Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use

Janina A Hoffmann, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Bettina von Helversen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)627-641
Number of pages15
JournalJudgement and Decision Making
Volume12
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Keywords

  • accountability,cognitive processes,judgment

Cite this

Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use. / Hoffmann, Janina A; Gaissmaier, Wolfgang; von Helversen, Bettina.

In: Judgement and Decision Making, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2017, p. 627-641.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hoffmann, Janina A ; Gaissmaier, Wolfgang ; von Helversen, Bettina. / Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use. In: Judgement and Decision Making. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 6. pp. 627-641.
@article{878358775260486c8be52d0e734560a0,
title = "Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use",
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.",
keywords = "accountability,cognitive processes,judgment",
author = "Hoffmann, {Janina A} and Wolfgang Gaissmaier and {von Helversen}, Bettina",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "627--641",
journal = "Judgement and Decision Making",
issn = "1930-2975",
publisher = "Society for Judgment and Decision Making",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use

AU - Hoffmann, Janina A

AU - Gaissmaier, Wolfgang

AU - von Helversen, Bettina

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - accountability,cognitive processes,judgment

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 627

EP - 641

JO - Judgement and Decision Making

JF - Judgement and Decision Making

SN - 1930-2975

IS - 6

ER -