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

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2017
Authors
Editors
Contact
Journal ISSN
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliographical data
Publisher
Series
DOI (citable link)
ArXiv-ID
International patent number
Link to the license
EU project number
Project
Open Access publication
Collections
Restricted until
Title in another language
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Publication type
Journal article
Publication status
Published
Published in
Judgment and Decision Making ; 12 (2017), 6. - pp. 627-641. - eISSN 1930-2975
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 multiple-cue 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 impact judgment quality less than expected. We discuss limiting procedural variations.
Summary in another language
Subject (DDC)
150 Psychology
Keywords
Judgment; Accountability; Cognitive processes
Conference
Review
undefined / . - undefined, undefined. - (undefined; undefined)
Cite This
ISO 690HOFFMANN, Janina A., Wolfgang GAISSMAIER, Bettina VON HELVERSEN, 2017. Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use. In: Judgment and Decision Making. 12(6), pp. 627-641. eISSN 1930-2975
BibTex
@article{Hoffmann2017Justi-40557,
  year={2017},
  title={Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use},
  url={http://journal.sjdm.org/17/17411/jdm17411.pdf},
  number={6},
  volume={12},
  journal={Judgment and Decision Making},
  pages={627--641},
  author={Hoffmann, Janina A. and Gaissmaier, Wolfgang and von Helversen, Bettina}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40557">
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/40557/3/Hoffmann_2-awyx42fo7p3a7.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <dc:creator>von Helversen, Bettina</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:title>Justifying the judgment process affects neither judgment accuracy, nor strategy use</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>von Helversen, Bettina</dc:contributor>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-11-09T14:49:13Z</dc:date>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dc:contributor>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">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 multiple-cue 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 impact judgment quality less than expected. We discuss limiting procedural variations.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:creator>Gaissmaier, Wolfgang</dc:creator>
    <dc:contributor>Hoffmann, Janina A.</dc:contributor>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2017</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/40557"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/40557/3/Hoffmann_2-awyx42fo7p3a7.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Hoffmann, Janina A.</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-11-09T14:49:13Z</dcterms:available>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Internal note
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Contact
Test date of URL
2020-02-26
Examination date of dissertation
Method of financing
Comment on publication
Alliance license
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
International Co-Authors
Bibliography of Konstanz
Yes
Refereed