Investigating Financial Statements Recognition Process by Non-professional Users using eye tracking data analysis

Nsaimtoosi, Farhad; Vadiee, Mohammad Hosein

doi:10.61186/aapc.7.14.329

[Home ] [Archive]

[ فارسی ]

journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting

Main Menu

Home

Journal Information

Editorial Board

Articles archive

Publication Ethics

For Authors

Peer Review Process

Registration

Site Facilities

Contact us

Search in website

Receive site information

Volume 7, Issue 14 (3-2023)

aapc 2023, 7(14): 329-361

Back to browse issues page

Investigating Financial Statements Recognition Process by Non-professional Users using eye tracking data analysis

Farhad Nsaimtoosi¹

, Mohammad Hosein Vadiee

1- Ph.D. Student, Accounting, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. (nasimtoosi@gmail.com)
2- Associate Professor of Accounting, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. mhvadeei@um.ac.ir (Corresponding Author) , mhvadeei@um.ac.ir

Abstract: (1117 Views)

Studying the decision-making process of non-professional users of financial information, due to their weakness in understanding and interpreting information, has always been interesting to law-making bodies, standard-setters and researchers in the Accounting field. They try to find solutions to improve financial reporting in order to protect the interests of this vulnerable group by decoding the black box of non-professional users decision-making behavior. In this regard, the current research aims to understand the recognition patterns (metacognition) of non-professional users while reading financial Statements, using eye tracking tool that enables researcher to look at documents through non-professional users eyes and documents and analyzes the observations.Therefore, 14 participants (their education is not related to finance) were asked to answer some questions about three basic financial statements (income statement, statement of financial position, and statement of cash flows) and their gaze data recorded along with it, then by using eye tracking data visualization techniques, the collected data was analyzed. the results indicated that Non-professional users face more cognitive load when reading the statement of financial position. Non-professional users do not have the ability to study the Financial Statements purposefully and they study them based on the sequence of information presentation. This group spends a lot of time understanding the description column of financial statements, which may be more than the time spent reviewing the relevant figures. they also rely on current year's information more than comparative figures, but also comparative figures is important to them. This finding can be useful from the point of view of standard-setting bodies in order to improve financial reporting and protect the interests of non-professional users of accounting information.

Keywords: Eye Tracking, Financial Statements, Non-professional Users, Reading Patterns, Cognitive Load

Full-Text [PDF 1315 kb] (320 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2022/09/11 | Accepted: 2023/03/20 | Published: 2023/08/20

References

1. Abdelkarim, N., Y. Shahin, and B. Arqawi. 2009. Investor Perception of Information Disclosed in Financial Reports of Palestine Securities Exchange Listed Companies. Accounting & Taxation 1(1): 45-61.

2. Abdelsalam, M. 1990. The Use of Corporate Financial Reports by Investors in Saudi Arabia. Advances in International Accounting 3: 25-39.

3. Al-Zarouni, A. 2009. Corporate Financial Disclosure in Emerging Markets: The case of the UAE. Griffith University [Ph.D. thesis].

4. Ali Khan, M. N. A., and N. A. Omar. 2013. A study of importance items of internet financial reporting: A case of Malaysian auditors. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research 17: 395-406.

5. Allen, C. G. 2011. The effects of visual complexity on cognitive load as influenced by field dependency and spatial ability. New York University [Ph.D. thesis].

6. Almer, E. D., J. R. Hopper, and S. E. Kaplan. 2003. A Research Tool to Increase Attention to Experimental Materials: Manipulating Presentation Format. Journal of Business and Psychology 17(3): 405-418.

7. Altman, E. I. 1968. Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy. The Journal of Finance 23(4): 589-609.

8. Ashton, R. H. 1974. An Experimental Study of Internal Control Judgements. Journal of Accounting Research 12(1): 143-157.

9. Ashton, R. H. 1982. Human information processing in accounting. American Accounting Association.

10. Baksaas, K. M., and T. Stenheim. 2019. Proposal for improved financial statements under IFRS. Cogent Business & Management 6(1): 1-24.

11. Baldi, R. 2017. Decision making and Neuroaccounting perspective: An Eye-tracking investigation on Accounting information disclosure University of Siena [Ph.D. thesis].

