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

Hoffmann, Janina A.; Gaissmaier, Wolfgang; von Helversen, Bettina

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

Dateien

Hoffmann_2-awyx42fo7p3a7.pdfGröße: 427.55 KBDownloads: 219

Datum

2017

Autor:innen

Hoffmann, Janina A.

Gaissmaier, Wolfgang

von Helversen, Bettina

URI (zitierfähiger Link)

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-awyx42fo7p3a7

Link zur Lizenz

Urheberrechtlich geschützt

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Gold

Sammlungen

Psychologie

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Judgment and Decision Making. 2017, 12(6), pp. 627-641. eISSN 1930-2975

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.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

150 Psychologie

Schlagwörter

Judgment; Accountability; Cognitive processes

Zitieren

ISO 690

HOFFMANN, 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>

URL der Originalveröffentl.

http://journal.sjdm.org/17/17411/jdm17411.pdf

Prüfdatum der URL

2020-02-26

Universitätsbibliographie

Ja