Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering.

  title={Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering.},
  author={Philip E. Tetlock and Linda J. Skitka and Richard Boettger},
  journal={Journal of personality and social psychology},
  volume={57 4},
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 accountability from important interpersonal or institutional audiences. The model predicts that (a) when people know the views of the audience and are unconstrained by past commitments, they will rely on the low-effort acceptability heuristic and simply shift their views toward those of the prospective audience… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Cognitive Biases and Organizational Correctives: Do Both Disease and Cure Depend on the Politics of the Beholder?
The study reported here assessed the impact of managers' philosophies of human nature on their reactions to influential academic claims and counter-claims of when human judgment is likely to stray
Can Accountability Produce Independence? Goals as Determinants of the Impact of Accountability on Conformity
People routinely confront the social pressure of being accountable to audiences whose preferences are known. Prior research indicates that these conditions create conformity, which often leads to sub
Understanding Misunderstanding: Social Psychological Perspectives
Researchers in many subdisciplines of psychology have made their reputations cleverly documenting the various cognitive, perceptual, and motivational biases that systematically distort human judgment
Social Accounting and Unethical Behavior: Does Looking Fair Undermine Actually Being Fair?
In organizations, it is inevitable that some business activities might seem unfair to subordinates. Social accounts—the explanations managers give their subordinates for those decisions—are known to
Coping with Accountability Cross-Pressures: Low-Effort Evasive Tactics and High-Effort Quests for Complex Compromises
The current study explores two classes of strategies of coping with accountability: low-cognitive-effort decision-evasion tactics (buckpassing, procrastination, and exiting the situation) and
An Alternative Metaphor in the Study of Judgment and Choice: People as Politicians
Researchers who study judgment and choice have assumed it is useful to think of people as either intuitive psychologists or economists who strive either to understand the people around them or to
Social psychological perspectives on support theory : how people deviate from and conform to normative standards for judgment /
Support theory provides an account o f how different but logically equivalent verbal descriptions o f the same event can give rise to bias in probability judgments. To the extent that a description
Social functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors.
This article identifies 3 alternative social functionalist starting points for inquiry: people as pragmatic politicians trying to cope with accountability demands from key constituencies in their lives, principled theologians trying to protect sacred values from secular encroachments, and prudent prosecutors trying to enforce social norms.


Cognitive accommodation, language, and social responsibility.
The two studies reported here examine cognitive accommodation in a betting situation where a decision-maker perceives that the person for whom he is making judgments has a legitimate right to have an
Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task.
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.
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
The Handbook of Social Psychology
VOLUME 2. Part III: The Social World. 21. EVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (Steven L. Neuberg, Douglas T. Kenrick, and Mark Schaller). 22. MORALITY (Jonathan Haidt and Selin Kesebir). 23. AGGRESSION
The Blind Men and the Elephant: Selective Examination of the Public-Private Literature Gives Rise to a Faulty Perception
ABSTRACT Wicklund and Gollwitzer make two claims that the distinction between public and private self-awareness/self-consciousness is “Aristotelian,” and that the distinction is fallacious For the
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
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
Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.
In Experiment 1, subjects read a persuasive message from a likable or unlikable communicator who presented six or two arguments concerning one of two topics. High response involvement subjects