INFLUENCE OF FORMULATION EFFECT ON THE PREFERENCES OF USERS OF ACCOUNTING INFORMATION

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4270/ruc.2022124

Keywords:

Formulation Effect, Mental Accounting Theory, Accounting information users

Abstract

This research aims to identify the influence of the formulation effect on users preferences for aggregating or disaggregating accounting information. For this, we conducted a survey with 524 Business students. Three types of formulation effect were presented: pure scenarios (without context description), scenarios with financial statements (specifically accounting) and descriptive scenarios (financial scenarios with descriptive context). For analysis, we used descriptive statistics, chi-square and logistic regression. As a result, it was found that the decisions, as stipulated by the Theory of Mental Accounting, are more present in pure scenarios, as there is no contextualization, the utility of perceived value influences decisions. Unlike situations of organizational decisions (scenarios with demonstrative and descriptive) in which the search for technical support becomes more important than personal preferences. In this way, it contributes to the knowledge about accounting information, as well as to the Theory of Mental Accounting, since the formulation effect is presented as a factor of influence on behavior and preferences for aggregation or disaggregation. Thus, it was shown that pure decisions are more impacted by the characteristics of the decision maker whereas in decisions with an accounting / managerial character, preferences for technical support assumed a leading role at the expense of personal characteristics. These findings contribute both in the field of theoretical discussions about the importance of the way to present the information and also help the information preparers giving them subsidies on the preferences of the users, aiming at a better informational support and, consequently, resulting in better decisions and performance. of organizations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abatecola, G., A. Caputo, & M. Cristofaro. (2018). Reviewing cognitive distortions in managerial decision-making: Toward an integrative co-evolutionary framework. Journal of Management Development, 37(5), 409–424.
Ávila, L. A. C., Oliveira, A. S., Avila, J. R. M. S., & Malaquias, R. F. (2016). Vieses comportamentais na decisão dos investidores: Revisão de estudos de 2006-2015. Revista de Gestão, Finanças e Contabilidade, 6 (2), 112 - 131. doi: 10.18028/rgfc.v6i2.1451
Azadeh, A., Mokhtari, Z., Sharahi, Z. J., & Zarrin, M. (2015). An integrated experiment for identification of best decision styles and teamworks with respect to HSE and ergonomics program: The case of a large oil refinery. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 85, 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.08.016
Barreto, P. S., da Silva Macedo, M. Á., & dos Santos Alves, F. J. (2013). Tomada de decisão e teoria dos prospectos em ambiente contábil: Uma análise com foco no efeito framing. Revista de Gestão, Finanças e Contabilidade, 3(2), 61-79.
Bonner, S. E., Clor-Proell, S. M., & Koonce, L. (2014). Mental accounting and disaggregation based on the sign and relative magnitude of income statement items. The Accounting Review, 89(6), 2087-2114. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50838
Brooks, C., Sangiorgi, I., Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. (2018). Why are older investors less willing to take financial risks?. International Review of Financial Analysis, 56, 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2017.12.008
Camerer, C. (2005). Three cheers—psychological, theoretical, empirical—for loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 129-133. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.2.129.62286
Chang, C. J., Yen, S. H., & Duh, R. R. (2002). An empirical examination of competing theories to explain the framing effect in accounting-related decisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 14(1), 35-64. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2002.14.1.35
Emby, C., & Finley, D. (1997). Debiasing framing effects in auditors' internal control judgments and testing decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 14(2), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1997.tb00527.x
Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(2), 264-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90041-0
Fagundes, E., Schnorremberger, D., & Lunkes, R. J. (2018). Aversão ao risco na tomada de decisões organizacionais: análise da literatura e oportunidades de pesquisa. Revista de Contabilidade do Mestrado em Ciências Contábeis da UERJ, 23(2), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.12979/rcmccuerj.v23i2.39910
Faraci, P., Lock, M., & Wheeler, R. (2013). Assessing leadership decision-making styles: Psychometric properties of the leadership Judgement indicator. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 6, 117. DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S53713
Fennema, M. G., & Koonce, L. (2010). Mental accounting in financial reporting and voluntary disclosure. Lisa L., Mental Accounting in Financial Reporting and Voluntary Disclosure (November 27, 2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1717078
Fernandes, F. C., Klann, R. C., & Figueredo, M. S. (2011). A utilidade da informação contábil para a tomada de decisões: Uma pesquisa com usuários alunos. Contabilidade Vista & Revista, 22(3), 99-126.
Francis, B., Hasan, I., Park, J. C., & Wu, Q. (2015). Gender differences in financial reporting decision making: Evidence from accounting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), 1285-1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12098
Fuji, A. H., & Slomski, V. (2003). Subjetivismo responsável: Necessidade ou ousadia no estudo da contabilidade. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 14(33), 33-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-70772003000300003
Geetha, S. N., & Selvakumar, M. M. (2016). An analysis on the factors influencing risk tolerance level of individual investors. International Journal of Business Excellence, 9(2), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2016.074867
Guragai, B., Attachot, W., & Peabody, S. D. (2020). Financial statement presentation of discontinued operations: Determinants and consequences. Advances in accounting, 49, 100472.
