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

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Hoffmann_2-awyx42fo7p3a7.pdf
Hoffmann_2-awyx42fo7p3a7.pdfGröße: 427.55 KBDownloads: 219
Datum
2017
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Gold
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung

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.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
150 Psychologie
Schlagwörter
Judgment; Accountability; Cognitive processes
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
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. 2017, 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>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
Prüfdatum der URL
2020-02-26
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen