Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect.

@article{Tetlock1989AccountabilityAS,
  title={Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect.},
  author={Philip E. Tetlock and Richard Boettger},
  journal={Journal of personality and social psychology},
  year={1989},
  volume={57 3},
  pages={
          388-98
        }
}
This research demonstrated that accountability can not only reduce judgmental bias, but also exacerbate it--in this case, the dilution effect. Ss made predictions from either diagnostic information alone or diagnostic information plus mixtures of additional data (nondiagnostic information, additional diagnostic data pointing to either the same conclusion or the opposite conclusion). Relative to unaccountable Ss, accountable Ss (a) diluted their predictions in response to nondiagnostic… 

Figures from this paper

The Conversational Basis for the Dilution Effect
The impact of diagnostic information on judgments and in decision making is often reduced when additional, nondiagnostic information is presented. This article argues that the diluting impact of
The influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information
This paper extends Hackenbrack [1992] in examining the influence of nondiagnostic (i.e., irrelevant) information on auditor judgment. Hackenbrack found that auditors given a mix of diagnostic and
Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results
This paper examines whether accountability, defined as the requirement to justify one's judgments to others, mitigates recency. Recency refers to the tendency to overweight evidence received later in
Small Group Predictions on an Uncertain Outcome: The Effect of Nondiagnostic Information
Research has established that exposure to a combination of diagnostic (i.e., relevant) and nondiagnostic (i.e., irrelevant) information results in predictions that are more regressive than
The Impact of Accountability on Cognitive Bias
Research on accountability takes an unusual approach to the study of judgment and decision making. By situating decision makers within particular accountability conditions, it has begun to bridge
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
TLDR
This article reviews the now extensive research literature addressing the impact of accountability on a wide range of social judgments and choices and highlights the utility of treating thought as a process of internalized dialogue and the importance of documenting social and institutional boundary conditions on putative cognitive biases.
Dilution in legal decision making: Effect of non-diagnostic information in relation to amount of diagnostic evidence
Judgments about others are often based on information that varies in terms of its diagnosticity or usefulness in predicting a certain outcome. Previous studies have demonstrated a “dilution effect”
Mitigating the Dilution Effect in Auditors' Judgments Using a Frequency Response Mode
This paper investigates the potential of using a frequency response mode to reduce the dilution effect of non-diagnostic evidence on auditors' fraud risk judgments. In two experiments, we test one
Judgeability Concerns: The Interplay of Information, Applicability, and Accountability in the Overattribution Bias
In 3 studies, the authors examined the impact of judgeability concerns in the overattribution bias (OAB; G. A. Quattrone, 1982) by manipulating the presence-absence of a constrained essay, the
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 46 REFERENCES
Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error.
Previous attitude-attribution studies indicate that people are often quick to draw conclusions about the attitudes and personalities of others-even when plausible external or situational causes for
Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task.
TLDR
Preexposure-accountability subjects reported more integratively complex impressions of test-takers, made more accurate behavioral predictions, and reported more appropriate levels of confidence in their predictions than did either no-Accountability or postexposure- accountability subjects.
Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering.
This experiment tested predictions derived from a social contingency model of judgment and choice that identifies 3 distinctive strategies that people rely on in dealing with demands for
Inferences based on nondiagnostic information
Judgment under Uncertainty
The thirty-five chapters in this book describe various judgmental heuristics and the biases they produce, not only in laboratory experiments but in important social, medical, and political situations
Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion
It was suggested that there are two basic routes to persuasion. One route is based on the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereas the other is based on peripheral cues in
Outcome Dependency and Attention to Inconsistent Information
Two studies investigated when people attend to information that is inconsistent with their expectations about another person. It was hypothesized that people sometimes ignore information inconsistent
On the psychology of prediction
In this paper, we explore the rules that determine intuitive predictions and judgments of confidence and contrast these rules to the normative principles of statistical prediction. Two classes of
Identifying Victims of Groupthink From Public Statements of Decision Makers
The present study attempts to test hypotheses derived from Janis's groupthink analysis of several foreign policy decisions of the American government. Content analyses were performed using the public
...
...