The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of Procedural and Outcome Accountability on Judgment Quality
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“One potential explanation comes from prior research showing that performance improves when decision makers are responsible for the decision-making process, but not when they are responsible for the decision-making outcome (Doney and Armstrong, 1995; Siegel-Jacobs and Yates, 1996).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Siegel-Jacobs and Yates, 1996
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–327 of 327
Assessment of strategies for evaluating extreme risks
Franklin, J., & Sisson, S. A. (2007) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)
Testing the Efficacy of Interventions to Decrease Racial Bias in Jury Selection
Modjadidi, K. (2018) · CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York)
Öğretmenlerin Hesap Verebilirlik Çevreleri: Teorik Bir Çözümleme
Erdağ, C. (2019) · Opus uluslararası toplum araştırmaları dergisi · doi:10.26466/opus.559784
Yousefzadeh, N., Pourheidari, O., & Khodamipour, A. (2020) · Iranian journal of Value and Behavioral Accounting · doi:10.29252/aapc.5.9.117
Qualifying Faults - The Role of Professionalism and Accountability in Bidding ProceduresPreprint
Schurr, A., Dekel, O., Leib, M., Pittarello, A., & Moran, S. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/9f6ux
Rhee, S. (2021) · Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society · doi:10.5762/kais.2021.22.4.99
رمضان, ع. ا. (2021) · مجلة الاسکندریة للبحوث المحاسبیة · doi:10.21608/aljalexu.2021.186518
Aleksovska, M. (2021) · doi:10.33540/741
13. Supplementary Material from Online Resources
Sutherland, W. J. (2022) · Open Book Publishers · doi:10.11647/obp.0321.13
Sutherland, W. J. (2022) · Open Book Publishers · doi:10.11647/obp.0321.14
Wibbeke, L.-M., & Lachmann, M. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4307659
García, F., Smith, S. J. R., & Helms, M. (2023) · The CASE Journal · doi:10.1108/tcj-04-2022-0056
European Vaccine-rollout Policy, Unraveled Markets, and Moral Externalities
Kovač, M., Woitalla, J., Gjikolli, V., & Elkanawati, A. (2023) · European Integration Studies · doi:10.5755/j01.eis.1.17.32091
Lukas, C., Neubert, M., & Schöndube, J. R. (2024) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-024-09717-9
A Review of Auditor Gender and Accountability Pressure’s Impact on Audit Risk Judgments
Lopes, M. S. (2024) · Business Ethics and Leadership · doi:10.61093/bel.8(4).69-81.2024
The effects of process transparency and prior evaluation results on subjective evaluation decisionsPreprint
Wibbeke, L.-M., & Lachmann, M. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5158528
Rollwage, J., Häusser, J. A., & Schulz‐Hardt, S. (2025) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218251369493
Tai, H.-W., Chang, K., Cheng, C.-F., & Cheng, K.-T. (2025) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings15224169
Making difficult health decisions: a motivated decision processing model
Zajac, L. E. (2011) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
McCurrach, C. W. D., & Goffin, R. D. (2025) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08786-9
Evaluation of cognitive biases in procurement decisions : an empirical analysis
Delaume, R. C. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/bf567d9bz25a7z4d0aza3f1z8634cc118e43
(2019) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-64113-051-620251029
Goal setting and feedback: the power of joint use
Altan, B., Guney, B., & Uler, N. (2026) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2026.105486
Metadata
- Authors
- Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-17
- ISSN
- 0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970614775
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 3.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- procedural accountability, outcome accountability, judgment quality, attitude judgment, information use, judgment accuracy, outcome feedback
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
