i An update to this article is included at the end

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbef

Full length article

Decision making biased: How visual illusion, mood, and information

presentation plays a role
∗
Dini Rosdini , Prima Yusi Sari, Gia Kardina Prima Amrania, Pera Yulianingsih
Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims to investigate whether information presentation, visual illusion, and mood lead to
Received 6 January 2020 decision making bias in interpreting financial statements. This study is a quantitative research using
Received in revised form 28 May 2020 an experiment method. The results of this study indicate that the information presented in the table
Accepted 4 June 2020
provides a better accuracy, also that financial information presented in bar graphs is more informative
Available online 12 June 2020
and provides a higher level of accuracy compared to line charts. Graphical display without gridlines will
Keywords: cause bias in reading financial statements. This study also showed that when participants experiencing
Accounting information a natural/stable mood, they can make the decision correctly; but when they are in an unpleasant mood,
Graphical display they are not able to make the decision correctly. This paper contributes to examining the factors that
Visual illusion influence decision making biases comprehensively.
Decision making biased © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Mood

1. Introduction
Accounting information plays an important role, especially
regarding capital due to annual report and business activities
that depend on it. Meanwhile, accounting information is subjec-
tive, because human judgement and decision making affect all
creation stages of accounting information, starting from prepa-
ration to interpretation of accounting information; (Hellmann,
2016). Thus, there are aspect of human behaviour in judgement
and decision-making process that reflected in the numbers in
accounting information disclosed in financial statement.
In Indonesia, due to complex requirement in publishing fi-
nancial statement set by Financial Services Authority, there are
many information that mandated to be disclosed in annual re-
port. With many of this information disclosed in annual report,
most likely will induced readers, such as investor and company
managers to screening or just skimming through the report. Too
many information with limited time to digest the information will
create bias. With this bias, readers especially investor will make
inaccurate decision for many important choices.
One of the factors that causes bias is selective attention. Se-
lective attention is a key factor that can cause bias and error in
the process of coding individual information because (Ding et al.,
2017), decision makers as a human have limitation in processing
information. Another argument mentioned by Hirshleifer and
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dini.rosdini@unpad.ac.id (D. Rosdini),
prima.sari@fe.unpad.ac.id (P.Y. Sari), gia.kardina@unpad.ac.id (G.K.P. Amrania),
pera15001@mail.unpad.ac.id (P. Yulianingsih).
Teoh (2003), who note that this limitation in examining their
judgement and decision making should be the consideration of
researchers instead of assuming investors as decision makers are
fully rational.
This limitation in judgement and decision making also strongly
related to Bounded Rationality Theory. Bounded rationality is a
concept proposed by Herbert Simon in 1982 as implied by the
concept of homo economicus or ecomonic man. An economic man
according to the theory of the decision has complete information,
assuming that he knows not only all the courses of action, but
also his results. It is sensitive to the available alternatives. The
crucial fact about the economic man is that he is rational (Edward,
1954). This means that their preferences are complete, transitive
and that there are perfect substitutes; and on the other hand,
he makes his decisions to maximize his utility. The same author
refers to the behaviour in the decisions, mentioning that humans
are neither perfectly consistent nor perfectly sensitive.
A model of decision making under bounded rationality is
presented that combines satisfying behaviour with learning and
adaptation through environmental feedback. The aspirations, or
goals, of the decision maker dynamically adjust in response to
the observed sequence of past decisions and their corresponding
effects on the decision maker’s objective function (Wall, 1993).
A decision can be called objectively rational, if, in fact, it is
the correct behaviour to maximize the values given in a spe-
cific situation. A decision is subjectively rational if it maximizes
achievement relative to the subject’s actual knowledge (Joseph,
2012). The theory of bounded rationality sees the decision pro-
cess from a very different point of view. In the decision-making
process, even in relatively simple problems, a maximum cannot