12. Benbasat, l., and R. G. Schroeder. 1977. An experimental investigation of some MIS design variables. MIS Quarterly 1(1): 37–49.

13. Bergstrom, J., and A. Schall. 2014. Eye Tracking in User Experience Design. Morgan Kaufmann.

14. Bertola, M. A., and S. A. Balk. 2011. Eyes on the Road: A Methodology for Analyzing Complex Eye Tracking Data. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Southeast SAS Users Group (SESUG)(Alexandria, VA).

15. Biggs, S. F., and J. J. Wild. 1985. An Investigation of Auditor Judgment in Analytical Review. The Accounting Review 60(4): 607-633

16. Biggs, S. F., and T. J. Mock. 1983. An Investigation Of Auditor Decision-Processes In The Evaluation Of Internal Controls And Audit Scope Decisions. Journal of Accounting Research 21: 234-255.

17. Birnberg, J. G., and A. R. Ganguly. 2012. Is neuroaccounting waiting in the wings? An essay. Accounting, Organizations and Society 37(1): 1-13.

18. Bouwman, M. J. 1982. The use of accounting information: Professional versus novice behaviour. In G. R. Ungson & D. N. Braunstein (Eds.), Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry :134-167. University of Oregon.

19. Bouwman, M. J., P. A. Frishkoff, and P. Frishkoff. 1987. How do financial analysts make decisions? A process model of the investment screening decision. Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(1): 1-29.

20. Clor-Proell, S. M., C. A. Proell, andT. D. Warfield. 2014. The Effects of Presentation Salience and Measurement Subjectivity on Nonprofessional Investors’ Fair Value Judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research 31(1): 45-66.

21. Collins, A. M. 2022. Return Measures as a Link Between Financial Statements. The International Journal of Accounting 57(03): 1-30.

22. Dull, R. B., A. W. Graham, and A. A. Baldwin. 2003. Web-based financial statements: hypertext links to footnotes and their effect on decisions. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 4(3): 185-203.

23. Ehalaiye, D., F. Laswad, N. Botica Redmayne, W. Stent, and L. Cai. 2020. Are Financial Reports Useful? The Views of New Zealand Public Versus Private Users. Australian Accounting Review 30(1): 52-64.

24. Faulkner, L. 2003. Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35(3): 379-383.

25. Ghani, E., F. Laswad, S. Tooley, and K. Jusoff. 2009. The role of presentation format on decision-makers' behaviour in accounting. International Business Research 2(1): 183-195.

26. Glaholt, M. G., and E. M. Reingold. 2011. Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 4(2): 125-146.

27. Harper, S., E. Michailidou, and R. Stevens. 2009. Toward a Definition of Visual Complexity as an Implicit Measure of Cognitive Load. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 6(2): 1-18.

28. Hassan, O., and D. M. Power. 2009. The usefulness of accounting information; evidence from the Egyptian market. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets 1(3): 125-141.

29. Hattenbach, T. 2019. Three Essays in Experimental Accounting. University of Konstanz [Ph.D. thesis].

30. Hendricks, J. A. 1976. The Impact of Human Resource Accounting Information on Stock Investment Decisions: An Empirical Study. The Accounting Review 51(2): 292-305.

31. Hodge, F. D., J. J. Kennedy, and L. A. Maines. 2004. Does Search‐Facilitating Technology Improve the Transparency of Financial Reporting? The Accounting Review 79(3): 687-703.

32. Hopwood, A. G. 1989. Behavioral Accounting in Retrospect and Prospect. Behavioral Research in Accounting 1: 1-22.

33. Hopwood, A. G. 1996. Looking across rather than up and down: On the need to explore the lateral processing of information. Accounting, Organizations and Society 21(6): 589-590.

34. Juárez Ramos, V. 2014. Neurociencia cognitiva: diferencias entre distintas poblaciones en tareas de toma de decisions, Universidad de Granada [Ph.D. thesis].

35. Kurawa, J. M. 2009. Issues in behavioral aspects of accounting. Advanced Accounting Theory and Practice. Adonis & Abbey Publishers Ltd.

36. Lee, J. 2019. Task Complexity, Cognitive Load, and L1 Speech. Applied Linguistics, 40(3): 506-539.

37. Levitt, A. 1998. The Importance of High Quality Accounting Standards. Accounting horizons: a quarterly publication of the American Accounting Association 12(1): 79-82.

