Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering.

Abstract

This experiment tested predictions derived from a social contingency model of judgment and choice that identifies 3 distinctive strategies that people rely on in dealing with demands for accountability from important interpersonal or institutional audiences. The model predicts that (a) when people know the views of the audience and are unconstrained by past commitments, they will rely on the low-effort acceptability heuristic and simply shift their views toward those of the prospective audience, (b) when people do not know the views of the audience and are unconstrained by past commitments, they will be motivated to think in relatively flexible, multidimensional ways (preemptive selfcriticism), and (c) when people are accountable for positions to which they feel committed, they will devote the majority of their mental effort to justifying those positions (defensive bolstering). The experiment yielded results supportive of these 3 predictions. The study also revealed some evidence of individual differences in social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability.Many writers have criticized cognitive social psychology for its apparent indifference to the interpersonal and institutional settings within which people make judgments and choices (e.g., Gergen, 1982;Sampson, 1981). Although these critiques make important points, it is necessary to advance beyond metatheoretical position papers and to specify the particular ways in which interpersonal and institutional variables interact with cognitive tendencies of the perceiver to shape how people actually make up their minds.Recent research on accountability points to one possible answer. Tetlock (1985a) has argued that accountability is a universal feature of everyday decision-making environments. Accountability, from this standpoint, is a critical rule-and normenforcement mechanism: the social psychological link between individual thinkers on the one hand and the social systems to which they belong on the other. The fact that people are ultimately accountable for their decisions is an implicit or explicit constraint on virtually everything they do. Failure to behave in ways for which one can construct acceptable accounts leads to varying degrees of censure-depending, of course, on the gravity of the offense and the norms of the organization (Schlenker, 1982;Scott &Lyman, 1968;Tetlock, 198 la).A good deal of experimental evidence indicates that accountability pressures can affect both what people think (the beliefs and preferences they express) and how they think (the reasoning

On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness.

“…First, individuals in tight and loose societies differ in their willingness to conform versus act in socially deviant ways. This is consistent with work by Tetlock and others that has shown that felt accountability induces conformity when normative standards are known (Cummings & Anton, 1990;Lerner & Tetlock, 1999;Tetlock, 1992;Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989), as well as with research that has shown that individuals who prefer predictability and order rely on well-learned scripts to guide their behavior (Chiu. Morris, Hong, & Menon, 2000).…”

Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing.

“…Nonetheless, research on accountability offers some pertinent evidence (for a review, see Tetlock, 1992;Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989). For example, in one study participants who were aware of the views of the person to whom they were accountable merely used a low-effort "acceptability" heuristic to serve their impression-motivated concerns with accountability-that is, they expressed attitudes that agreed with the other's views.…”

“…For instance, a person's greater knowledge of arguments on one side of an issue may result in stronger counterarguing against information supporting the other side of the issue (for further discussion of knowledge-based biases in information processing, see Biek, Wood, & Chaiken, 1996). 3 Tetlock's social contingency model (Tetlock, 1992;Tetlock et al, 1989) proposes that accountability concerns reflect desires to protect and enhance social and self-images, as well as the desire for power and resources. According to the model, accountability leads to one or more of the following strategies: (a) use of the low-effort acceptability heuristic; (b) multidimensional, flexible processing aimed at preemptive selfcriticism; and (c) defensive bolstering of existing opinions.…”

Hubungan tekanan akuntabilitas, audit judgement performance, dan effort

“…Kekhususan dari tujuan itu sendiri tampaknya bertindak sebagai stimulus internal. Tetlock et al (1992) menyatakan bahwa akuntabilitas merupakan salah satu hubungan antara individu pembuat keputusan dan dunia sosialnya. Hubungan akuntabilitas dapat mempengaruhi individu untuk memilih strategi sebagai persyaratan untuk menjelaskan jawabannya termasuk kompleksitas, defensif, atau akseptabilitas heuristik (Tetlock et al 1992).…”

“…Tetlock et al (1992) menyatakan bahwa akuntabilitas merupakan salah satu hubungan antara individu pembuat keputusan dan dunia sosialnya. Hubungan akuntabilitas dapat mempengaruhi individu untuk memilih strategi sebagai persyaratan untuk menjelaskan jawabannya termasuk kompleksitas, defensif, atau akseptabilitas heuristik (Tetlock et al 1992). Kennedy (1993) secara khusus mengidentifikasikan kemampuan akuntabilitas untuk mengurangi atribusi kesalahan dan dampaknya (Tetlock 1983;1985).…”