The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance
De Langhe, Bart van Osselaer, Stijn Wierenga, Berend
De Langhe, Bart
van Osselaer, Stijn
Wierenga, Berend
Citations
Altmetric:
Publication Type
Journal article with impact factor
Editor
Supervisor
Publication Year
2011
Journal
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Book
Publication Volume
115
Publication Issue
2
Publication Begin page
238
Publication End page
252
Publication NUmber of pages
Collections
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.
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Keywords
Multiple-Cue Judgment, Dual-Process Models, Cue Abstraction, Exemplar Memory, Process Accountability, Outcome Accountability, Epistemic Motivation, Analytical Intelligence, Raven Matrices, Rational–Experiential Inventory