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100347
2214-6350/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347
be obtained since it is impossible to verify all possible alternatives
(Hernandez and Ortega, 2019).
Thus, based on the explanation above, those limitation can
affect the allocation of investor cognitive resources, which results
in selective attention to certain information especially accounting
information presented in financial statement. This selective atten-
tion could be due to different reporting formats, complexity and
font size which contain the said accounting information. (Muiño
and Trombetta, 2009; Mueller et al., 2014). Some judgement and
decision-making biases such as salience effects are all related to
the coding characteristics of this information.
Salience effect refer to information coding phenomena where
some stimuli or signals are being coded more efficiently than
others. Important things describe the status or quality that is
made different from other elements in the environment (Ding
et al., 2017). The salience effect is considered as an important
cognitive mechanism that facilitates the learning process and
information by people by focusing one’s limited attention on the
most relevant available resources (Ding et al., 2017). This effect
is strong and can be widely applied in the multidisciplinary JDM
study (Fiske, 2013). Previous research has provided evidence that
shows that information expressed in different degrees can affect
the attention allocation of users of accounting information. For
example, this could involve various financial reporting formats.
Previous research has shown that companies use the im-
portance to selectively disclose information in ways that can
distort user perceptions of information about the company’s ac-
tual performance (Amer, 2005). For example, management can
use inappropriate formats or well-designed graphics that can
cover one’s judgement (Beattie and Jones, 2008). In addition,
they can choose inadequate comparisons for revenue announce-
ments to increase performance (Schrand and Walther, 2000),
adopt a distorted graph of income (Pennington and Tuttle, 2009),
and use discretionary disclosures on the company’s narratives
(Merkl-Davies and Brennan, 2011) to increase importance and
judgement.
It is very common using graphical displays for business and
accounting information to help decision makers get a better and
easier understanding. Scheaf et al. (2018) stated that as a promi-
nent visual cue, high-quality video pitches lead potential in-
vestors to form positive impressions of entrepreneurs’ ventures
in the context of crowd funding presentation pitch. Mahmood
et al. (2019) also found that visual display in the form of logo,
shows that more complex logos can impact the perceptions and
decisions of backers because logo complexity can be interpreted
as a signal of venture innovativeness. Chan and Park (2015) argue
that visual images are more accessible, memorable, and influen-
tial compared to written information. Furthermore, their quasi-
experimental field study showed a positive effect of product
images on favourable screening decisions. Cardoso et al. (2016)
found empirical evidence that compared to text, column graph
enhanced accuracy on decision making, followed by line graphs.
Based on those previous researches, it can be said that visual
display holds the key to better communicate financial informa-
tion and avoid any decision-making bias. Nevertheless, there
will always be possibility of misinterpretation in visual display
that can lead to relatively poor decisions (Arunachalam et al.,
2002). This poor decision could be due to visual illusion that
decision makers view when they read the accounting information
in graphical display. This statement supported by Amer (2005)
who found that decision makers such as investors may system-
atically misread the values presented in graphical display as a
result of the visual illusion called ‘‘Poggendorff illusion’’. (Amer,
2005). Another researcher, Changizi et al. (2008) also suggests
that visual illusion may be the case of biased decision making.
Those biased decision making may cause by visual illusion in the
form of two-dimensional illusions: projected angle misperception
and projected size misperception Changizi et al. (2008).
There are 40 manufacturing companies listed in Indonesian
Stock Exchange that submitted annual report in 2018. Out of
those 40, only 30 companies that use visual display such as
chart to present their financial performance information. And
only 6 out of those 30 companies that use gridlines. Meanwhile
the readers especially investor and managers of these company
annual report need to make decision fast and in a limited time,
they could make an inaccurate decision based due to bias caused
by mispresented information. As Fig. 1 shown, because there are
no gridlines, its created illusion that the bars look almost exactly
the same. Meanwhile, in Fig. 2, even though the number between
the period is close to each other, there are distinctive gap among
them. This distinctive gap clearly seen due to the present of
gridlines.
Decision making process can be shaped by emotion. Emotion
can alter valuation signals, risk perception, and strategic orien-
tation (Stanton et al., 2014). Dunning et al. (2017) stated that
emotions play complex roles in economic decision-making, par-
ticularly those involving risk. Mixed emotions are a noted feature
of human life. For example, Stanton et al. (2014) mentioned in
their research that happy mood induction increased gambling and
apparently move the focus attention on compared to sad mood
induction.
According to Appraisal Tendency Framework, various emo-
tional states also conjure up some cognitive styles and appraisals
(Lazarus, 1991), and these appraisals will then influence how
people make decision by integrate information and prioritize dif-
ferent outcomes (Stanton et al., 2014). The emotions experienced
can be feelings of pleasure, disappointment, anger, and anxiety. A
number of these feelings are interpreted as a source of motivation
or as a source of stressors that will affect the way or the manager
or investor’s strategy in making decisions, as well as emotional
competence to be a source of manager or investor ’s strategy in
managing emotions when making the decision making process
(Hamid, 2016).
Practically, emotion and moods are the same. Both emotions
and moods fall within the theoretical realm of ‘affect’, which can
be defined as ‘the specific quality of goodness or badness (1) It
is experienced as a feeling state (with or without consciousness)
and (2) It is demarcating a positive or negative quality of a
stimulus’ (Slovic et al., 2004). In general, affective states of both
sorts can be categorized into positive (pleasant) and negative
(unpleasant) feelings (Charles and Kasilingam, 2015).
This paper develops the research of Amer (2005) in regards
of its visual illusion and Cardoso et al. (2016) in regards of its
information presentation, to how mood play a role in reducing
decision making bias in interpreting financial statement. This
paper combines how Amer (2005) studied visual illusion in de-
cision making with what Cardoso et al. (2016) studied about
information presentation in decision making. This combination
added with mood as variable added a whole new perspective
about decision making in experimental behaviour point of view.
The results of this study indicate that the information pre-
sented in the table provides a better level of accuracy, leav-
ing aside the presence or absence of spatial problems that are
owned by readers of financial information. This study also pro-
vides empirical evidence that financial information presented in
bar graphs is more informative and provides a higher level of
accuracy compared to financial information presented in line
charts. Also, that financial information displayed in 3D graph-
ics, combination of vertical and horizontal graphics, 3D with
perspective graphics without being assisted by a gridline, may
bias users of financial statements. In addition, it turns out that
when participant experiencing natural mood, they can make de-
cision correctly; but when they are in unpleasant mood, they are
 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347
Fig. 1. Financial performance graphs of PT indofood Sukses Makmur 2018.
Source: Annual Report PT Indofood Sukses Makmur, 2018.
not able to make decision correctly about financial information
presented in financial statement.
This research makes an important contribution to any orga-
nization that presents financial information or figures in reports
for its stakeholders. In the financial sector itself, regulator such
as Financial Services Authority in Indonesia could enforce the
uniformity of visual display usage. Thus, company will disclose
their financial information in the annual report in the same man-
ner (chart with gridlines for example). Surely, the results of this
study enrich the literature in the field of behaviour and business
because it provides empirical evidence about alternative formats
and forms of financial information presentation.
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
Cognitive theory is a solid foundation for hypothesizing the
mutual strengths and weaknesses of visual and textual repre-
sentations of business processes (Ritchi et al., 2019). How each
individual perceive visual and textual representation is related to
how the knowledge is store in our memory. Sweller et al. (1998)
said that according to schemas theory, knowledge is stored in
long-term memory in the form of schemas are stored in long-
term memory. Providing mechanism for knowledge organization
and storage and reduce working memory load is one of their
main. Furthermore, Sweller et al. (1998) explain that a schema
can be anything that has been learned and is treated as a single
entity. This huge array of elements has been acquired over many
years but can be held in working memory, as a single entity
(Sweller et al., 1998).
The usage of schema to solve more sophisticated problems can
be carried out with minimal conscious effort (i.e., with minimal
working memory load) and learners who have a more automated
with more working memory capacity available (Sweller et al.,
1998). A construct representing the load that performing a partic-
ular task imposes on the cognitive system is generally considered
as cognitive load (Sweller et al., 1998). Furthermore, Sweller
et al. (1998) explained that task-based dimension (i.e., mental
3
load) and a learner-based dimension (i.e., mental effort) can be
conceptualized cognitive load which affect learner’s performance.
Load that is imposed by task (environmental) demands refers to
mental load. Meanwhile mental effort refers to cognitive capacity
which allocated in favour of task demands.
There are two types of dual-process account of decision mak-
ing (Kahneman, 2011). Type 1 processing suggest that humans
make fast, easy, and computationally light decisions by default,
meanwhile Type 2 processing slow, contemplative, and effortful
decisions. Padilla et al. (2018) proposed a model with these
types of decision-making process, Type 1 present the bottom-up
attention and Type 2 present the top-down attention in the model
proposed by Padilla et al. (2018).
The model called Model of Visualization Decision Making
which Padilla et al. (2018) modified from the Pinker (1990)
Model of Visualization Comprehension, with the primary ad-
dition is the inclusion of working memory, which is Padilla
et al. (2018) used to answer the conceptual question which
could have a subsequent impact on every stage of the decision-
making process, except bottom-up attention. The end stage of
their model includes a decision-making process that derives from
the conceptual message and informs behaviour (Padilla et al.,
2018).
Characteristic of Type 1 processing in visualization decision
making is that visualizations direct participants’ bottom-up atten-
tion to specific visual features (Padilla et al., 2018). This charac-
teristic can be either beneficial or detrimental to decision making
process. Furthermore, Connor et al. (2004) stated that Type 1 pro-
cess does not utilize working memory and consist of involuntary
shifts in focus to salient features of a visualization. This salient
feature is related to the salience effect mention in introduction
before. Padilla et al. (2018) illustrate that Type 1 has a profound
influence on decision making with visualizations. Previous studies
also showed that salient information in a visualization draws
viewers’ attention (Hegarty et al., 2016; Padilla et al., 2017) (see
Fig. 3).
Graphical display in business mostly using tables, with num-
bers listed in a column or stream format. As well as main choice
4 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347

