The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
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.
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
“Tetlock's model specifies that accountability improves judgment primarily when the decision-maker has not yet committed to a position.”
From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tetlock 1999
In the citing paper
“When decision-makers know or can infer the evaluator's preferred conclusion, accountability can produce the opposite effect, motivating justification of the expected position (Tetlock 1983;Lerner and Tetlock 1999).”
From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tetlock 1999
In the citing paper
“Accountability, defined as the expectation of having to justify one's decisions to others, is among the most widely studied mechanisms for improving judgment quality (Lerner and Tetlock 1999).”
From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tetlock 1999
In the citing paper
“Reskin (2000) and Bielby (2000) build on accountability theory from psychology, which suggests that when people think they will be asked to account for a decision, they suppress bias (Tetlock, 1992;Lerner and Tetlock, 1999).”
From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Lerner and Tetlock, 1999
Citations
Cites
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497 · Cited by 23,245
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4 · Cited by 2,573 · cited 2×
“A striking example is research on the sunk-cost effect (i.e., escalating resource commitments to a prior course of action even when future costs from the course of action will exceed future benefits; see Arkes & Blumer, 1985).”
BackgroundMental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations.
Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.117 · Cited by 1,157 · cited 3×
“…only reduces strategy-based errors (i.e., errors resulting from insufficient effort, Arkes, 1991), it also reduces certain association-based errors (i.e., errors resulting from associations within semantic memory, Arkes, 1991; see also source-confusion errors, Wilson & Brekke, 1996).”
BackgroundResultAccountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions
Tetlock, P. E. (1983) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3033716 · Cited by 513 · cited 9×
“They prepare themselves by engaging in an effortful and self-critical search for reasons to justify their actions (Lerner & Tetlock, 1994; Tetlock, 1983a; Tetlock & Lerner, in press; Tetlock et al., 1989).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationSurveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation.
Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.257 · Cited by 330
Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality
Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0001 · Cited by 327
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 · cited 3×
“…to inaccurately believe that the other party's interests in a negotiation were completely opposed to their own.*** Failure to notice problems with Skitka et al. (1996) automated cues Attenuation: Decreased likelihood of overlooking (a) a problem because an automated aid failed to detect it and…”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 · Cited by 6,077
Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803322655392 · Cited by 5,377
Power, approach, and inhibition.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.2.265 · Cited by 3,427
Nosek (2012) · doi:10.1177/1745691612459058 · Cited by 1,301
Mohr, D. C., Cuijpers, P., & Lehman, K. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1602 · Cited by 1,097
Metadata
- Authors
- Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-275
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2101903660
- Cited by
- 2,383
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 116 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 113 · 2021: 133 · 2020: 134 · 2019: 183 · 2018: 97 · 2017: 110 · 2016: 100 · 2015: 113 · 2014: 114 · 2013: 108 · 2012: 129
- FWCI
- 16.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH15750, T32MH015750)
- 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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Keywords
- accountability, cognitive biases, social judgment, decision-making, boundary conditions, accountability relationships, organizational accountability
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Decision Making, Humans
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Accounting for the effects of accountability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
- The paper
- Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255
