SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4

COGNITIVE TRAPS IN ACCOUNTING DECISIONS: THE ROLE OF COGNITIVE BIASES IN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING AND THEIR SOLUTIONS

MUHASEBE KARARLARINDA ZİHİN TUZAKLARI: YÖNETİM MUHASEBESİNDE BİLİŞSEL YANLILIKLARIN ROLÜ VE ÇÖZÜM YOLLARI

Günay Deniz Dursun(BEYKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-1079-2879
Pages
353–372
Publication Date
2025-12-28
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that management accounting decisions are not solely governed by technical calculations; rather, they are significantly shaped by the perceptions, of decision-makers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Management accounting plays a strategic role in decision-making utilizing not only quantitative analyses but also the cognitive frameworks of decision-makers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study examines the cognitive biases encountered in management accounting across four key decision domains: budgeting, performance evaluation, investment, and strategic planning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal that management accounting decisions are not solely governed by technical calculations; rather, they are significantly shaped by the perceptions, of decision-makers.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yönetim Muhasebesi · Bilişsel Yanlılıklar · Sezgisel Kısa Yollar

Abstract

Management accounting plays a strategic role in decision-making utilizing not only quantitative analyses but also the cognitive frameworks of decision-makers. This study examines the cognitive biases encountered in management accounting across four key decision domains: budgeting, performance evaluation, investment, and strategic planning. Prominent bias types were identified and subsequently illustrated using a scenario-based analysis. The findings reveal that management accounting decisions are not solely governed by technical calculations; rather, they are significantly shaped by the perceptions, of decision-makers. In this respect, the study contributes to the development of behavioral awareness in management accounting and offers recommendations for minimizing decision-making errors.

Özet

Karar verme süreçlerinde stratejik bir rol üstlenen yönetim muhasebesi, yalnızca sayısal analizlerle değil, karar vericilerin zihinsel çerçeveleriyle de doğrudan şekillenmektedir. Bu çalışma, yönetim muhasebesi kararlarında sıkça gözlemlenen bilişsel yanlılıkları; bütçeleme, performans değerlendirme, yatırım kararları ve stratejik planlama olmak üzere dört temel karar alanı üzerinden incelemektedir. Bu alanlarda öne çıkan bilişsel yanlılık türleri literatür taramasıyla belirlenmiş, ardından bu yanlılıklar senaryo tabanlı bir analiz yöntemiyle somutlaştırılmıştır. Bulgular, yönetim muhasebesi kararlarının yalnızca teknik hesaplamalardan ibaret olmadığını, karar vericilerin algılarına, deneyimlerine ve zihinsel önyargılarına da bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, yönetim muhasebesi alanında davranışsal farkındalığın artırılmasına katkı sağlamayı ve karar alma süreçlerinde sistematik hataların azaltılmasına yönelik öneriler geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dursun, G. D. (2025). COGNITIVE TRAPS IN ACCOUNTING DECISIONS: THE ROLE OF COGNITIVE BIASES IN MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING AND THEIR SOLUTIONS. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4, 353–372. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.1704165

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4
  2. Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Wiley. Brink, S., Steenkamp, G., & Odendaal, A. (2025). Applying principle-based guidelines to a complex transaction: Exploring management judgement and decision-making. Pacific Accounting Review, 37(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2024-0272
  3. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366
  4. Büyükmirza, K. (2009). Maliyet ve yönetim muhasebesi. Gazi Kitabevi.
  5. Camilli, R., Cristofaro, M., Hristov, I., & Sargiacomo, M. (2025). Cognitive biases in accounting judgment and decision making: a review, a typology, and a future research agenda. Accounting Forum, 1(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2024.2434340
  6. Cristofaro, M., Augier, M., Lovallo, D., Abatecola, G., & Leoni, L. (2024). Behavioral strategy in evolution: a review and conceptual framework. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2024.10.002 Çeşmeci, C. (2024). Beyond the Odds: Framing and Taming Base-Rate Neglect in Organizational and Consumer Decision-Making. In E. Siniksaran (Ed.), Overcoming Cognitive Biases in Strategic Management and Decision Making (pp. 1-23). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1766-2.ch001
  7. Çeşmeci, C., & Burnaz, S. (2020). Has Luxury Consumption Something to do with Fear and Love?. In F. Pantoja, S. Wu, & N. Krey (Eds.), Enlightened Marketing in Challenging Times (pp. 235-249). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42545-6_18
  8. Çeşmeci, C., & Burnaz, S. (2022). How does the construal level affect consumers’ intention to adopt product ratings and individual reviews?. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 10(4), 1335-1353. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v10i4.2146
  9. Drury, C. (2018). Management and cost accounting (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  10. Evans, J. St. B. T., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196976
  11. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552
  12. Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio- Economics, 40(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008
  13. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1), 107-143.
  14. Gino, F., & Pisano, G. P. (2008). Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(4), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1070.0205
  15. Guillet, B. D., & Mohammed, I. (2024). Understanding consumers' willingness to pay for online upselling of hotel rooms through the lens of psychological distance. Tourism Management, 103, Article 104887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104887
  16. Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. V. (2015). Cost accounting: A managerial emphasis (15th ed.). Pearson.
  17. Hristov, I., Camilli, R., & Mechelli, A. (2022). Cognitive biases in implementing a performance management system: behavioral strategy for supporting managers’ decision-making processes. Management Research Review, 45(9), 1110-1136. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2021-0777
  18. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  19. Kaplan, R. S., & Atkinson, A. A. (1998). Advanced management accounting (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  20. Kumar, S., & Goyal, N. (2015). Behavioral biases in investment decision making – A systematic literature review. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 7(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-07-2014-0022
  21. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.37.11.2098
  22. Muntwiler, C., Eppler, M. J., Unfried, M., & Buder, F. (2025). Individual decision styles as predictors for bias susceptibility and bias blind spots in managerial decisions. Management Research Review, 48(2), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2022-0793
  23. Ooi, K. L. (2025). Early concepts and theories: Cognitive biases in decision-making. In Behavioral Finance and Decision Theory (pp. 1–25). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978- 981-96-2690-8_1
  24. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
  25. Pohl, R. F. (2017). Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  26. Romney, M. B., & Steinbart, P. J. (2020). Accounting information systems (15th ed.). Pearson.
  27. Saad, G. (2013). Research Dialogue: Evolutionary consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.03.002
  28. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
  29. Saura, J. R., & Bužinskienė, R. (2025). Behavioral economics, artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship: An updated framework for management. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-025-01076-7
  30. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195
  31. Sebora, T. C., & Cornwall, J. R. (1995). Expected utility theory vs. prospect theory: Implications for strategic decision makers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(1), 41–61.
  32. Sevilengül, O. (2009). Genel muhasebe. Gazi Kitabevi.
  33. Shefrin, H. (2007). Behavioral corporate finance: Decisions that create value. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Shim, J. K., &
  34. Siegel, J. G. (2008). Modern cost management and analysis. Barron's Educational Series. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183– 206.
  35. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
  36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
  37. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806
  38. Wilke, A., & Mata, R. (2012). Cognitive bias. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), The encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 531–535). Academic Press.
  39. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M., Toplu, D., & Sap, Ö. (2014). Çalışanların karar verme sürecinde yanılsama ve aldanmalar. Research Journal of Business and Management, 1(1), 39-53.