Fig. 2. Financial performance graphs of PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper 2018.
Source: Annual Report PT Kiat Pulp & Paper, 2018.

Fig. 3. Model of visualization decision making.

Source: Padilla et al. (2018).
 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347
for most data-processing reporting and decision support applica-
tions. Surely this general graphical display setting became ques-
tionable, which of the methods offer better effectiveness (De-
Sanctis, 1984). Later, DeSanctis (1984) did a summary of major
dependent variables in graphics research and found that users
prefer graphs to tables or narratives. The spatial aspect of a graph
makes it visually appealing. Distinctive graphical design, such as
complexity, shading, realism can be added to a graph to make it
even more appealing to a viewer in this case especially, decision
makers.
Vessey (1991) stated that information processing approach
theory is used to address the graphs versus tables controversy.
Later, he found that using graphs to solve spatial problems results
in quicker outcomes than using tables-the parsimony of percep-
tual processes leads to faster decision making. It is also clear
that tables furnish accurate (precise) values, while graphs do not.
Cardoso et al. (2016) found empirical evidence that compared
to text, column graph enhanced accuracy on decision making,
followed by line graphs. They also stated there is no difference
was found between table and textual disclosure. (Cardoso et al.,
2016). This led to first issue in this research, information presen-
tation influence decision making. Thus, it builds to the following
hypothesis:
H1a1 : Numerical information disclosed on table enhances accuracy
when compared to column graph and line graph.
H1a2 : Numerical information disclosed on column graph enhances
accuracy when compared to line graph.
According to Changizi et al. (2008) that any two-dimensional
graphical display under the unifying theory of the latency-
correction hypothesis may lead to biased decision making be-
cause of the visual distortion associated with the illusion. The
spatial properties of the three-dimensional graphs are likely to
difficult to determine when it is presented in two dimensions
(Howe et al., 2005). In addition, they also stated that the cause of
three-dimensional perception is a result of a wealth of mutually
consistent information about the probable physical sources of
the objects in the image. They also note that perspective, occlu-
sion, texture gradients, and other features beyond size, distance,
and direction are the factors that can change viewers/readers
perception of geometrical relationship.
Beside those factors, the use of gridlines on three-dimensional
graphs may also change the readers perception. Therefore, graphs
that display information in 3D graphics without gridlines may
not induce the best information users need for decision making.
Lawrence and O’Connor (1993) and Amer (2005) found that the
use of gridlines on three-dimensional graphical display gives
an ‘‘anchor point’’ upon which readers of information, in this
case decision maker such as investor can cue and focus and
then visually trace the relative heights of the columns or bars.
Furthermore, this result in line with research conduct by Amer
and Ravindran (2010) who found that information presented in
two- and three-dimensional graphical display can lead to biased
decision making, but it could be mitigated by superimposing
gridlines on the graphs.
Similar results were found by Amer (2005), who indicated that
including gridlines addition to the set of generally accepted graph
preparation guidelines is an important decision. Amer (2008)
also found empirical evidence that these guidelines will improve
communication. The addition of horizontal gridlines on graphi-
cal display may provide an ‘‘anchor point’’ upon which reduced
biased decision making (Lawrence and O’Connor, 1993). The uti-
lization of gridlines in diminish bias which associated with the
Poggendorff illusion (Amer, 2005). The Poggendorff illusion is
a geometrical–optical illusion that include the misperception of
5
Fig. 4. Hallway illusion.
Source: Amer (2008).
the position of one segment of a transverse line that has been
interrupted by the contour of an intervening structure (Greist-
Bousquet and Schiffman, 1981). This misperception ultimately
leads to biased decision making which the utilization of gridlines
will mitigate.
Fundamentally, when designing any graphical display, de-
signer should avoid distortion the underlying data to avoid biased
decision making that will make decision-makers inaccurately un-
derstand information (Amer and Ravindran, 2010). They also said
that the 3D perception occurs as a result of a wealth of mutually
consistent information about the probable physical sources of
the objects in the image. In the real world, when objects recede
into the distance on a level surface (e.g., on computer screens or
paper) their visual angle gets smaller and the objects approach a
visual horizon (Seckel, 2006).
The Fig. 4. above, in the front side, the bar appears smaller
due to the gridlines create the impression of depth. According
to Amer (2008), this so-called ‘‘hallway’’ illusion, viewers or in
this case decision makers suspect that if two objects appear the
same and one looks to be further away, it must be higher/larger.
Thus, the addition of gridlines gives a strong sense of depth
(Amer, 2008) or ‘‘anchor point’’ with the figure in the back higher
in the visual plane. Therefore, we concluded that visual illusion
influence decision making. Then we proceed with the following
hypothesis:
H2: Graphics without gridlines cause bias in reading financial state-
ments.
Decision making process can be shaped by emotion. Emotion
can alter valuation signals, risk perception, and strategic orienta-
tion (Stanton et al., 2014). Furthermore, they found that happy
mood induction increased gambling and apparently move the
focus attention on compared to sad mood induction. According
to Appraisal Tendency Framework, various emotional states also
conjure up some cognitive styles and appraisals (Lazarus, 1991),
and these appraisals will then influence how people make deci-
sion by integrate information and prioritize different outcomes
(Stanton et al., 2014). Lazarus (1991) give example about these
appraisals, people tend to pursue actions to deal with losses,
because sadness can make information about losses more salient.
On the other hand, a positive mood tends to create positive
thoughts. People with positivity will evaluate things encounter
6 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347

thus promote optimistic forecasting for future events (Stanton

et al., 2014).
Based on those theories and explanation, it can be concluded
that mood could influence decision making. In this study we are
focusing on decision making in accounting information. Account-
ing information is not objective, neutral and value-free, because
human judgement and decision making affect all stages from
preparation to application and interpretation of accounting infor-
mation (Hellmann, 2016). Thus, we concluded this hypothesis:
H3:Unpleasant mood reduce accuracy in decision making.

