Accounting and convincing: the effect of two types of justification on the decision process

Abstract

The e}ect of two types of justi_cation pressure on the decision process was inves! tigated[ Three groups of 04 subjects each had to choose the head of a corrective home for criminal adolescents out of six candidates\ who were described on 05 attributes[ Two groups worked under justi_cation pressure] subjects in the Accounting group were informed that they had to explain their decision afterwards\ subjects in the Convincing group that they had to convince the other members of the executive board to vote for their selected candidate[ From the third group\ no justi_cation was requested[ It was found that justi_cation pressure leads to a distinct increase in the amount of utilized information and to a more elaborate choice process\ while the global decision heuristics do not seem to change[ The two justi_cation groups did not di}er in the amount of information utilized\ but the Convincing group employed a more elaborate process[ This result shows that justi_cation pressure is one of the task characteristics a}ecting the decision process\ and proves that a latent justi_cation pressure as assumed in some decision theories does not have the same e}ect as an explicit one[

Codes, Values and Justifications in the Ethical Decision-Making Process

“…In one recent study involving the effects of justification pressure on the choice process, Huber and Seiser (2001) found that justification pressure was associated with an increase in the amount of information utilized by a decision maker, a finding in line with previous research (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999). Importantly, the authors found that decision makers who knew they would have to justify their choices used more information related to both the chosen alternative and to the foregone alternatives.…”

“…With respect to the kind of information utilized, evidence suggests that decision-makers sought out information that about attributes that they assumed would be relevant to those who would be requiring the justification. Huber and Seiser (2001) identify two distinct types of justifications, which they call accounting and convincing, respectively. Accounting involves a decision-maker providing an explanation to parties who had not been part of the decision-making process.…”

Codes, Values and Justifications in the Ethical Decision-Making Process

“…In one recent study involving the effects of justification pressure on the choice process, Huber and Seiser (2001) found that justification pressure was associated with an increase in the amount of information utilized by a decision maker, a finding in line with previous research (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999). Importantly, the authors found that decision makers who knew they would have to justify their choices used more information related to both the chosen alternative and to the foregone alternatives.…”

“…With respect to the kind of information utilized, evidence suggests that decision-makers sought out information that about attributes that they assumed would be relevant to those who would be requiring the justification. Huber and Seiser (2001) identify two distinct types of justifications, which they call accounting and convincing, respectively. Accounting involves a decision-maker providing an explanation to parties who had not been part of the decision-making process.…”

On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing

“…Added to the results of Studies 1, the obtained findings suggest that an increase in framing effects results from substantive processing. In line with prior research (e.g., Tetlock, 1983;Huber & Seiser, 2001) we hypothesized that varying accountability influences the extent of constructive processing of the decision problem. Importantly, individuals use additional information when being held accountable, and sometimes they do so even when this information is objectively non-diagnostic (see Tetlock & Boettger, 1989).…”

Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing

“…In contrast, the deep processing manipulation more directly necessitated additional interaction with the options and eliminated the sequencing concern regarding Study 1. Furthermore, the deep processing manipulation was consistent with that of Huber and Seiser (2001) in that the experimental manipulation preceded participants' making a choice. In sum, Study 2 demonstrated that depth of processing moderates the relation between NC and framing.…”

Codes, Values and Justifications in the Ethical Decision-Making Process

“…In one recent study involving the effects of justification pressure on the choice process, Huber and Seiser (2001) found that justification pressure was associated with an increase in the amount of information utilized by a decision maker, a finding in line with previous research (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999). Importantly, the authors found that decision makers who knew they would have to justify their choices used more information related to both the chosen alternative and to the foregone alternatives.…”

“…With respect to the kind of information utilized, evidence suggests that decision-makers sought out information that about attributes that they assumed would be relevant to those who would be requiring the justification. Huber and Seiser (2001) identify two distinct types of justifications, which they call accounting and convincing, respectively. Accounting involves a decision-maker providing an explanation to parties who had not been part of the decision-making process.…”

On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing

“…Added to the results of Studies 1, the obtained findings suggest that an increase in framing effects results from substantive processing. In line with prior research (e.g., Tetlock, 1983;Huber & Seiser, 2001) we hypothesized that varying accountability influences the extent of constructive processing of the decision problem. Importantly, individuals use additional information when being held accountable, and sometimes they do so even when this information is objectively non-diagnostic (see Tetlock & Boettger, 1989).…”

Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing

“…In contrast, the deep processing manipulation more directly necessitated additional interaction with the options and eliminated the sequencing concern regarding Study 1. Furthermore, the deep processing manipulation was consistent with that of Huber and Seiser (2001) in that the experimental manipulation preceded participants' making a choice. In sum, Study 2 demonstrated that depth of processing moderates the relation between NC and framing.…”

Codes, Values and Justifications in the Ethical Decision-Making Process

“…In one recent study involving the effects of justification pressure on the choice process, Huber and Seiser (2001) found that justification pressure was associated with an increase in the amount of information utilized by a decision maker, a finding in line with previous research (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999). Importantly, the authors found that decision makers who knew they would have to justify their choices used more information related to both the chosen alternative and to the foregone alternatives.…”

“…With respect to the kind of information utilized, evidence suggests that decision-makers sought out information that about attributes that they assumed would be relevant to those who would be requiring the justification. Huber and Seiser (2001) identify two distinct types of justifications, which they call accounting and convincing, respectively. Accounting involves a decision-maker providing an explanation to parties who had not been part of the decision-making process.…”

On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing

“…Added to the results of Studies 1, the obtained findings suggest that an increase in framing effects results from substantive processing. In line with prior research (e.g., Tetlock, 1983;Huber & Seiser, 2001) we hypothesized that varying accountability influences the extent of constructive processing of the decision problem. Importantly, individuals use additional information when being held accountable, and sometimes they do so even when this information is objectively non-diagnostic (see Tetlock & Boettger, 1989).…”

Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing

“…In contrast, the deep processing manipulation more directly necessitated additional interaction with the options and eliminated the sequencing concern regarding Study 1. Furthermore, the deep processing manipulation was consistent with that of Huber and Seiser (2001) in that the experimental manipulation preceded participants' making a choice. In sum, Study 2 demonstrated that depth of processing moderates the relation between NC and framing.…”