IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v115y2011i2p238-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance

Author

Listed:
  • Langhe, Bart de
  • van Osselaer, Stijn M.J.
  • Wierenga, Berend

Abstract

This article challenges the view that it is always better to hold decision makers accountable for their decision process rather than their decision outcomes. In three multiple-cue judgment studies, the authors show that process accountability, relative to outcome accountability, consistently improves judgment quality in relatively simple elemental tasks. However, this performance advantage of process accountability does not generalize to more complex configural tasks. This is because process accountability improves an analytical process based on cue abstraction, while it does not change a holistic process based on exemplar memory. Cue abstraction is only effective in elemental tasks (in which outcomes are a linear additive combination of cues) but not in configural tasks (in which outcomes depend on interactions between the cues). In addition, Studies 2 and 3 show that the extent to which process and outcome accountability affect judgment quality depends on individual differences in analytical intelligence and rational thinking style.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:115:y:2011:i:2:p:238-252
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597811000264
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Simonson, Itamar & Nye, Peter, 1992. "The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 416-446, April.
    2. Bartels, Daniel M., 2006. "Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 76-95, May.
    3. Arkes, Hal R. & Dawes, Robyn M. & Christensen, Caryn, 1986. "Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 93-110, February.
    4. Thomas P. Novak & Donna L. Hoffman, 2009. "The Fit of Thinking Style and Situation: New Measures of Situation-Specific Experiential and Rational Cognition," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 56-72, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Ashton, Robert H., 1992. "Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 292-306, July.
    7. Slaughter, Jerel E. & Bagger, Jessica & Li, Andrew, 2006. "Context effects on group-based employee selection decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 47-59, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Losecaat Vermeer, Annabel B. & Boksem, Maarten A.S. & Sanfey, Alan G., 2020. "Third-party decision-making under risk as a function of prior gains and losses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    5. van Rinsum, M., 2019. "Utilizing Incentives and Accountability: In Control in Control?," ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management EIA 2019-078-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam..
    6. Brian P. Gill & Jennifer S. Lerner & Paul Meosky, "undated". "Re-Imagining Accountability in K-12 Education: A Behavioral Science Perspective," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d0c19d0709b641259fe391b2e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Janina A. Hoffmann & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Bettina von Helversen, 2017. "Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 627-641, November.
    8. Welton Chang & Pavel Atanasov & Shefali Patil & Barbara A. Mellers & Philip E. Tetlock, 2017. "Accountability and adaptive performance under uncertainty: A long-term view," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 610-626, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Wierenga, Berend, 2011. "Managerial decision making in marketing: The next research frontier," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 89-101.
    11. Dalla Via, Nicola & Perego, Paolo & van Rinsum, Marcel, 2019. "How accountability type influences information search processes and decision quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 79-91.
    12. Min, Kyeong Sam, 2014. "Reviewers are not perfect but could they try harder?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1967-1970.
    13. 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.
    14. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    15. Lu-Ming Tseng, 2019. "How Implicit Ethics Institutionalization Affects Ethical Selling Intention: The Case of Taiwan’s Life Insurance Salespeople," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 727-742, September.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:627-641 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:610-626 is not listed 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. Welton Chang & Pavel Atanasov & Shefali Patil & Barbara A. Mellers & Philip E. Tetlock, 2017. "Accountability and adaptive performance under uncertainty: A long-term view," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 610-626, November.
    2. Dalla Via, Nicola & Perego, Paolo & van Rinsum, Marcel, 2019. "How accountability type influences information search processes and decision quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 79-91.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:610-626 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Eldor, Liat & Hodor, Michal & Cappelli, Peter, 2023. "The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:627-641 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Xiao, Erte, 2017. "Justification and conformity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 15-28.
    7. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    8. Christina L. Brown, 1999. "“Do the Right Thing:” Diverging Effects of Accountability in a Managerial Context," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 230-246.
    9. Lawrence, Michael & Sim, William, 1999. "Prototyping a financial DSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 445-450, August.
    10. Gomaa, Mohamed I. & Hunton, James E. & Vaassen, Eddy H.J. & Carree, Martin A., 2011. "Decision aid reliance: Modeling the effects of decision aid reliability and pressures to perform on reliance behavior," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 206-224.
    11. Brian P. Gill & Jennifer S. Lerner & Paul Meosky, "undated". "Re-Imagining Accountability in K-12 Education: A Behavioral Science Perspective," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d0c19d0709b641259fe391b2e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    12. Welch, Eric & Bretschneider, Stuart & Rohrbaugh, John, 1998. "Accuracy of judgmental extrapolation of time series data: Characteristics, causes, and remediation strategies for forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 95-110, March.
    13. Janina A. Hoffmann & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Bettina von Helversen, 2017. "Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 627-641, November.
    14. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    15. Amit Dhiman & Arindam Sen & Priyank Bhardwaj, 2018. "Effect of Self-Accountability on Self-Regulatory Behaviour: A Quasi-Experiment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 79-97, March.
    16. Xiao, Erte, 2012. "Justification and cooperation," MPRA Paper 36120, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Michael L. McDonald & Poonam Khanna, 2013. "When Will They Learn? An Accountability Theory Perspective On The Effects Of Board Of Director Decision Monitoring On Ceo Learning," Working Papers 0215mgt, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    18. Hall, Angela T. & Bowen, Michael G. & Ferris, Gerald R. & Royle, M. Todd & Fitzgibbons, Dale E., 2007. "The accountability lens: A new way to view management issues," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 405-413.
    19. 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.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:136-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Myrto Pantazi & Olivier Klein & Mikhail Kissine, 2020. "Is justice blind or myopic? An examination of the effects of meta-cognitive myopia and truth bias on mock jurors and judges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 214-229, March.
    22. Thomas P. Novak & Donna L. Hoffman, 2019. "Relationship journeys in the internet of things: a new framework for understanding interactions between consumers and smart objects," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 216-237, March.
    23. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(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:eee:jobhdp:v:115:y:2011:i:2:p:238-252. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.