3. Research method
This study used quantitative research method in the form of
experimental design to test causal relationship between variables.
The reason for using the experimental method is because studies
on human behaviour are more appropriate to use experimental
methods to obtain better internal validity than survey methods
(Evans et al., 2001). Wohlin (2000) stated that experiment is
a formal, rigorous and controlled investigation, have a control
over the situation and achieve precise, systematic and direct
behaviour manipulation. Also, experimental method is one of the
most rigorous forms of collecting and analysing data, and more
importantly it emphasizes internal validity.
This study used primary data. The data collection technique
used was inviting participants to be involved in a laboratory and
true experiment. The subjects who were experimental partici-
pants were students studying accounting at universities spread
across several cities in Indonesia, with the criteria of having
passed the intermediate financial accounting course. The location
of this study is 11 cities in Indonesia, namely: Jakarta, Solo,
Yogyakarta, Malang, Makassar, and Bandung. This research was
conducted within 12 months. The number of students involve
in this experiment are 485 students, but only 466 pass the ma-
nipulation check. Thus, the number of the participant are 466
students.
Randomization Process
The criteria of sample in this research are the students ma-
joring in accounting at some universities in some cities in In-
donesia who have taken and passed Intermediate Accounting.
The students who have taken the Intermediate Accounting are
considered to have known and have read company financial state-
ments and understood accounting principles based on financial
accounting standards.
The students who have these criteria are then invited to be-
come the participants in the experiment. After all of the partici-
pants entered the room, the experimenter divided them into two
groups, they are ‘‘Treatment Group’’ and ‘‘Control Group’’. For
the first sequence the experimenter divided the participants in
randomly by asking the participants to mention the number 1,
and the next person is number 2, and the next person is number
3, and then start over. The participant who identified as number
1 are grouped into group 1, then number 2 and 3 as well. After
the participant fill out the worksheet, the experimenter collect
the worksheet and began the second sequence.
For the second sequence, the experimenter divided the par-
ticipants in randomly by asking the participants to mention the
number 1, and the next person is number 2. The participants
who mention number 1 are grouped into group 1 which is as
the ‘‘Treatment Group’’ (without gridlines), and the participants
who mention number 2 are grouped into group 2 which is as the
‘‘Control Group’’ (with gridlines). The researcher believes that this
randomization process has met the criteria for random sampling.
Hypothesis Testing
To test the variance similarity of the variables in two or more
groups, Levene’s Test was used. The causal effect test was carried
Fig. 5. Information in bar charts.
Fig. 6. Information in line graphs.
out using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) statistical test. The
use of ANOVA in this study is to test the main effect of the
independent variables on the dependent variable and the interac-
tion effect between the independent variables and the dependent
variable.
Validity Threat
To control validity threat, we use following measure. (1) ran-
domization; we choose participant randomly, (2) history deter-
rence; the experiment conducted at 9 am in a familiar classroom
to provide comfortable condition, (3) maturation deterrence; to
avoid maturation, the experiment is conducted in 45 min dura-
tion, (4) mortality deterrence; the participant obligated to fol-
low the procedure since the beginning until the end, and it is
prohibited to take a bathroom break or take a phone call.
Debriefing Process
The debriefing process is conducted as follows. (1) explaining
the research topic, (2) showing and explaining the visual dis-
play, (3) explaining how to fill out the worksheet, (4) explaining
the duration of the experiment, and (5) filling out the list of
attendees. (see the appendix)
Experiment Sequences
To test H1a1 and H1a2, participants were divided into 3
groups. First group were given the total revenue information
presented in column chart (Fig. 5). Second group were given
the total revenue information presented in table (Table 1). Third
group were given the total revenue information presented in line
chart (Fig. 6). All participants were asked the same question as
follows:
a. What is the percentage growth in total revenue from 2014
to 2015?
b. What is the percentage growth in total revenue from 2015
to 2016?
c. What is the average percentage of total revenue growth
from 2014 to 2016?
To test H2 , the visual display we choose as follows: (a) 3D
graphs (b) vertical and horizontal charts (c) 3D graphs per-
spective. In this experiment, participants were divided into two
 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347 7

Table 1
Information in the form of Table.
Year Total revenue
2012 Rp 200,000,000
2013 Rp 100,000,000
2014 Rp 200,000,000
2015 Rp 150,000,000
2016 Rp 250,000,000

Fig. 7. 3D graphics without gridlines.

Fig. 9. Column versus bar graph without gridlines.

Fig. 8. 3D graphics with gridlines.

