The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability, and reversibility

McAllister, Daniel W., Mitchell, Terence R., Beach, Lee Roy·1979·Organizational Behavior and Human Performance

DOI 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90027-8

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90027-8

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
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
The Affect Heuristic
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences
Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90010-6 · Cited by 1,649
Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information
Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0015701 · Cited by 1,292
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
Accountability and complexity of thought.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.74 · Cited by 995
The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model
Tetlock, P. E. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60287-7 · Cited by 926
Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability.
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1082 · Cited by 758
Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality
Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2017.06.001 · Cited by 522
Habit and information use in travel mode choices
Aarts, H., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (1997) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(97)00008-5 · Cited by 326
Accountability and automation bias
SKITKA, L. J., MOSIER, K., & BURDICK, M. D. (2000) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0349 · Cited by 324
Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups.
Larson, J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.446 · Cited by 319
Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes.
Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0037908 · Cited by 200
Mental Contamination and the Debiasing Problem
Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., & Brekke, N. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.012 · Cited by 160
The calibration of expert judgment: heuristics and biases beyond the laboratory
Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L., & Griffin, D. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.041 · Cited by 146

Authors: McAllister, D. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R.
Venue: Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Published: 1979-10
Volume: 24
Issue: 2
Pages: 228-244
ISSN: 0030-5073 (ISSN-L)
DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90027-8
OpenAlex: W2006270886
Cited by: 280
References: 0
FWCI: 0.61
Type: journal article
Language: en
Open access: closed

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