RESUMEN
Advice stemming from sources with errors that are dependent on each other is usually less accurate than advice provided by sources with independent errors, while simultaneously exhibiting greater consensus. We investigate whether or not individuals express a preference for advice with dependent errors by choosing it over advice with independent errors and by weighting it more strongly. We test for this preference both in a situation where error interdependence does not negatively affect advice accuracy as well as in a situation where advice with dependent errors is less accurate than advice with independent errors. In a series of six studies, we show that, when being given the opportunity to choose between the two types of advice, participants only prefer advice with dependent errors if this is not detrimental for accuracy. However, when being sequentially provided with both types of advice, they generally weight advice with dependent errors more than advice with independent errors, even if the latter is more accurate. This effect is mainly driven by the fact that advice with dependent errors exhibits greater consensus, leading participants' initial estimates to lie outside the range of the advisors' judgments more frequently. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Asunto(s)
Juicio , HumanosRESUMEN
Escalating commitment describes the phenomenon that decision makers may become stuck in losing courses of action, throwing good money after bad. In a seminal study, testing interventions against escalating commitment, Simonson and Staw (1992) found that holding decision makers accountable for the decision process (i.e., the decision strategies they use) decreases escalating commitment, whereas accountability for the decision outcomes tends to increase it. The initial aim of our study was to extend the original findings by testing for interactive effects of both types of accountability. However, as we did not replicate the original effects in a first experiment, in spite of the fact that our materials and our procedure resembled the original study as closely as possible, we conducted a second experiment with an even stronger accountability manipulation as compared to the original study, and with an increased sample size. Once again, no effects of accountability were found. Taken together, the results of these two experiments question the robustness of the original findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Asunto(s)
Responsabilidad Social , HumanosRESUMEN
Previous research on the effects of outcome and process accountability on decision making has neglected the preceding phase of idea generation. We conducted a 2 (outcome accountability: yes vs. no) × 2 (process accountability: yes vs. no) experiment (N = 147) to test the effects of accountability on quantity and quality of generated ideas in a product design task. Furthermore, we examined potential negative side effects of accountability (i.e., stress and lengthened decision making). We found that (a) outcome accountability had a negative effect on quantity of ideas and (b) process accountability extended the idea generation process. Furthermore, any type of accountability (c) had a negative effect on uniqueness of ideas, (d) did not affect the quality of the idea that was selected, and (e) increased stress. Moreover, the negative effect of accountability on uniqueness of ideas was mediated by stress.
Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones/fisiología , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud/métodos , Responsabilidad Social , Pensamiento/fisiología , HumanosRESUMEN
When advice comes from interdependent sources (e.g., from advisors who use the same database), less information should be gained as compared to independent advice. On the other hand, since individuals strive for consistency, they should be more confident in consistent compared to conflicting advice, and interdependent advice should be more consistent than independent advice. In a study investigating the differential effects of interdependent versus independent advice on a judge's accuracy and confidence (Yaniv, Choshen-Hillel, & Milyavsky, 2009), advice interdependence was confounded with another variable, namely closeness of the advice to the judge's estimate. Interdependent advice was not only more consistent than independent advice but also closer to the judge's first estimate. The present study aimed at disentangling the effects of consensus and closeness of the advice by adding a third experimental condition in which interdependent (and, hence, consistent) advice was far from the judge's own estimate. We found that, as suggested by Yaniv et al., accuracy gains were indeed a consequence of advisor interdependence. However, in contrast to Yaniv et al.'s conclusions, confidence in the correctness of one's estimates was mostly a function of the advice's proximity to the participants' initial estimations, thereby indicating a social validation effect. (PsycINFO Database Record