Theoretical essay on cognitive biases in judgments of financial statement preparers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.16930/2237-766220202961Keywords:
Behavioral Accounting, Accounting Theory, IFRS, Cognitive Effects.Abstract
For the development of accounting theory, it is important to identify and discuss behavioral aspects that may influence the judgment and decision making process of financial statement preparers. The study is characterized as a theoretical essay, as it addresses the cognitive effects that can affect this process. The main contribution of this method is to jointly consider separate theoretical pieces and to contemplate an integrative perspective. Several accounting practices can generate cognitive biases, however, in this essay, only the biases arising from practices that allow these judgments will be dealt with, disregarding those not arising from the behavior of these professionals. These are cognitive effects that can affect the behavior of preparers: impulsiveness, lack of skepticism, natural optimism and pessimism, familiarity, adjustment heuristic, overconfidence, loss aversion, change aversion and task complexity. These aspects may lead to a lack of comparability in judgments made by individuals through judgments that differ according to the personality traits of the decision makers. Reflection on the discussion of these behavioral aspects applied to accounting contributes to the development of accounting as a science by integrating psychology with accounting science. For these aspects, questions are elaborated that can be adopted in future studies, by conducting semi-experiments with accounting professionals.References
Almeida, M. D., Lemes, S., Weffort, E. F. J., & Malaquias, R. F. (2009). Análise da percepção sobre expressões de incerteza presentes nas normas internacionais de contabilidade. Revista Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança, 11(1-2).
American Accounting Association [AAA]. (1966). A Statement of Basic Accounting Theory (ASOBAT). Florida: AAA, 1-100.
Bang, D., & Frith, C. D. (2017). Making better decisions in groups. Royal Society open science, 4(8), 170193. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170193
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602
Bonner, S. E. (1999). Judgment and decision-making research in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 13(4), 385-398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.1999.13.4.385
Brewster, B. E., Peecher, M. E., & Solomon, I. (2015). What Improves Auditors’ Assessments of the Risk of Intentional Misstatement? While Prompts to be Skeptical Can Hurt, Auditor Wisdom Helps. Working Paper.
Bruns, W. J. (1968). Accounting information and decision-making: some behavioral hypotheses. The Accounting Review, 43(3), 469-480.
Caplan, E. H. (1966). Behavioral assumptions of management accounting. The Accounting Review, 41(3), 496-509.
Chand, P., Cummings, L., & Patel, C. (2012). The effect of accounting education and national culture on accounting judgments: A comparative study of Anglo-Celtic and Chinese culture. European Accounting Review, 21(1), 153-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2011.591524
Chand, P., Patel, C., & Patel, A. (2010). Interpretation and application of “new” and “complex” international financial reporting standards in Fiji: Implications for convergence of accounting standards. Advances in Accounting, 26(2), 280-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2010.08.004
Choi, J., Newman, A. H., & Tafkov, I. D. (2015). A marathon, a series of sprints, or both? Tournament horizon and dynamic task complexity in multi-period settings. The Accounting Review, 91(5), 1391-1410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51358
Clor-Proell, S. M., & Maines, L. A. (2014). The Impact of Recognition versus Disclosure on Financial Information. Journal of Accounting Research, 52(3), 671-701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12053
Clor-Proell, S. M., & Nelson, M. W. (2007). Accounting standards, implementation guidance, and example?based reasoning. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(4), 699-730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2007.00248.x
Comitê de Pronunciamentos Contábeis [CPC] (2019). CPC 00 (R2): Estrutura Conceitual para Relatório Financeiro. Brasília, DF.
De Bondt, W. F., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Financial decision-making in markets and firms: A behavioral perspective. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 9, 385-410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0507(05)80057-X
Doupnik, T. S., & Riccio, E. L. (2006). The influence of conservatism and secrecy on the interpretation of verbal probability expressions in the Anglo and Latin cultural areas. The International Journal of Accounting, 41(3), 237-261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2006.07.005
Einhorn, H. J. (1976). A synthesis: Accounting and behavioral science. Journal of Accounting Research, 14, 196-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2490452
Feldman, G., Kutscher, L., & Yay, T. (2020). Omission and commission in judgment and decision making: Linking action-inaction effects using the concept of normality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12557
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 47-58.
Han, Y., Chand, P., & Mala, R. (2019). Impact of ambiguity tolerance and tertiary education on professional judgment. Accounting Forum, 426-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2019.1569813
Ishaque, M. (2020). Cognitive approach to understand the impact of conflict of interests on accounting professionals’ decision-making behaviour. Accounting Forum, 1-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2019.1583303
Jelihovschi, A. P. G., Cardoso, R. L., & Linhares, A. (2016). Look before you leap: the effectsof cognitive impulsiveness and reasoning process on rational decision making. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2912428 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2912428
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1991). The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
Libby, R., & Tan, H. T. (1994). Modeling the determinants of audit expertise. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(8), 701-716. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(94)90030-2
Meneghetti, F. K. (2011). O que é um ensaio-teórico? Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 15(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-65552011000200010
Nolder, C., & Kadous, K. (2015). The way forward on professional skepticism: Conceptualizing professional skepticism as an attitude. Suffolk University and Goizueta Business School at Emory University. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2524573
Perera, D., Chand, P., & Mala, R. (2019). Confirmation bias in accounting judgments: the case for International Financial Reporting Standards for small and medium?sized enterprises. Accounting & Finance. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12523
Rasso, J. T. (2015). Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 46, 44-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.03.003
Reva, N. (2019). The Analogy in Decision-Making and the Implicit Association Bias Effect. Studia Humana, 8(2), 25-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sh-2019-0015
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
Sena, A. M. C. D. (2009). A theoretical essay on sustainability and environmentally balanced output growth: natural capital, constrained depletion of resources and pollution generation. Brazilian Administration Review, 6(3), 213-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922009000300004
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
Scott, J., Stumpp, M., & Xu, P. (2003). Overconfidence bias in international stock prices. Journal of Portfolio Management, 29(2), 80-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2003.319875
Tom, S. M., Fox, C. R., Trepel, C., & Poldrack, R. A. (2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science, 315(5811), 515-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134239
Trotman, K. T., Tan, H. C., & Ang, N. (2011). Fifty?year overview of judgment and decision?making research in accounting. Accounting & Finance, 51(1), 278-360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2010.00398.x
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in risk less choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2937956
Zhang, Y., Zoysa, A., & Cortese, C. (2019). Uncertainty Expressions in Accounting: Critical Issues and Recommendations. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, 13(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v13i4.2
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The copyright for articles published in this journal belongs to the author (s), with first publication rights assigned to Revista Catarinense da Ciência Contábil. Due to appearing in this publicly accessible journal, articles are free to use, with mandatory recognition of the original authorship and initial publication in this magazine and for educational and non-commercial applications. The magazine chose to use published works for non-commercial purposes, including the right to submit or work for publicly accessible databases. The content of published articles is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the authors. - The author (s) authorize (s) a publication of the article in the journal; - The author (s) guarantee (s) that a contribution is original and unpublished and that it is not being evaluated in another magazine (s); - A magazine is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts emitted in the texts, for the full responsibility of the author (s); - It is reserved to the editors or the right to make textual adjustments and to adjust the article to the publication rules.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional.
