Bias Kognitif dalam Akuntansi Sektor Publik dan Pengambilan Keputusan Keuangan Publik: Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
Public sector accounting reforms have traditionally assumed that better financial and performance information leads to better public decisions. However, growing evidence indicates that decision quality depends not only on information quality but also on how decision-makers cognitively interpret and use that information. Although behavioural research has expanded rapidly, studies on cognitive biases in public sector accounting remain fragmented across behavioural accounting, public sector accounting, and Behavioural Public Administration. This study addresses this gap through a systematic literature review of cognitive biases in public sector accounting and public financial decision-making. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, seventeen peer-reviewed articles were analysed using thematic synthesis. The review identifies three interrelated categories of cognitive biases—information processing biases, judgment and decision biases, and commitment and persistence biases—that collectively explain how cognitive processes shape accounting information interpretation, financial judgments, and the persistence of public decisions. The findings also reveal that existing research is concentrated on performance information and public budgeting, while public financial reporting, public sector auditing, and popular financial reporting remain underexplored. Building on these findings, this study proposes Behavioural Public Sector Accounting (BPSA) as a conceptual framework that integrates behavioural accounting, public sector accounting, and Behavioural Public Administration, shifting the focus of public sector accounting research from information production toward information use. The study argues that improving public decisions requires understanding not only the quality of accounting information but also the cognitive processes through which it is interpreted and applied.
References
Ashton. (1974). An Experimental Study of Internal Control Judgments. 12(1), 143–157.
Baekgaard, M. (2015). Interpreting Performance Information: Motivated Reasoning or Unbiased Comprehension. 76, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12406.Interpreting
Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A., Bjørn, N., & Petersen, G. (2017). The Role of Evidence in Politics : Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion among Politicians. August, 1117–1140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000084
Battaglio, R. P., Belardinelli, P., & Cantarelli, P. (2018). Behavioral Public Administration. 00. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994
Belardinelli, P. (2018). Framing Effects under Different Uses of Performance Information: An Experimental Study on Public Managers. 00, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12969
Bergmann, A., Fuchs, S., Schuler, C., & Bergmann, A. (2019). A theoretical basis for public sector accrual accounting research : Current state and perspectives and perspectives. Public Money & Management, 0(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1654319
Birnberg, J. G. (2011). A Proposed Framework for Behavioral. 23(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2011.23.1.1
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2008). Using thematic analysis in psychology Using thematic analysis in psychology. 0887(2006).
Chan, J. L., & Chan, J. L. (2010). Government Accounting : An Assessment of Theory , Purposes and Standards. November 2014, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00336
Christiaens, J., Vanhee, C., Manes-rossi, F., & Cauwenberge, P. Van. (2014). The effect of IPSAS on reforming governmental financial reporting : an international comparison. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314546580
Donatella, P., & Karlsson, D. (2025). Why do politicians perceive the same financial conditions differently ? July 2024, 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.13029
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfittest : why the worst infrastructure gets built — and what we can. 25(3), 344–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grp024
Fuenzalida, J., Ryzin, G. G. Van, & Olsen, A. L. (2020). Are managers susceptible to framing effects ? An experimental study of professional judgment of performance metrics. International Public Management Journal, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2020.1752338
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Knies, E. (2017). Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315585950
Grossi, G., Steccolini, I., Grossi, G., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector ? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation Pursuing Private or Public Accountability in the Public Sector ? Applying IPSASs to Define the Reporting Entity in Municipal Consolidation. June, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1001239
Hines, R. E. (2025). Risky Decisions Over Troubled Waters : Public Works Directors ’ Sea Level Rise Risk Attitudes. 30(1), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X241271403
Hood, C. (1991). ALL SEASONS ? 69, 3–19.
IFAC. (2014). International Framework: Good Governance in the Public Sector.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty : Heuristics and Biases. 185.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. 47(2), 263–292.
Li, W., Yang, J., & Chen, X. (2025). Understanding public participatory budgeting behavior : how cognitive. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-08-2025-0232
Marvel, J. D. (2015). Unconscious Bias in Citizens ’ Evaluations of Public Sector Performance. 25. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu053
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The Big Question for Performance Management : Why Do Managers Use Performance Information ? 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq004
Nielsen, P. A., & Donald, P. (2016). How Do Politicians Attribute Bureaucratic Responsibility for Performance ? Negativity Bias and Interest Group Advocacy. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw060
Olsen, A. L. (2013). Human Interest or Hard Numbers? Experiments on Citizens’ Selection, Exposure, and Recall of Performance Information. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12638.erformance
Page, M. J., Mckenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-wilson, E., Mcdonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement : an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pan, L., & Tan, R. (2026). Famine imprints and time preference : Evidence from Chinese mayors. International Public Management Journal, 0(0), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2026.2615128
Samuel, W. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. 59, 7–59.
Simon, B. H. A. (1955). A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICE. 99–118.
Sleesman, D. J., & Miles, J. E. (2012). CLEANING UP THE BIG MUDDY : A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW OF THE DETERMINANTS OF ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT. 55(3), 541–562.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy : A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action. 44, 27–44.
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
Zhu, X., Belardinelli, P., & Moldogaziev, T. T. (2025). Participatory budgeting and loss aversion : experimental evidence from China. Public Management Review, 00(00), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2025.2610747
.png)
.png)
