It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information

Managerial decision-making often rests on information that is preprocessed and therefore considerably reduced compared to the raw data. In our study we investigate to what extent the frame in information processing (selection of information on inclusion or exclusion basis) affects the provision of managerial information, and also whether and how this inclusion–exclusion effect is influenced by procedural accountability. We aim to investigate whether there is evidence to support the suggestion that accountability mechanisms may serve as adequate control mechanisms to mitigate inclusion–exclusion discrepancies. In a $$2\times 2$$2×2 experimental setting, 191 graduate and undergraduate students were asked to prepare a proper informational foundation for subsequent decisions to be made by a firm’s management. The students were asked to actively select (financial and non-financial) figures they consider to be of particular importance or to exclude figures they do not consider relevant. Half of the subjects were held explicitly accountable for the decision process, while the other half were not. Results show that (1) inclusion and exclusion are non-complementary modes of information selection, and (2) accountability increases the quantity of information reported, the time spent deciding which information to report, and also inclusion–exclusion discrepancies, though to varying degrees depending on the type of information considered.

[1]  W. Ouchi.  The Relationship Between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control. , 1977 .

[2]  Mary D Brtek,et al.  Effects of procedure and outcome accountability on interview validity. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  L. Beach,et al.  A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies , 1978 .

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

[5]  B. M. Staw.  The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action , 1981 .

[6]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[7]  John P. Meyer,et al.  Escalating commitment to a failing course of action: Separating the roles of choice and justification , 1994 .

[8]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[9]  Ferdinand M. Vieider.  Separating real incentives and accountability , 2011 .

[10]  De Dreu Ck,et al.  The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. , 2005 .

[11]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[12]  Kurt Hugenberg,et al.  Framing discrimination: effects of inclusion versus exclusion mind-sets on stereotypic judgments. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Jane Kennedy,et al.  Are M.B.A. Students a Good Proxy for Nonprofessional Investors , 2007 .

[14]  Peggy Kamuf,et al.  Accounterability , 2007 .

[15]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[16]  Daan van Knippenberg,et al.  The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. , 2005 .

[17]  Stephen K. Bailey,et al.  The Limits of Accountability. , 1973 .

[18]  M. Ronald Buckley,et al.  The Hypothesized Relationship Between Accountability and Ethical Behavior , 2001 .

[19]  Gregory B. Northcraft,et al.  Decision bias and personnel selection strategies , 1987 .

[20]  Ferdinand M. Vieider,et al.  Reining in excessive risk-taking by executives: the effect of accountability , 2013 .

[21]  Tehila Kogut,et al.  Choosing what I want or keeping what I should: The effect of decision strategy on choice consistency , 2011 .

[22]  Yaacov Schul,et al.  Inclusive and exclusive modes of thinking: Studies of prediction, preference, and social perception during parliamentary elections , 2002 .

[23]  Gregory A. Liyanarachchi.  Feasibility of using student subjects in accounting experiments: a review , 2007 .

[24]  Michael D. Shields,et al.  Handbook of management accounting research , 2007 .

[25]  Levin,et al.  Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion-Exclusion Effects. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[27]  Yaniv,et al.  Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status quo. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

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

[29]  Graeme S. Halford,et al.  Information‐Processing Models of Cognitive Development , 2007 .

[30]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. , 1996 .

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

[32]  George Cvetkovich,et al.  Cognitive accommodation, language, and social responsibility. , 1978 .

[33]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  Educational effects in an experiment with the management game SINTO-Market , 2007, Central Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[34]  Alfred Wagenhofer,et al.  Management Accounting Theory and Practice in German-Speaking Countries , 2006 .

[35]  H. Simon,et al.  Information Processing Models of Cognition , 1979 .

[36]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences , 2002 .

[37]  Charles T. Horngren.  Introduction to Management Accounting , 1981 .

[38]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims , 1994 .

[39]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[40]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making , 1998 .

[41]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Prescreening of choice options in ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ decision‐making tasks , 2001 .

[42]  Moritz von Schwedler.  Accounterability and the Problematics of Accountability , 2013 .

[43]  Alexander Brauneis,et al.  The effect of accountability on management accountants’ selection of information , 2015 .

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

[45]  Simon M. Laham,et al.  Expanding the moral circle: Inclusion and exclusion mindsets and the circle of moral regard , 2009 .