Hales, J. (2015). Discussion of “the effects of forecast type and performance-based incentives on the quality of management forecasts”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 46, 19-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.04.006
Hartono, J. (2004). The recency effect of accounting information. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 6(1), 85-116. DOI: 10.22146/gamaijb.5536
Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American psychologist, 58(9), 697-720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. The American Psychologist, 39, 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0016
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4), 251-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74919-3_4
Koonce, L., McAnally, M. L., & Mercer, M. (2005). How do investors judge the risk of financial items?. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 221-241. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.1.221
Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411-429. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2983
Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031207
Lima, D. H. S. D., & Silva, C. A. T. (2013). Formulation effect: Uma análise da influência da forma de apresentação de demonstrativos e relatórios contábeis sobre o processo decisório. Revista de Administração, Contabilidade e Sustentabilidade, 3 (4), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.18696/reunir.v3i4.195
Luft, J., Shields, M. D., & Thomas, T. F. (2016). Additional information in accounting reports: Effects on management decisions and subjective performance evaluations under causal ambiguity. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(2), 526-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12156
Macedo, J. S., Marcon, R., Araújo Menezes, E., & Nunes, P. (2007). Prospect theory: A study of the endowment effect. Revista Contemporânea de Contabilidade, 1(8), 11-28.
Mandel, D. R. (2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85 (1), 56-76. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2932
Moreira, R. L., Encarnação, L. V., de Almeida Bispo, O. N., Colauto, R. D., & Angotti, M. (2013). A importância da informação contábil no processo de tomada de decisão nas micro e pequenas empresas. Revista Contemporânea de Contabilidade, 10(19), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8069.2013v10n19p119
Nobre, F. C., Calil, J. F., Machado, M. J. C, & Giuliani, A. C. (2016). Contabilidade mental: Levantamento e desenvolvimento recente. Revista ESPACIOS, 37 (34).
Porton, R. A. B.; Longaray, A. A. (2006). Relevância do uso das informações contábeis nos processos decisionais. Revista Angrad, 7 (4), 89-110.
Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing science, 17(1), 4-28. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.1.4
Ramadani, V., L. P. Dana, N. Sadiku-Dushi, V. Ratten, & D. Welsh. (2017). Decision-making challenges of women entrepreneurship in the family business succession process. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 25 (04), 411–439.
Ramiah, V., Zhao, Y., Moosa, I., & Graham, M. (2016). A behavioural finance approach to working capital management. The European Journal of Finance, 22(8-9), 662-687. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2014.883549
Remus, W. (1986). Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making. Journal of Business Research, 14(1), 19-25.
Ross, G. D., Nora, B. D., & Milani, B. (2015). Aversão ao risco em profissionais do setor financeiro. Revista de Administração da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, 8.
Rutledge, R. W. (1995). The ability to moderate recency effects through framing of management accounting information. Journal of Managerial Issues, 27-40.
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and research agenda. Journal of management, 41(1), 11-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314541153
Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American psychologist, 50(5), 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: A broader perspective. The American Economic Review, 73(4), 596-605.
Soman, D. (2004). Framing, loss aversion, and mental accounting. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, 379-398.
Souza, M. L. (2017). Finanças comportamentais: Um estudo das publicações no Enanpad no período de 2003 a 2013. Conhecimento Interativo, 11(1), 59-74.
Sprinkle, G. B. (2003). Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 287-318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00058-7
Sprinkle, G. B., & Williamson, M. G. (2006). Experimental research in managerial accounting. Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1, 415-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01017-0
Suave, R. (2017). Preferências dos usuários por agregação e desagregação em relatórios internos para fins de ratcheting de metas e avaliação de desempenho (Tese de Doutorado), Universidade de São Paulo – USP, São Paulo/SP, Brasil.
Takemura, K. (1993). The effect of decision frame and decision justification on risky choice. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 36-40. https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.35.36
Tan, H., & Yates, J. F. (1995). Sunk cost effects: the influences of instruction and future return estimates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(3),331-319. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1082
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4 (Summer), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
Thaler, R. H. (2008). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 27 (1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1070.0330
Tiessen, P., & Waterhouse, J. H. (1983). Towards a descriptive theory of management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2-3), 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(83)90033-8
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. DOI: 10.1126/science.7455683
Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological review, 95(3), 371. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371
Watts, S., Shankaranarayanan, G., & Even, A. (2009). Data quality assessment in context: A cognitive perspective. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.07.012
Yao, R., Sharpe, D. L., & Wang, F. (2011). Decomposing the age effect on risk tolerance. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(6), 879-887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2011.08.023

Published

2024-01-30

Issue

Section

National Section