groups. Participants in the first group were given information

presented in 3D graphics without gridlines (Fig. 7), while partic-
ipants in the second group were given information presented in
3D graphics with gridlines (Fig. 8). The 3D graph presents total
Sales information in companies A, B and C. Then, all participants
are asked to answer which company has the highest total sales.
The correct answer is given a score of 1, while the wrong answer
is given a score of 0.
Amer and Ravindran (2010) found that information presented
in two- and three-dimensional graphical display can lead to bi-
ased decision making. This statement can be seen in the graph
of Fig. 7 which does indeed lack some ‘‘anchor points’’ of three- Fig. 10. Column versus bar graph with gridlines.
dimensional space, ultimately bring viewers/decision makers to
the illusion. In this experiment, participants were divided into
two groups. Participants in the first group were given information of the ‘‘T’’ illusion, with the top bar graph reflecting the top
presented in 3D graphics without gridlines, while participants element of the ‘‘T’’. The addition of gridlines to the graphics as
in the second group were given information presented in 3D seen in Fig. 10 is to overcome the ‘‘T’’ illusion. Fig. 11 show
graphics with gridlines. The 3D graph presents total Sales infor- the distorted perspective, while Fig. 12 show reeoriented the
mation in companies A, B and C. Then, all participants are asked gridlines which alleviate the illusion by showing the columns in
to answer which company has the highest total sales. The correct proper perspective.
answer is given a score of 1, while the wrong answer is given a This research used The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) to
score of 0. measure the mood of participant while making decision. SAM
The combination of vertical and horizontal graphics in this is a questionnaire with picture as multiple choice to measure
experiment are presented in Figs. 9 and 10. These combinations an emotional response (Bradley and Lang, 1994). The question-
of vertical and horizontal graphics showing the characteristics naire is designed to measure three features of an emotional
8 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347
Fig. 11. 3D Graphic with Distorted Perspective.
Source: Amer (2008)
Table 2
Mean differences significances.
N Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean Sig. (2-tailed)
Column chart 155 20.323 .63878 .05131 .000
Table 156 26.987 .54972 .04401 .000
Line chart 155 18.452 .75715 .06082 .000
response that have been identified as central to emotion in re-
search conducted by Lang and colleagues (Lang et al., 1993).
Bynion and Feldner (2017) stated that SAM could be used to
measure valence/pleasure of the response, perceived arousal, and
perceptions of dominance/control. In this study we only measure
valence/pleasure of the response with the metric from pleasant
to unpleasant. After participant took the SAM questionnaire to
measure the mood, then they answered financial information
related question.
4. Results and discussion
H1a1 : Numerical information disclosed on table enhances accuracy
when compared to column graph and line graph.
H1a2 : Numerical information disclosed on column graph enhances
accuracy when compared to line graph.
Based on the Mean Differences Significances above in Table 2,
it can be seen that the financial information presented in the
table provides a higher level of information accuracy compared
to the financial information presented in bar and line graphs. This
result is in line with research conducted by Vessey (1991) who
stated that tables furnish accurate (precise) values, while graphs
do not. Also, similar to a research conducted by Cardoso et al.
(2016) which found empirical evidence that compared to text,
column graph enhanced accuracy on decision making, followed
by line graphs. Furthermore, financial information presented in
bar graphs provides higher accuracy than financial information
presented in line charts. We found no previous study discussing
about accuracy in bar graphs versus line chart (see Fig. 12).
The results of this study provide additional empirical evidence
that in general, the information presented in the table provides a
better level of accuracy, leaving aside the presence or absence of
spatial problems that are owned by readers of financial informa-
tion. This study also proves that financial information presented
in bar graphs is more informative and provides a higher level
Fig. 12. 3D graphics perspective with gridlines.
Source: Amer (2008)
of accuracy compared to financial information presented in line
charts. The similar result found in research conducted by Cardoso
et al. (2016) which mentioned that compared to text, column
graph enhanced accuracy on decision making, followed by line
graphs. Also, the result of this study support (Chan and Park,
2015) that visual images are more accessible, memorable, and
influential compared to written information. This means that
company should presenting financial information in the form
of column graph rather than line graphs. Whether this infor-
mation presented in a presentation pitch form, or in a report,
company should avoid explaining financial information in text.
Column graphs will give the sense of ‘‘straight to the point’’ with-
out any uncertainty or unclear point of numbers in line graphs.
Moreover, while column graphs offer clearer understanding than
line graphs, company should choose table graphs to offer more
accuracy for investors in reading the information.
H2: Graphics without gridlines will cause bias in reading financial
statements.
From Table 3 it can be seen that all participants in group
2 (graphs with gridlines) answered to the questions correctly.
While participants in group 1 (graphs without gridlines) for
nearly 50% answered to the questions incorrectly. The difference
in the average response of participants in group 1 and group 2
was significantly different. Next, it can be seen that the average
participants who answered the question correctly are found more
in group 2, namely participants who were given a combination of
vertical and horizontal charts with the help of gridlines. Finally,
the average participant who answered the question correctly are
found more in group 2 (with gridlines), meaning that participants
who received treated information presented in 3D graphical per-
spective with gridlines are able to better understand and analyse
the information presented compared to participants who received
treated information presented in the form of 3D Graphic with
Distorted Perspective.
This result is in line with the research conducted by Amer
(2005) and Amer and Ravindran (2010). Amer and Ravindran
(2010) stated that the addition of appropriate gridlines adds a
proper sense of visual perspective. This sense of visual perspec-
tive act as an anchor point that ultimately lead to proportionality
of the columns. The utilization of the gridlines finally can make
decision-makers more accurate in understanding the number
presented in the graphical display by visually trace the relative
heights of the columns.
This result provides empirical evidence that gridlines are im-
portant and help financial report readers in understanding and
 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347
Table 3
Descriptive statistics of 3D graphs.
No.
3D Graphs without gridline
1.
3D graphs with gridline
Vertical and horizontal without gridline
2.
Vertical and horizontal with gridline
3D Graphic with Distorted Perspective
3.
3D graphs perspective with gridline
*) Significant at α = 1%.
Table 4
Mood and correct answers.
Mood Number of participant who answer correctly
Pleasant 119
Pleased 160
Neutral 319
Unsatisfied 35
Unpleasant 8 mat 1 for treatment group and 0 for non-treatment group. X
analysing financial information displayed in the form of a com-
bination of vertical and horizontal graphs. This is in accordance
with the study conducted by Amer (2008) which showed that
100% of the participants chose the right graph, meaning that the
use of gridlines could eliminate bias. This finding is also similar
to the one of the researches conducted by Amer and Ravindran
(2010) who stated that the addition of gridline subordinates the
principal axis lines to remove visual illusion and also gives an
anchor point. This anchor points ultimately leads the decision-
makers to visually trace the relative length each bar without
disrupted by any visual illusion.
This finding can serve as incentive for companies, organiza-
tions or agencies that issue financial reports to add gridlines in
3D Perspective charts displayed, so as to avoid bias and errors
in decision making. This is in accordance with the finding of the
study conducted by Amer (2008) which stated that the visual illu-
sion in graph with the distorted gridlines biases decision making.
Therefore, the use of gridlines in 3D Perspective charts can avoid
visual illusions that cause bias and errors in decision making.
H3: Unpleasant mood reduce accuracy in decision making.
The mood of the reader of financial statements apparently
affects them in understanding and analysing financial statements.
A neutral mood (number 3) that is neither too happy nor too
sad can actually understand and analyse financial statements
correctly. The results of this study in Table 4 also showed that un-
