The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors

Abstract Recent research indicates that accountability can influence both what and how people think and might reduce decision makers' susceptibility to a variety of common judgment and choice errors. It is proposed that accountability can reduce decision errors if (1) decision makers are able to anticipate which response will be evaluated as more rational, and without concerns about accountability decision makers tend to select a different response, or (2) the normatively correct response can be identified by the more thorough and complex information processing associated with accountability. Consistent with the first proposition, four experiments demonstrated that accountability can reduce the sunk cost effect. The findings suggest that this debiasing effect reflects the subjects' expectation that they would be evaluated more favorably if they ignored sunk costs. Contrary to the second proposition, the prediction that accountable decision makers, due to their more thorough and multidimensional processing, would exhibit more consistent preferences across preference elicitation procedures was not supported in two studies. Finally, as hypothesized, accountability did not reduce a variety of decision errors for which the correct response was not known and was unlikely to be identified with more thorough information processing. These results are consistent with the notion that accountability effects in decision making are driven by the desire to be favorably evaluated and avoid criticism by others.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[2]  C. Daniel Batson,et al.  Accountability and Helping: When Needs Exceed Resources. , 1978 .

[3]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Availability and interference in predictive judgment. , 1984 .

[4]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability and complexity of thought. , 1983 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Causes of Preference Reversal , 1990 .

[7]  B. R. Schlenker Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations , 1980 .

[8]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. , 1976 .

[10]  R. Thaler Toward a positive theory of consumer choice , 1980 .

[11]  D. Ellsberg Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[12]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[13]  H. Arkes,et al.  The Psychology of Sunk Cost , 1985 .

[14]  Berndt Brehmer,et al.  Does having to justify one's judgments change the nature of the judgment process? , 1983 .

[15]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predicting personal events. , 1985 .

[16]  James C. Baxter,et al.  Influence of role pressures on the perceiver: Judgments of videotaped interviews varying judge accountability and responsibility. , 1981 .

[17]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Behavior in escalation situations: Antecedents, prototypes, and solutions. , 1987 .

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[19]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[20]  P. Tetlock Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. , 1983 .

[21]  R. Baumeister A SELF-PRESENTATIONAL VIEW OF SOCIAL PHENOMENA , 1982 .

[22]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

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

[25]  Richard P. Larrick,et al.  Who uses the normative rules of choice , 1993 .

[26]  P. Tetlock Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. , 1985 .

[27]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Reasons for confidence. , 1980 .

[28]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[29]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[30]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  Personal involvement and the robustness of perceptual salience effects. , 1983 .

[31]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[32]  J. I. Kim,et al.  Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[34]  R. Abrams,et al.  Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance , 1986 .

[35]  P. Tetlock Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. , 1985 .