Predecisional Distortion of Information by Auditors and Salespersons

As people are deciding between two alternatives, they may distort new information to support whichever alternative is tentatively preferred. The presence of such predecisional distortion of information was tested in decisions made by two groups of professionals, auditors and salespersons. Both groups exhibited substantial distortion of information, with little reduction for professional decisions compared to nonprofessional ones. However, auditors' distortion was significantly smaller than that of salespersons. In addition, holding professionals accountable for their decisions, akin to a supervisory review, lowered distortion somewhat for salespersons but not at all for auditors. The latter seemed to act as if they were always being held accountable. Because people seem unaware that they are distorting information, at least at the moment this bias is occurring, they are fully convinced of the soundness of their choices. This may make it difficult for distortion to be detected by decision makers themselves or even by supervisors who cannot completely duplicate their subordinate's knowledge.

[1]  J. Edward Russo,et al.  Toward intelligent product information systems for consumers , 1987 .

[2]  Thomas Kida,et al.  Heuristics and biases: Expertise and task realism in auditing. , 1991 .

[3]  O. Svenson.  Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes , 1992 .

[4]  Henry Montgomery,et al.  Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Towards a Process Model of Decision Making* , 1983 .

[5]  Elisha Y. Babad,et al.  Wishful thinking and objectivity among sports fans. , 1987 .

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

[7]  Alvin A. Arens,et al.  Auditing: An Integrated Approach , 1976 .

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

[9]  Margaret G. Meloy,et al.  The Distortion of Information during Decisions , 1996 .

[10]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Steven M. Glover.  The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information , 1997 .

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

[13]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Margaret G. Meloy,et al.  Predecisional Distortion of Product Information , 1998 .

[15]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Confidence depends on level of aggregation , 1991 .

[16]  Leslie F. Clark,et al.  RATING SCALES NUMERIC VALUES MAY CHANGE THE MEANING OF SCALE LABELS , 1991 .

[17]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  The effects of attractiveness, dominance, and attribute differences on information acquisition in multiattribute binary choice , 1991 .

[18]  M. W. Nelson,et al.  The ability of professional standards to mitigate aggressive reporting , 1995 .

[19]  T. Gilovich,et al.  How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life , 1991 .

[20]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[21]  Roy M. Poses,et al.  Availability, Wishful Thinking, and Physicians' Diagnostic Judgments for Patients with Suspected Bacteremia , 1991, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  G. Keinan,et al.  Decision making under stress: Scanning of alternatives under physical threat , 1987 .

[23]  John W. Payne,et al.  Effort and Accuracy in Choice , 1985 .

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

[25]  Franz Schmalhofer,et al.  STOCHASTIC CHOICE HEURISTICS , 1984 .

[26]  Patricia M. Doney,et al.  Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers , 1996 .

[27]  A. Elliot,et al.  On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. , 1994 .

[28]  B. Dosher,et al.  Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  R. Petty,et al.  The need to evaluate. , 1996 .

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

[31]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[32]  H. Cantril,et al.  They saw a game: a case study. , 2011, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[33]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  Robert A. Olsen.  Desirability bias among professional investment managers: some evidence from experts , 1997 .

[35]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[36]  Dieter Frey,et al.  Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[37]  Itamar Simonson,et al.  The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors , 1992 .

[38]  Vicky B. Hoffman,et al.  Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments , 1997 .

[39]  J. Koehler.  The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality , 1993 .

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