Decision Difficulty: Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability

We propose that accountability type moderates the perceived difficulty of choosing from worse than reference or better than reference options. Study 1 demonstrates that the difference in perceived difficulty for deciding between such options is attenuated under procedural accountability but enhanced under outcome accountability. Study 2 shows that the differential effect accountability type is stronger under low attractiveness than under high attractiveness. Collectively, they show the importance of distinguishing procedural and outcome accountability in consumer decisions.

[1]  William T. Ross,et al.  The Role of Issue Valence and Issue Capability in Determining Effort Investment , 2002 .

[2]  Xiande Zhao,et al.  When Does the Service Process Matter? A Test of Two Competing Theories , 2004 .

[3]  R. Dhar.  Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

[4]  J. Frank Yates,et al.  Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality , 1996 .

[5]  Alexander Chernev.  The Effect of Common Features on Brand Choice: Moderating Role of Attribute Importance , 1997 .

[6]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[7]  Julie H. Goldberg,et al.  Sober Second Thought: The Effects of Accountability, Anger, and Authoritarianism on Attributions of Responsibility , 1998 .

[8]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accounting for the effects of accountability. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  J. Baron,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Choice Rules Favored for High-Stakes Decisions , 1995 .

[10]  Itamar Simonson,et al.  Deescalation Strategies: A Comparison of Techniques for Reducing Commitment to Losing Courses of Action , 1992 .

[11]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Will Products Look More Attractive When Presented Separately or Together? , 1998 .

[12]  Mary Frances Luce,et al.  Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to Advertising , 2004 .

[13]  A. Duhachek,et al.  Coping: A Multidimensional, Hierarchical Framework of Responses to Stressful Consumption Episodes , 2005 .

[14]  Timothy B. Heath,et al.  Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-Off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty☆ , 1996 .

[15]  G. Duncan,et al.  Do the Right Thing: Diverging Effects of Accountability in a Managerial Context , 1999 .

[16]  S. Gilliland.  The Perceived Fairness of Selection Systems: An Organizational Justice Perspective , 1993 .

[17]  P. Tetlock.  The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

[18]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Emotional Trade-Off Difficulty and Choice: , 1999 .

[19]  Raymond T. Sparrowe,et al.  Implications of organizational exchanges for accountability theory , 2004 .

[20]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[21]  I. Levin,et al.  How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product , 1988 .