Mental Accounting in Managers' Preferences Related to Aggregation Versus Disaggregation Income Statement Items

Abstract

Objective - The objective of this study is to observe the mental accounting of managers when choosing between aggregate or disaggregate items in income statements. Managers who experience mental accounting may behave opportunistically because they may consider cost-benefits based on which of the two has a higher utility. Methodology/Technique - The analytical tools used in this research include a descriptive statistical analysis and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to determine aspects affecting the preparation of the empowerment model. In the Qualitative analysis of the implementation of the empowerment model, data will be drawn from focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. Findings - The test results of the research experiment using MANOVA Test (Factorial Design) with SPSS 23 found that overall, the managers will support the presentation of aggregate or disaggregate based on which one of the two has a higher utility. Therefore, managers' preferences related to items of gains and losses in the income statement are consistent with mental accounting. Novelty - The outcome of this study could be used to explain how the parties involved in external financial reporting and voluntary disclosure behave in accordance with the principles of the theory of mental accounting. Type of Paper: Empirical Keywords: Mental Accounting; Aggregation; Disaggregation; Gain; Loss.