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
Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
Bottom, W. P., Gilovich, T. D., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. J. (2004) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/20159081 · Cited by 3,583
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · Cited by 2,383
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
(2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098 · Cited by 2,293
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