pleasant mood reduce accuracy in decision making. This means,
the more depressed mood of a reader of financial statements, the
more difficult they are to understand and analyse the financial
information presented. This result is different from research con-
ducted by Stanton et al. (2014). He mentioned that a positive
mood will cause people to evaluate other things they encounter
or thoughts they have more positively. Thus, can lead to correct
decision making. Meanwhile this study emphasized that people
with neutral mood produce better decision.
It can be concluded that people with stable mood will make a
better judgement in interpreting, understanding or analyse the fi-
nancial information presented in financial statement. People with
stable mood do not have emotional effect that can cloud their
judgement, regardless the emotional is pleasant or unpleasant.
Randomization Testing
To increase the robustness of this study, especially in ran-
domization aspect, we conducted randomization testing between
control and group of experiment. We employed randomization
9
N Mean Min Max Mean difference sig.
236 0.5339 0.00 1.00 0.000*
230 1.000 1.00 1.00
236 .4025 .00 01.00 0.000*
230 .9696 .00 01.00
236 .0297 .00 01.00 0.000*
230 .5304 .00 01.00
inference according to Duflo et al. (2008). We assumed the control
and experiment group based upon regression function as follow,
Y =τ ·D+β ·X +ϵ (1)
where Y is a observed outcome of experiment group, and D is
a status of for each observation that recognize in binary for-
is observation in control group. We set that null hypothesis in
Treatment Effect in experiment group for each observation tested
with randomization inference, and β is the treatment effect.
In experiment group we applied treatment effect according
to question h1 _g1 , h1 _g2 , h1 _g3 , h2a _q1 and h2a _q2 where the
respondent id also we test such as age, sex, semester taken,
GPA to performed that our sample has homogeneity sample in
order to reduce publication bias. We tested the treatment effect
with heteroskedasticity robust standard error, this assumption
is crucial to get robust results and relaxing heteroscedasticity
bias. The β parameters were tested with p-values from two side
randomization inference test of zero treatment effect.
For each indicators we performed regression method accord-
ing to Eq. (1) and hence we have about 12 running regression that
permute about 1000 Monte Carlo replication for each running
regression. We assigned multiple 1000 time to get correct size
of our sample in regression estimation. This replication number
is accepted noted by Fujiwara and Wantchekon (2013). When
the results from this replication has achieved and hypothesis is
correctly proved it is enough to show that the results robust
according to randomization test.
We depicted the results in Table 5. Before we interpret the re-
sults, first we verify the effectiveness of randomization that gen-
erating covariance from randomization by valuating interaction
between treatment and control group in column 2. The sample
characteristic variables such as age, male, female, semester, and
GPA have similar characteristic between control and treatment
group. It indicates by p-value of randomization of inference in
at column 4 in Table 4 have not significant statistics at any
level. We can confirmed that homogeneity of our sample is good.
When sample has similar characteristic, they will reduce bias of
heterogeneity and will produce sensitive results from the baseline
(control group).
The whole sample for both group and control have different
age that indicates they have similar knowledge and environment
building along with their age. Semester and GPA also indicates
that both sample control and treatment group have similar formal
academic knowledge as well as academic achievement.
Next, we analyse our important variable that indicates by the
following variables that is h1 _g1 or hypothesis 1 by using bar
chart, h1 _g2 or hypothesis 1 by using form table, h1 _g3 or hypoth-
esis 1 by using line graphs, and our hypothesis testing variables
such as h2a _q1 or hypothesis 2 by using 3D graphics with or
without gridlines, h2a _q2 or hypothesis 2 by using column versus
bar graph bar with or without gridlines, h2a _q3r or hypothesis 2
by using 3D graphics perspective.
According to our hypothesis that variable h2a _q1 the hypoth-
esis stated that the 3D graphics without gridlines will cause bias
10 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347
Table 5
Sample characteristic in control and treatment groups.
Description control mean (1) Treat.control (2)
Age 19.81197 −0.0111
Male 1 0.0000
Female 1 0.0000
Semester 4.662447 −0.0172
Gpa 3.462424 0.0060
h1 _g1 0.3417722 −0.0265
h1 _g2 0.3248945 −0.0559
h1 _g3 0.3291139 0.0783876*
h2a _q1 0.5316456 −0.4701925***
h2a _q2 0.4008439 −0.5690109***
h2a _q3r 1.037975 −0.4945683***
h3 _mood 2.383966 −0.0759
***Significant at the 1 percent level.
**Significant at the 5 percent level.
*Significant at the 10 percent level.
in reading financial statements according to our results in Table 1
at column (2) it demonstrates that there is a difference about
−47% that treatment group will decreased the h2a _q1 than control
group with more than 1 percent significant level. In variable
h2a _q2 we hypothesized that the columns bar versus bar graphs
without gridlines will cause bias in reading financial statements
according to our results it is confirmed that treatment group will
decrease about −56% than control group. In last variable that
is h2a _q3r we argue that the 3D graphics perspective without
gridlines will cause bias in reading financial statements accord-
ing to our results it says that treatment group has decreasing
value about −49% than control group. It is confirmed that the
participants in group 2 (with gridlines) answered to the ques-
tions correctly and the participants in group 1 (without gridlines)
answered questions incorrectly.
5. Conclusion
This study aims to investigate whether information presen-
tation, visual illusion and mood lead to decision making bias in
interpreting financial statement. The results of this study indicate
that the information presented in the table provides a better
level of accuracy, leaving aside the presence or absence of spatial
problems that are owned by readers of financial information. This
study also provides empirical evidence that financial information
presented in bar graphs is more informative and provides a higher
level of accuracy compared to financial information presented
in line charts. Also, that financial information displayed in 3D
graphics, combination of vertical and horizontal graphics, 3D with
perspective graphics without being assisted by appropriate grid-
line, may bias users of financial statements. Based on this finding,
it can be concluded that visual bias could increase inaccuracy in
decision making.
Furthermore, Dunning et al. (2017) stated that emotions play
complex roles in economic decision-making. This also proved by
our finding that it turns out that when participant experiencing
neutral mood, they can make decision correctly; but when they
are in unpleasant mood, they are not able to make decision
correctly about financial information presented in financial state-
ment. Schulreich et al. (2013) Hogarth et al. (2011) finds that
positive moods increase overconfidence. Noval and Stahl (2015)
found that individuals in a positive mood will be more likely
to engage in prosocial behaviour but less likely to refrain from
activities that have harmful consequences for others, whereas
individuals in a negative mood will be more likely to avoid
activities that put others at risk or harm but at the same time less
prone to engaging in activities that have positive consequences
for others. Thus, neutral mood may increase accuracy in decision
making. This means, that people with stable mood tend to think
Standard error (3) Randomization inference p-value (4)
0.0100 0.8870
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000 1.0000
0.0086 0.9190
0.0122 0.8190
0.0157 0.5540
0.0129 0.2090
0.0075 0.0600
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000
0.0153 0.3790
more clearly, than who are do not. When people with pleasant
mood or unpleasant mood tend to be more emotional thus effect
their judgement in decision making.
The implication of our findings is that internally, though the
financial statements standard mostly has been set internationally,
but the visual display presentation could be different. Thus, com-
panies who publish financial statement are suggested to display
financial information in graphical form with gridlines to make it
easier for readers to understand and analyse accurately the in-
formation displayed without any form of bias, to display financial
information in the form of tables and/or bar graph rather than line
graph because tables are proven to be more helpful for financial
report readers in analysing financial information displayed in a
complete and precise manner. Externally, investors or manager
who about to read financial statement and make a decision based
on it, should be in a neutral mood to avoid any emotional effect
that will cloud our judgement. Also, they need to be more careful
and acknowledge that without the present of gridlines in visual
display, it could lead to visual illusion that result in inaccurate
decision making.