38. Libby, R. 1975. Accounting Ratios and the Prediction of Failure: Some Behavioral Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 13(1): 150-161.

39. Libby, R. 1976. Man versus model of man: The need for a nonlinear model. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance 16(1): 23-26.

40. Loftus, E. F., and L. R. Beach. 1982. Human Inference and Judgment: Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?. Stanford Law Review 34(4): 939-956.

41. Lynch, E. J., and L. M. Andiola. 2019. If Eyes are the Window to Our Soul, What Role does Eye-Tracking Play in Accounting Research?. Behavioral Research in Accounting 31(2): 107-133.

42. Macefield, R. 2009. How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: a practitioner's guide. Journal of Usability Studies 5(1): 34-45.

43. Maines, L. A. 1995. Judgment and decision-making research in financial accounting: A review and analysis. In A. H. Ashton & R. H. Ashton (Eds.), Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing: 76-101. Cambridge University Press.

44. Maines, L. A., and L. S. McDaniel. 2000. Effects of Comprehensive‐Income Characteristics on Nonprofessional Investors' Judgments: The Role of Financial‐Statement Presentation Format. The Accounting Review 75(2): 179-207.

45. McIntyre, E. V. 1973. Current-Cost Financial Statements and Common-Stock Investments Decisions. The Accounting Review 48(3): 575-585.

46. Mear, R., and M. Firth. 1987. Assessing the accuracy of financial analyst security return predictions. Accounting, Organizations and Society 12(4): 331-340.

47. Mirshekary, S., and S. M. Saudagaran. 2005. Perceptions and characteristics of financial statement users in developing countries: Evidence from Iran. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation 14(1): 33-54.

48. Moreno, R. 2006. Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22(3): 149-158.

49. Moser, D. V. 1989. The Effects of Output Interference, Availability, and Accounting Information on Investors' Predictive Judgments. The Accounting Review 64(3): 433-448.

50. Nielsen, J., and T. K. Landauer. 1993. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of conference on Human factors in computing systems: 206-213.

51. Nouri, H., and B. Douglas Clinton. 2006. Gender, media presentation, and concern with the correct use of words—testing a three-way interaction. Accounting Education 15(1): 61-72.

52. Purvis, S. E. C. 1989. The effect of audit documentation format on data collection. Accounting, Organizations and Society 14(5): 551-563.

53. Report of the Committee on the Relationship of Behavioral Science and Accounting. 1974. The Accounting Review 49: 127-139.

54. Slovic, P., D. Griffin, and A. Tversky. 1990. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn: 5-27. University of Chicago Press.

55. So, S., and M. Smith. 2004. Multivariate decision accuracy and the presentation of accounting information. Accounting Forum 28(3): 283-305.

56. Spyridakis, J., and J. Fisher. 1992. Usability testing in technical communication: The application of true experimental designs. Technical Communication 39(4): 607-624.

57. Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science 12(2): 257-285.

58. Velichkovsky, B. M., A. Rothert, M. Kopf, S. M. Dornhöfer, and M. Joos. 2002. Towards an express-diagnostics for level of processing and hazard perception. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 5(2): 145-156.

59. Vera-Muñoz, S. C., W. R. Kinney, and S. E. Bonner. 2001. The Effects of Domain Experience and Task Presentation Format on Accountants' Information Relevance Assurance. The Accounting Review 76(3): 405-429.

60. Widyatama, A., and I. M. Narsa. 2022. The use of visual presentations for integrated reports in the investment decision-making process. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, ahead-of-print.

61. Yu, Z. 2019. Gender Differences in Cognitive Loads, Attitudes, and Academic Achievements in Mobile English Learning. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies 17(4): 21-35.

Add your comments about this article

‎ 10.61186/aapc.7.14.329

‎ 20.1001.1.25384228.1401.8.14.1.0

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Nsaimtoosi F, Vadiee M H. Investigating Financial Statements Recognition Process by Non-professional Users using eye tracking data analysis. aapc 2023; 7 (14) :329-361
URL: http://aapc.khu.ac.ir/article-1-1121-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 7, Issue 14 (3-2023)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.08 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645