[46]  Charles H. Schwenk.  Information, Cognitive Biases, and Commitment to a Course of Action , 1986 .

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

[48]  J. Baron,et al.  Omission and commission in judgment and choice , 1991 .

[49]  Robert S. Billings,et al.  Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision-making groups. , 1998 .

[50]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality☆ , 2007 .

[51]  C. O'Reilly.  Individuals and Information Overload in Organizations: Is More Necessarily Better? , 1980 .

[52]  Berend Wierenga,et al.  The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance , 2011 .

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

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

[55]  Erin Anderson,et al.  Perspectives on Behavior-Based versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems: , 1987 .

[56]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[57]  U. Fischbacher.  z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments , 1999 .

[58]  D. Marginson,et al.  Encouraging strategic behaviour while maintaining management control: multi-functional project teams, budgets, and the negotiation of shared accountabilities in contemporary enterprises , 2005 .

[59]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[60]  L. Beach,et al.  Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[61]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Handbook of human resource management , 1995 .

[62]  H. M. Schroder,et al.  Human Information Processing: Individuals and Groups Functioning in Complex Situations , 1970 .

[63]  Ferdinand M. Vieider.  The effect of accountability on loss aversion. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[64]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Motivated Heuristic and Systematic Processing , 1999 .

[65]  Thomas Gilovich,et al.  Commission, Omission, and Dissonance Reduction: Coping with Regret in the "Monty Hall" Problem , 1995 .

[66]  Hans-Georg Wolff,et al.  Choice, Accountability, and Effortful Processing in Escalation Situations , 2008 .

[67]  Mirjam R. M. Westenberg,et al.  Response modes, decision processes and decision outcomes , 1992 .

[68]  Paulo Melo,et al.  Some Thoughts for Discussion on a Mathematical Representation of Differences among a Decision Group , 2002 .

[69]  W. Ouchi.  A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms , 1979 .

[70]  John Roberts,et al.  No-one is perfect: the limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’ accountability , 2009 .

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

[72]  Anne Tomes,et al.  Art and accountability: the languages of design and managerial control , 1996 .

[73]  David De Cremer,et al.  Why Leaders Not Always Disapprove of Unethical Follower Behavior: It Depends on the Leader’s Self-Interest and Accountability , 2010 .

[74]  Edward J. Conlon,et al.  Information requests in the context of escalation. , 1987 .

[75]  F D Schoorman,et al.  Psychological antecedents of escalation behavior: effects of choice, responsibility, and decision consequences. , 1996, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

[77]  K. Merchant,et al.  Management Control Systems: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives , 2003 .

[78]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[79]  Patricia J. Holahan,et al.  Psychological antecedents of escalation behavior: effects of choice, responsibility, and decision consequences. , 1996, The Journal of applied psychology.

[80]  Bernd Irlenbusch,et al.  Experimental perspectives on incentives in organisations , 2006, Central Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[81]  Yaacov Schul,et al.  Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. , 1997 .

[82]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches , 1985 .

[83]  Mark A. Davis,et al.  A study of escalating commitment in principal–agent relationships: Effects of monitoring and personal responsibility. , 1998 .

[84]  Martin Messner,et al.  The Limits of Accountability , 2009 .

[85]  Lee Roy Beach,et al.  Image theory: an Alternative to Normative Decision theory , 1993 .

[86]  J. Baron,et al.  Status-quo and omission biases , 1992 .

[87]  Ramji Balakrishnan,et al.  New directions in management accounting research , 1997 .

[88]  D. R. Dalton,et al.  Escalation and the diffusion of responsibility: A commercial lending experiment , 1996 .

[89]  P. Herr,et al.  Motivated Search: Effects of Choice Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowledge on Information Acquisition and Use , 1999 .

[90]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[91]  Richard J. Klimoski,et al.  Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition , 2004 .

[92]  J. McKernan,et al.  Accountability as aporia, testimony, and gift , 2012 .

[93]  R. Ashton,et al.  Students As Surrogates In Behavioral Accounting Research - Some Evidence , 1980 .

[94]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[95]  Stefan Thau,et al.  Masters of the universe: how power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard. , 2013, The Journal of applied psychology.

[96]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Decision Framing and Support for Concessions in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict , 2006 .

[97]  Anthony P. Ammeter,et al.  A social relationship conceptualization of trust and accountability in organizations , 2004 .

[98]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Unfixing the fixed pie: a motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.