Accounting for the effects of accountability.

TLDR

The article reviews extensive literature on accountability’s effects on social judgments and choices, addressing four key questions about its impact on thoughts, biases, cognition versus expression, and decision‑maker goals, and discusses broader implications. It conceptualizes thought as internal dialogue, emphasizes documenting social and institutional boundaries that influence cognitive biases, and outlines empirical strategies for designing accountability structures in organizations. The review shows that treating thought as internal dialogue and accounting for boundary conditions can inform empirical solutions for structuring accountability relationships in organizations.

Abstract

This article reviews the now extensive research literature addressing the impact of accountability on a wide range of social judgments and choices. It focuses on 4 issues: (a) What impact do various accountability ground rules have on thoughts, feelings, and action? (b) Under what conditions will accountability attenuate, have no effect on, or amplify cognitive biases? (c) Does accountability alter how people think or merely what people say they think? and (d) What goals do accountable decision makers seek to achieve? In addition, this review explores the broader implications of accountability research. It highlights the utility of treating thought as a process of internalized dialogue; the importance of documenting social and institutional boundary conditions on putative cognitive biases; and the potential to craft empirical answers to such applied problems as how to structure accountability relationships in organizations.