However, our study contains one limitation in the fact that
there is finite type of visual display that commonly used in
the presentation of financial information. For this reason, we
recommend future researchers to extend further this study by
conducting more thorough research on another type of visual
display that may create another visual illusion which may lead
to any misinterpretation.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dini Rosdini: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analy-
sis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision,
Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review
& editing. Prima Yusi Sari: Data curation, Formal analysis, Inves-
tigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Gia Kardina Prima Amrania: Data curation. Pera Yulianingsih:
Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writ-
ing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found
online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100347.
References
Amer, T.S., 2005. Bias due to visual illusion in the graphical presentation of
accounting information. J. Inf. Syst. 19 (Spring), 1–18.
Amer, T.S., 2008. The effect of visual illusions on the graphical display of
information: Evidence of bias and mitigation. Working Paper Series–08-05.
 D. Rosdini, P.Y. Sari, G.K.P. Amrania et al. / Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 27 (2020) 100347
Amer, T.S., Ravindran, S., 2010. The effect of visual illusions on the graphical
display of information. J. Inf. Syst. 24 (1), 23–42.
Arunachalam, V., Pei, B., Steinbart, P., 2002. Impression management with
graphs: Effects on choices. J. Inf. Syst. 16 (2), 183–202.
Beattie, V., Jones, M., 2008. Corporate reporting using graphs: A review and
synthesis. J. Account. Lit. 27, 71–110.
Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J., 1994. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin
and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Therapy Exper. Psych. 25 (1), 49–59.
Bynion, T.M., Feldner, M.T., 2017. Self-assessment manikin. In: Encyclopedia of
personality and individual differences. pp. 1–3.
Cardoso, R.L., Leite, R.O., de Aquino, A.C.B., 2016. A graph is worth a thousand
words: How overconfidence and graphical disclosure of numerical informa-
tion influence financial analysts accuracy on decision making. PLoS One 11
(8), e0160443.
Chan, C.R., Park, H.D., 2015. How images and color in business plans influence
venture investment screening decisions. J. Bus. Ventur. 30 (5), 732–748.
Changizi, Hsieh, A., Nijhawan, R., Kanai, R., Shimojo, S., 2008. Perceiving the
present and a systematization of illusions. Cogn. Sci. 32 (3), 459–503.
Charles, A., Kasilingam, R., 2015. Do investor’s emotions determine their
investment decisions? Drishtikon: Manage. J. 6 (2).
Connor, C.E., Egeth, H.E., Yantis, S., 2004. Visual attention: Bottom-up versus
top-down. Curr. Biol. 14 (19), R850–R852.
DeSanctis, G., 1984. Computer graphics as decision aids: Directions for research.
Decis. Sci. 15 (4), 463–487.
Ding, Y., Hellmann, A., De Mello, L., 2017. Factors driving memory fallibility:
A conceptual framework for accounting and finance studies. J. Behav. Exp.
Financ. 14, 14–22.
Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., Kremer, M., 2008. Using randomization in develop-
ment research: A toolkit. In: Schultz, T.P, Struss, J.A. (Eds.), Handbook of
Development Economics, Vol. 4. pp. 3895–3962, Col.
Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D., Schlösser, T., 2017. The varying roles played by
emotion in economic decision making. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 15, 33–38.
Edward, Ward, 1954. The theory of decision making. Psychol. Bull. 15 (4),
380–417.
Evans, III, J.H., Hannan, R.L., Krishnan, R., Moser, D.V., 2001. Honesty in
managerial reporting. Account. Rev. 76 (4), 537–559.
Fiske, S., 2013. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. Sage Publications,
California.
Fujiwara, Thomas, Wantchekon, Leonard, 2013. Can informed public deliberation
overcome clientelism? Experimental evidence from benin. Am. Econ. J.: Appl.
Econ. 5, 241–255.
Greist-Bousquet, S., Schiffman, H.R., 1981. The poggendorff illusion: An illusion
of linear extent? Perception 10 (2), 155–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/
p100155.
Hamid, Andi. N., 2016. Makna kompetensi emosi bagi manajer dalam
pengambilan keputusan. J. Publ. Pendidik. (ISSN: 2088-2092) VI (2).
Hegarty, M., Friedman, A., Boone, A.P., Barrett, T.J., 2016. Where are you? The
effect of uncertainty and its visual representation on location judgments in
GPS-like displays. J. Exp. Psychol. 22 (4), 381.
Hellmann, A., 2016. The role of accounting in behavioral finance. J. Behav. Exp.
Financ. 9, 39–42.
Hernandez, J.G., Ortega, R.P., 2019. Bounded rationality in decision-making. Int.
J. Financ. Manag. Econ. 2 (1), 65–72.
Hirshleifer, D., Teoh, S., 2003. Limited attention, information disclosure, and
financial reporting. J. Account. Econ. 36 (1–3), 337–386.
Hogarth, R.M., Portell, M., Cuxart, A., Kolev, G.I., 2011. Emotion and reason in
everyday risk perception. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 24 (2), 202–222.
Howe, C.Q., Yang, Z., Purves, D., 2005. The poggendorff illusion explained by
natural scene geometry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (21), 7707–7712.
Joseph, Mahoney T., 2012. Economic Fundation Strategy. Urbana-Champaign:
University of Illnois.
11
Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow, Vol. 1. Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
New York.
Lang, P.J., Greenwald, M.K., Bradley, M.M., Hamm, A.O., 1993. Looking at pictures:
evaluative, facial, visceral, and behavioral responses. Psychophysiology.
Lawrence, M., O’Connor, M., 1993. Scale, variability, and the calibration of
judgmental prediction intervals. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 56 (3),
441–458.
Lazarus, Richard S., 1991. Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory
of emotion. Am. Psychol. 46 (8), 819–834.
Mahmood, A., Luffarelli, J., Mukesh, M., 2019. What’s in a logo? The impact of
complex visual cues in equity crowdfunding. J. Bus. Ventur. 34 (1), 41–62.
Merkl-Davies, D., Brennan, N., 2011. A conceptual framework of impression man-
agement: New insights from psychology, sociology and critical perspectives.
Account. Bus. Res. 41 (5), 415–437.
Mueller, M.L., Dunlosky, J., Tauber, S.K., Rhodes, M.G., 2014. The font-size effect
on about memory? J. Mem. Lang. 70, 1–12.
Muiño, F., Trombetta, M., 2009. Does graph disclosure bias reduce the cost of
equity capital? Account. Bus. Res. 39 (2), 83–102.
Noval, L.J., Stahl, G.K., 2015. Accounting for proscriptive and prescriptive morality
in the workplace: The double-edged sword effect of mood on managerial
ethical decision making. J. Bus. Ethics 142 (3), 589–602.
Padilla, L.M., Creem-Regehr, S.H., Hegarty, M., Stefanucci, J.K., 2018. Decision
making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines. Cogn.
Res.: Princ. Implic. 3 (1), 29.
Padilla, L., Ruginski, I.T., Creem-Regehr, S.H., 2017. Effects of ensemble and
summary displays on interpretations of geospatial uncertainty data. Cogn.
Res.: Princ. Implic. 2 (1), 40.
Pennington, R., Tuttle, B., 2009. Managing impressions using distorted graphs of
income and earnings per share: The role of memory. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst.
10 (1), 25–45.
Pinker, S., 1990. A theory of graph comprehension. In: Artificial Intelligence and
the Future of Testing. pp. 73–126.
Ritchi, H., Jans, M.J., Mendling, J., Reijers, H., 2019. The influence of business
process representation on performance of different task types. J. Inf. Syst.
Scheaf, D.J., Davis, B.C., Webb, J.W., Coombs, J.E., Borns, J., Holloway, G., 2018. Sig-
nals’ flexibility and interaction with visual cues: Insights from crowdfunding.
J. Bus. Ventur. 33 (6), 720–741.
Schrand, C., Walther, B., 2000. Strategic benchmarks in earnings announcements:
The selective disclosure of prior-period earnings components. Account. Rev.
75 (2), 151–177.
Schulreich, S., Heussen, Y.G., Gerhardt, H., Mohr, P.N., Binkofski, F.C.,
Koelsch, S., Heekeren, H.R., 2013. Music-evoked incidental happiness mod-
ulates probability weighting during risky lottery choices. Front. Psychol.
4.
Seckel, A., 2006. Optical Illusions: The Science of Visual Perception. Firefly Books,
Buffalo, NY.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., Mac Gregor, D.G., 2004. Risk as analysis and
risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.
Risk Anal. 24, 311–322.
Stanton, S.J., Reeck, C., Huettel, S.A., LaBar, K.S., 2014. Effects of induced moods
on economic choices. Judg. Decis. Mak. 9 (2), 167.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J., Paas, F.G., 1998. Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10 (3), 251–296.
Vessey, I., 1991. Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables
literature. Decis. Sci. 22 (2), 219–240.
Wall, Kent D., 1993. A model of decision making under bounded rationality. J.
Econ. Behav. Organ. 21, 331–352.
Wohlin, C., 2000. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction.
Kluwer Academic.
 Update
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance
Volume 29, Issue , March 2021, Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100438
 Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 29 (2021) 100438

