R. Bijanki ◽  
Christopher K. Kovach ◽  
Laurie M. McCormick ◽  
Hiroto Kawasaki ◽  
Brian J. Dlouhy ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean M. Smith
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 187 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 125-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Chuen Yee Lo ◽  
Nicholas B. Allen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document