IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v12y2017i6p627-641_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use

Author

Listed:
  • Hoffmann, Janina A.
  • Gaissmaier, Wolfgang
  • von Helversen, Bettina

Abstract

Decision quality is often evaluated based on whether decision makers can adequately explain the decision process. Accountability often improves judgment quality because decision makers weigh and integrate information more thoroughly, but it could also hurt judgment processes by disrupting retrieval of previously encountered cases. We investigated to what degree process accountability motivates decision makers to shift from retrieval of past exemplars to rule-based integration processes. This shift may hinder accurate judgments in retrieval-based configural judgment tasks (Experiment 1) but may improve accuracy in elemental judgment tasks requiring weighing and integrating information (Experiment 2). In randomly selected trials, participants had to justify their judgments. Process accountability neither changed how accurately people made a judgment, nor the judgment strategies. Justifying the judgment process only decreased confidence in trials involving a justification. Overall, these results imply that process accountability may affect judgment quality less than expected.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoffmann, Janina A. & Gaissmaier, Wolfgang & von Helversen, Bettina, 2017. "Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 627-641, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:627-641_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500006744/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:627-641_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.