Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2017, Vol 12, Issue 6
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.
Authors and Affiliations
Janina A. Hoffmann, Wolfgang Gaissmaier and Bettina von Helversen
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP678321
- DOI -
- Views 167
- Downloads 0
Which grades are better, A’s and C’s, or all B’s? Effects of variability in grades on mock college admissions decisions
Students may need to decide whether to invest limited resources evenly across all courses and thus end with moderate grades in all, or focus on some of the courses and thus end with variable grades. This study examined w...
Not all streaks are the same: Individual differences in risk preferences during runs of gains and losses
Runs of gains and losses are particularly salient to decision makers because of their perceived departure from randomness, as well as their immediate impact on the financial status of the decision makers. Past research h...
Coherence and correspondence in engineering design: informing the conversation and connecting with judgment and decision-making research
I show how the coherence/correspondence distinction can inform the conversation about decision methods for engineering design. Some engineers argue for the application of multi-attribute utility theory while others argue...
Between me and we: The importance of self-profit versus social justifiability for ethical decision making
Current theories of dishonest behavior suggest that both individual profits and the availability of justifications drive cheating. Although some evidence hints that cheating behavior is most prevalent when both self-prof...
The value of a smile: Facial expression affects ultimatum-game responses
Abstract: In social interaction, the facial expression of an opponent contains information that may influence the interaction. We asked whether facial expression affects decision-making in the ultimatum game. In this two...