Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

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

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4, 353 - 372, 28.12.2025

Günay Deniz Dursun

https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.1704165

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yönetim Muhasebesi Bilişsel Yanlılıklar Sezgisel Kısa Yollar Karar Verme

Kaynakça

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Büyükmirza, K. (2009). Maliyet ve yönetim muhasebesi. Gazi Kitabevi.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Drury, C. (2018). Management and cost accounting (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1), 107-143.
  • 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
  • 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
  • Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. V. (2015). Cost accounting: A managerial emphasis (15th ed.). Pearson.
  • 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
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kaplan, R. S., & Atkinson, A. A. (1998). Advanced management accounting (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
  • Pohl, R. F. (2017). Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • Romney, M. B., & Steinbart, P. J. (2020). Accounting information systems (15th ed.). Pearson.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Sevilengül, O. (2009). Genel muhasebe. Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Shefrin, H. (2007). Behavioral corporate finance: Decisions that create value. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Shim, J. K., &
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.

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.

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4, 353 - 372, 28.12.2025

Günay Deniz Dursun

https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.1704165

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Managerial Accounting Cognitive Biases Heuristics Decision Making

Kaynakça

  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Büyükmirza, K. (2009). Maliyet ve yönetim muhasebesi. Gazi Kitabevi.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Drury, C. (2018). Management and cost accounting (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1), 107-143.
  • 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
  • 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
  • Horngren, C. T., Datar, S. M., & Rajan, M. V. (2015). Cost accounting: A managerial emphasis (15th ed.). Pearson.
  • 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
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kaplan, R. S., & Atkinson, A. A. (1998). Advanced management accounting (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.
  • Pohl, R. F. (2017). Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • Romney, M. B., & Steinbart, P. J. (2020). Accounting information systems (15th ed.). Pearson.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Sevilengül, O. (2009). Genel muhasebe. Gazi Kitabevi.
  • Shefrin, H. (2007). Behavioral corporate finance: Decisions that create value. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Shim, J. K., &
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
Toplam 39 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Yönetim Muhasebesi
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Günay Deniz Dursun 0000-0002-1079-2879

Gönderilme Tarihi 22 Mayıs 2025
Kabul Tarihi 29 Ağustos 2025
Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Aralık 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Cilt: 27 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

APA Dursun, G. D. (2025). MUHASEBE KARARLARINDA ZİHİN TUZAKLARI: YÖNETİM MUHASEBESİNDE BİLİŞSEL YANLILIKLARIN ROLÜ VE ÇÖZÜM YOLLARI. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 27(4), 353-372. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.1704165

Yazarlık

MBDD, araştırma makalelerine yapılan katkıların adil şekilde tanınmasını sağlamak amacıyla COPE Yazarlık Kılavuzuna uymaktadır (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/authorship). Yazarlık, hem hak hem de sorumluluk taşır; bu nedenle, listelenen tüm yazarların araştırmaya önemli katkılarda bulunmuş olması gerekmektedir.

Birden fazla yazarlı çalışmalarda, Yazar Katkıları bölümü, sonuç bölümünden sonra ve kaynakçadan önce yer almalıdır. Makalenin hangi bölümlerine hangi yazarın katkı sağladığını belirtmek için yazarların isim baş harfleri ve soyadları kullanılmalıdır. Detaylı bilgiye "Makale Gönderim Kontrol Listesi" düğmesine tıklayarak ulaşılabilir. Ayrıca, yazarlar, yazarlık kriterlerini karşılamayan ancak çalışmaya katkı sağlayan kişileri teşekkür bölümünde belirtebilirler.

Yazarlar araştırmanın tasarım ve uygulanmasında üretilen Yapay Zekâ (YZ) ve YZ destekli araçların kullanımını açıklamak zorundadırlar. Bu tür kullanımlar, makalenin yöntem bölümünde belirtilmelidir. YZ kullanımının belirtilmesi, makalenin yayımlanmasını engellemez; aksine, araştırmanın şeffaf bir şekilde sunulmasını sağlar.