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbef

Erratum

Erratum regarding missing Declaration of Competing Interest

statements in previously published articles

article info

Article history:
Available online 3 December 2020

Declaration of Competing Interest statements were not in-
cluded in the published version of the following articles that
appeared in previous issues of ‘‘Journal of Behavioral and Exper-
imental Finance’’.
The appropriate Declaration/Competing Interest statements,
provided by the Authors, are included below.
(1) ‘‘Banks’ loan growth, loan quality, and social capital’’ [Jour-
nal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 2018; 21C: 83–102]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.11.004.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(2) ‘‘Web-based experimental economics software: How do they
compare to desirable features?’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Exper-
imental Finance, 2019; 23C: 138–160] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbef.2019.04.007.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(3) ‘‘Measuring costly effort using the slider task’’ [Journal of
Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 2018; 21C: 1–9] https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.11.003.
DOIs of original articles: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.11.004,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.03.004,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.01.009,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.008,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.02.007,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.007,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100268,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.03.002,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.03.002,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100339,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.11.003,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.02.001,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.01.005,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.01.005,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100347.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(4) ‘‘How gender and emotions bias the credit decision-making in
banking firms’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance,
2019; 22C: 183–191] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.03.004.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(5) ‘‘classEx — an online tool for lab-in-the-field experiments with
smartphones’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance,
2019; 22C: 223–231] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.04.008.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(6) ‘‘Does financial literacy affect the value of financial advice?
A contingent valuation approach’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Ex-
perimental Finance, 2020; 25C: 100268] https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbef.2020.100268.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(7) ‘‘TreeRing: A GameSafe parser for z-Tree’’ [Journal of Behav-
ioral and Experimental Finance, 2019; 22C: 90–92] https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.02.001.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(8) ‘‘Twitter’s daily happiness sentiment and international stock
returns: Evidence from linear and nonlinear causality tests’’ [Jour-
nal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 2018; 18C: 50–53]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.01.005.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100438
2214-6350/© 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(9) ‘‘Decision making biased: How visual illusion, mood, and
information presentation plays a role’’ [Journal of Behavioral
and Experimental Finance, 2020; 27C: 100347] https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbef.2020.100347.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(10) ‘‘Pure momentum is priced’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Ex-
perimental Finance, 2019; 22C: 75–89] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbef.2019.01.005.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(11) ‘‘Hedging with regret’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Experimen-
tal Finance, 2019; 22C: 192–205] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.
2019.03.002.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(12) ‘‘The effect of early and salient investment experiences on
subsequent asset allocations—An experimental study’’ [Journal of
Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 2018; 19C: 1–19] https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2018.03.002.
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 29 (2021) 100438
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(13) ‘‘Subjective self-control but not objective measures of exec-
utive functions predicts financial behavior and well-being’’ [Jour-
nal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 2020; 27C: 100339]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100339.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(14) ‘‘Affect and stock returns’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Experi-
mental Finance, 2018; 18C: 76–84] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.
2018.01.009.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.
(15) ‘‘Herding behavior in cryptocurrencies revisited: Novel evi-
dence from a TVP model’’ [Journal of Behavioral and Experimental
Finance, 2019; 22C: 57–63] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2019.
02.007.
Declaration of competing interest: The authors declare that they
have no known competing financial interests or personal relation-
ships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in
this paper.