启发式作为管理会计中的努力减少机制——关于过程特征和先决条件的一些证据

J. Basel
{"title":"启发式作为管理会计中的努力减少机制——关于过程特征和先决条件的一些证据","authors":"J. Basel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2360656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of this paper is to provide a fresh look at use of heuristics in management accounting from a process-oriented perspective. In experimental study 1 participants facing an accounting decision mostly ignored advice to decide rationally (e.g. in the sense of strictly following the instructions of the equal weights rule) and instead used heuristics in an ostensibly rational decision task. A detailed process analysis of these heuristics is provided through a verbal protocol analysis in study 2, which showed the typically involved phased strategy. Accountability, as introduced in study 3, is however one external factor that is strongly linked with the use of available cues and departing from (at least reported) non-compensatory rules. Overall, it is suggested that participants facing a management accounting task may not always act according to the laws of (economic) rationality, but under certain circumstances, their decision making can be seen as an adaptive strategy to cope with a complex and uncertain environment. A theoretical framework of this sort of heuristic reasoning in management accounting is suggested, together with possibilities of future research.","PeriodicalId":414766,"journal":{"name":"DecisionSciRN: Heuristics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"24 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heuristics as Effort Reduction Mechanisms in Management Accounting – Some Evidence on Process Characteristics and Pre-Conditions\",\"authors\":\"J. Basel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2360656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The objective of this paper is to provide a fresh look at use of heuristics in management accounting from a process-oriented perspective. In experimental study 1 participants facing an accounting decision mostly ignored advice to decide rationally (e.g. in the sense of strictly following the instructions of the equal weights rule) and instead used heuristics in an ostensibly rational decision task. A detailed process analysis of these heuristics is provided through a verbal protocol analysis in study 2, which showed the typically involved phased strategy. Accountability, as introduced in study 3, is however one external factor that is strongly linked with the use of available cues and departing from (at least reported) non-compensatory rules. Overall, it is suggested that participants facing a management accounting task may not always act according to the laws of (economic) rationality, but under certain circumstances, their decision making can be seen as an adaptive strategy to cope with a complex and uncertain environment. A theoretical framework of this sort of heuristic reasoning in management accounting is suggested, together with possibilities of future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":414766,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DecisionSciRN: Heuristics (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"24 4\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DecisionSciRN: Heuristics (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2360656\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DecisionSciRN: Heuristics (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2360656","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是从面向过程的角度对管理会计中启发式的使用提供一个新的看法。在实验研究1中,面对会计决策的参与者大多忽略了理性决策的建议(例如严格遵循等权规则的指示),而是在表面上理性的决策任务中使用启发式。通过研究2中的口头协议分析提供了这些启发式的详细过程分析,该分析显示了通常涉及的分阶段策略。然而,正如研究3中介绍的那样,问责制是一个与可用线索的使用密切相关的外部因素,并且偏离了(至少报道的)非补偿性规则。总的来说,这表明面对管理会计任务的参与者可能并不总是按照(经济)理性的规律行事,但在某些情况下,他们的决策可以被视为一种适应策略,以应对复杂和不确定的环境。本文提出了管理会计中这种启发式推理的理论框架,并提出了未来研究的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Heuristics as Effort Reduction Mechanisms in Management Accounting – Some Evidence on Process Characteristics and Pre-Conditions
The objective of this paper is to provide a fresh look at use of heuristics in management accounting from a process-oriented perspective. In experimental study 1 participants facing an accounting decision mostly ignored advice to decide rationally (e.g. in the sense of strictly following the instructions of the equal weights rule) and instead used heuristics in an ostensibly rational decision task. A detailed process analysis of these heuristics is provided through a verbal protocol analysis in study 2, which showed the typically involved phased strategy. Accountability, as introduced in study 3, is however one external factor that is strongly linked with the use of available cues and departing from (at least reported) non-compensatory rules. Overall, it is suggested that participants facing a management accounting task may not always act according to the laws of (economic) rationality, but under certain circumstances, their decision making can be seen as an adaptive strategy to cope with a complex and uncertain environment. A theoretical framework of this sort of heuristic reasoning in management accounting is suggested, together with possibilities of future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信