IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v23y2015i2p313-344.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra Rausch
  • Alexander Brauneis

Abstract

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. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:23:y:2015:i:2:p:313-344
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-014-0355-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10100-014-0355-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-014-0355-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yaniv, Ilan & Schul, Yaacov, 2000. "Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status quo," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 293-313, July.
    2. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard," Post-Print hal-00814565, HAL.
    3. Ashton, Rh & Kramer, Ss, 1980. "Students As Surrogates In Behavioral Accounting Research - Some Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15.
    4. William G. Ouchi, 1979. "A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(9), pages 833-848, September.
    5. Ruchala, Linda V. & Hill, John W. & Dalton, Dan, 1996. "Escalation and the diffusion of responsibility: A commercial lending experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 15-26, September.
    6. Bernd Irlenbusch, 2006. "Experimental perspectives on incentives in organisations," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 14(1), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    8. Roberts, John, 2009. "No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and an ethic for 'intelligent' accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 957-970, November.
    9. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1985. "Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 134-149, February.
    10. Kogut, Tehila, 2011. "Choosing what I want or keeping what I should: The effect of decision strategy on choice consistency," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 129-139, September.
    11. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    12. Martin Messner, 2009. "The Limits of Accountability," Post-Print hal-00486747, HAL.
    13. Ferdinand Vieider, 2011. "Separating real incentives and accountability," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 507-518, November.
    14. Heller, Daniel & Levin, Irwin P. & Goransson, Martin, 2002. "Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1194-1213, November.
    15. Huber, Vandra L. & Neale, Margaret A. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 1987. "Decision bias and personnel selection strategies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 136-147, August.
    16. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Siegel-Jacobs, Karen & Yates, J. Frank, 1996. "Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgment Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 1-17, January.
    18. Levin, Irwin P. & Huneke, Mary E. & Jasper, J. D., 2000. "Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion-Exclusion Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 171-193, July.
    19. Langhe, Bart de & van Osselaer, Stijn M.J. & Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 238-252, July.
    20. Mathieu Lefebvre & Ferdinand Vieider, 2013. "Reining in excessive risk-taking by executives: the effect of accountability," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 497-517, October.
    21. Marko Pitesa & Stefan Thau, 2013. "Masters of the universe: How power and accountability influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00814565, HAL.
    22. Joannides, Vassili, 2012. "Accounterability and the problematics of accountability," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 244-257.
    23. Niek Hoogervorst & David Cremer & Marius Dijke, 2010. "Why Leaders Not Always Disapprove of Unethical Follower Behavior: It Depends on the Leader’s Self-Interest and Accountability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 29-41, September.
    24. Ferdinand Vieider, 2009. "The effect of accountability on loss aversion," Post-Print halshs-00451605, HAL.
    25. Lee, Hanjoon & Herr, Paul M. & Kardes, Frank R. & Kim, Chankon, 1999. "Motivated Search: Effects of Choice Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowledge on Information Acquisition and Use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-88, May.
    26. Otwin Becker & Tanja Feit & Vera Hofer & Ulrike Leopold-Wildburger & Reinhard Selten, 2007. "Educational effects in an experiment with the management game SINTO-Market," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 15(4), pages 301-308, November.
    27. Vassili Joannides, 2012. "Accounterability and the problematics of accountability," Post-Print hal-00676561, HAL.
    28. McKernan, John Francis, 2012. "Accountability as aporia, testimony, and gift," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 258-278.
    29. Vassili Joannides, 2012. "Accounterability and the problematics of accountability," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00676561, HAL.
    30. Messner, Martin, 2009. "The limits of accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 918-938, November.
    31. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    32. Ritov, Ilana & Baron, Jonathan, 1992. "Status-Quo and Omission Biases," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 49-61, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lai, Alessandro & Leoni, Giulia & Stacchezzini, Riccardo, 2014. "The socializing effects of accounting in flood recovery," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 579-603.
    2. Frey-Heger, Corinna & Barrett, Michael, 2021. "Possibilities and limits of social accountability: The consequences of visibility as recognition and exposure in refugee crises," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Gottlieb, Uliana & Johed, Gustav & Hansson, Helena, 2022. "Accounting and accountability for farm animals: Conceptual limits and the possibilities of caring," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Mutiganda, Jean Claude, 2013. "Budgetary governance and accountability in public sector organisations: An institutional and critical realism approach," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 518-531.
    5. O’Leary, Susan, 2017. "Grassroots accountability promises in rights-based approaches to development: The role of transformative monitoring and evaluation in NGOs," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 21-41.
    6. Yasmin, Sofia & Ghafran, Chaudhry, 2019. "The problematics of accountability: Internal responses to external pressures in exposed organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Tweedie, Dale & Luzia, Karina, 2023. "In place, with power: (Re)conceptualising accountability in national non-government organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Ballantine, Joan & Kelly, Martin & Larres, Patricia, 2020. "Banking for the common good: A Lonerganian perspective," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 67.
    9. Ezaaz Hasan & Anjani Mala & Glen Finau, 2015. "The Nature And Concept Of Accountability: A Case Study Of Three Entities In Fiji," Global Journal of Business Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 9(2), pages 65-74.
    10. Junne, Jaromir, 2018. "Enabling accountability: An analysis of personal budgets for disabled people," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 46-62.
    11. Rana, Tarek & Hoque, Zahirul, 2020. "Institutionalising multiple accountability logics in public services: Insights from Australia," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    12. Girei, Emanuela, 2023. "Managerialisation, accountability and everyday resistance in the NGO sector: Whose interests matter?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    13. Casenave, Eric & Klarmann, Martin, 2020. "The accountability paradox: How holding marketers accountable hinders alignment with short-term marketing goals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 95-108.
    14. Lennon, Niels Joseph, 2019. "Responsibility accounting, managerial action and ‘a counter-ability’: Relating the physical and virtual spaces of decision-making," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).
    15. Yu, Ai, 2021. "Accountability as mourning: Accounting for death in the time of COVID-19," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    16. William T Self & Gregory Mitchell & Barbara A Mellers & Philip E Tetlock & J Angus D Hildreth, 2015. "Balancing Fairness and Efficiency: The Impact of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Accountability on Applicant Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Bixter, Michael T. & Luhmann, Christian C., 2014. "Shared losses reduce sensitivity to risk: A laboratory study of moral hazard," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 63-73.
    18. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    19. Killian, Sheila, 2015. "“For lack of accountability”: The logic of the price in Ireland’s Magdalen Laundries," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 17-32.
    20. Goddard, Andrew, 2021. "Accountability and accounting in the NGO field comprising the UK and Africa – A Bordieusian analysis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).

    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:spr:cejnor:v:23:y:2015:i:2:p:313-344. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.