Rethinking Information Overload in the Digital Accounting Era: A Systematic Literature Review of Cognitive Processing, Decision Quality, and Algorithm Augmented Decision Making
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70142/jbs.v2i01.138Keywords:
Information Overload, Cognitive Processing, Decision Quality, Algorithmic Decision-Making, Digital AccountingAbstract
This qualitative systematic literature review rethinks information overload in the digital accounting era by integrating three interconnected dimensions: cognitive processing, decision quality, and algorithm-augmented decision making. Drawing on accounting, behavioral decision making, big data analytics, and algorithmic decision making literature, the review synthesizes how increasing information volume, complexity, and technological mediation influence accounting judgment. The findings indicate that information overload is not solely a consequence of excessive information but also reflects limitations in human cognitive processing, information characteristics, task complexity, and decision context. The review further shows that big data analytics and algorithmic systems can enhance information processing while simultaneously creating challenges related to interpretation, trust, algorithm acceptance, and human oversight. The study proposes an integrated perspective in which accounting decision quality emerges from the interaction between information characteristics, human cognition, and algorithmic support.
References
Agnew, J. R., & Szykman, L. R. (2005). Asset allocation and information overload: The influence of information display, asset choice, and investor experience. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(2), 57–70.
Benardi Benardi, Ngadi Permana, & Mohammad Chaidir. (2024). Dampak Keterlibatan Institusi Keuangan terhadap Sophistication Finansial dan Pengeluaran Konsumen. Jurnal Visi Manajemen, 10(2), 123–133.
Brown-Liburd, H., Issa, H., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Behavioral implications of big data’s impact on audit judgment and decision making and future research directions. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 451–468.
Chan, S. Y. (2001). The use of graphs as decision aids in relation to information overload and managerial decision quality. Journal of Information Science, 27(6), 417–425.
Dong, L., Lui, G., & Wong-On-Wing, B. (2017). Unintended consequences of forecast disaggregation: A multi-period perspective. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(3), 1580–1595.
Eberhartinger, E., Genest, N., & Lee, S. (2020). Financial statement users’ judgment and disaggregated tax disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 41, 100351.
Elliott, W. B., Hobson, J. L., & Jackson, K. E. (2011). Disaggregating management forecasts to reduce investors’ susceptibility to earnings fixation. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 185–208.
Eppler, M. J., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society, 20(5), 325–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974
Hartmann, M., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2024). Information overload research in accounting: A systematic review of the literature. Management Review Quarterly, 74, 1619–1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00343-7
Hioki, K., Suematsu, E., & Miya, H. (2020). The interaction effect of quantity and characteristics of accounting measures on performance evaluation. Pacific Accounting Review, 32(3), 305–321.
Hirst, D. E., Koonce, L., & Venkataraman, S. (2007). How disaggregation enhances the credibility of management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(4), 811–837.
Holt, T. P., & Loraas, T. M. (2021). A potential unintended consequence of big data: Does information structure lead to suboptimal auditor judgment and decision-making? Accounting Horizons, 35(3), 161–186.
Kelton, A. S., & Murthy, U. S. (2016). The effects of information disaggregation and financial statement interactivity on judgments and decisions of nonprofessional investors. Journal of Information Systems, 30(3), 99–118.
Luft, J., & Shields, M. D. (2010). Psychology models of management accounting. Foundations and Trends in Accounting, 4(3–4), 199–345.
Mahmud, H., Islam, A. K. M. N., Ahmed, S. I., & Smolander, K. (2022). What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121390.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121390
Mohamad Chaidir, Grace Yulianti, & Benardi Benardi. (2024). Pengaruh Volatilitas Ekuitas dan Leverage terhadap Risiko Investasi. Jurnal Visi Manajemen, 10(1), 42–53.
Mohamad Chaidir, Grace Yulianti, & Seger Santoso. (2024). Dampak Digitalisasi terhadap Inovasi Teknologi pada Usaha Mikro, Kecil, dan Menengah. Jurnal Visi Manajemen, 10(2), 74–87.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Richins, G., Stapleton, A., Stratopoulos, T. C., & Wong, C. (2017). Big data analytics: Opportunity or threat for the accounting profession? Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 63–79.
Rikhardsson, P., & Yigitbasioglu, O. (2018). Business intelligence & analytics in management accounting research: Status and future focus. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 29, 37–58.
Roetzel, P. G. (2019). Information overload in the information age: A review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework development. Business Research, 12(2), 479–522.
Swain, M. R., & Haka, S. F. (2000). Effects of information load on capital budgeting decisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12, 171–198.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2014) (pp. 1–10). ACM.
