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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Accountability improves judgment primarily when the decision-maker has not yet committed to a position.
“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
When decision-makers know or can infer the evaluator's preferred conclusion, accountability can produce the opposite effect, motivating justification of the expected position.
“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
Accountability is among the most widely studied mechanisms for improving judgment quality.
“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
When people think they will be asked to account for a decision, they suppress bias.
“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
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 · see citing works
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221 · see citing works
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202 · see citing works
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897 · see citing works
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× · see citing works
“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× · see citing works
“…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× · see citing works
“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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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× · see citing works
“…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…”
BackgroundAttitudinal politics: The strategy of moderation.
Cialdini, R. B., Levy, A., Herman, C. P., & Evenbeck, S. (1973) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0034265 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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 · see citing works
Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803322655392 · Cited by 5,377 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Nosek (2012) · doi:10.1177/1745691612459058 · Cited by 1,301 · see citing works
Mohr, D. C., Cuijpers, P., & Lehman, K. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1602 · Cited by 1,097 · see citing works
Ma, M., & Agarwal, R. (2007) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0113 · Cited by 1,143 · see citing works
Value from hedonic experience and engagement
Higgins, E. T. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.439 · Cited by 949 · see citing works
Psychological Ownership: Theoretical Extensions, Measurement, and Relation to Work Outcomes
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.583 · Cited by 920 · see citing works
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891 · see citing works
Self-Enhancement: Food for Thought
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x · Cited by 880 · see citing works
The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10003134 · Cited by 533 · see citing works
Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective
Bunderson, J. S. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556637 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39003-x · Cited by 441 · see citing works
Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2009) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.10.001 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model
van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., & de Liver, Y. N. (2009) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868308324518 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Larrick, R. P. (2004) · Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch16 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Predicting Public Sector Accountability: From Agency Drift to Forum Drift
Schillemans, T., & Busuioc, M. (2015) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muu024 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Risen, J. L. (2016) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000017 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Doris, J. M., & The Moral Psychology Research Group (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.001.0001 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
The role of evidence in politics: Motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians.
Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A., & Petersen, N. B. G. (2019) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123417000084 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
‘Just culture:’ Improving safety by achieving substantive, procedural and restorative justice
Dekker, S. W. A., & Breakey, H. (2016) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.018 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Transparency: Motivations and Challenges
Weller, A. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28954-6_2 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Wisman, A., & Koole, S. L. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.511 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Tetlock, P. E., Visser, P. S., Singh, R., Polifroni, M., Scott, A., Elson, S. B., Mazzocco, P., & Rescober, P. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.009 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Self-citationKarekla, M., Kasinopoulos, O., Neto, D. D., Ebert, D. D., Van Daele, T., Nordgreen, T., Höfer, S., Oeverland, S., & Jensen, K. L. (2019) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000349 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Buyers' trust and mistrust in e-commerce platforms: a synthesizing literature review
Soleimani, M. (2022) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-021-00545-0 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
“First, future research can make perfect use of different models and theories, such as motivational model (Keller 1983) and accountability theory (Lerner and Tetlock 1999) to shed light on the less studied factors in online trust, like social presence, accountability, relevance, and confidence.”
BackgroundInfluencing Myself: Self-Reinforcement Through Online Political Expression
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Keum, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, J. H. (2018) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650216644020 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Leadership and affect: moving the hearts and minds of followers
van Knippenberg, D., & van Kleef, G. A. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1160515 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Good Governance: Concept and Context
Addink, H. (2019) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841159.001.0001 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Multimodal e-mental health treatment for depression: a feasibility trial
Mohr, D. C., Duffecy, J., Jin, L., Ludman, E. J., Lewis, A., Begale, M., & McCarthy Jr, M. (2010) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1370 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Confidence Calibration in a Multiyear Geopolitical Forecasting Competition
Moore, D. A., Swift, S. A., Minster, A., Mellers, B., Ungar, L., Tetlock, P., Yang, H. H. J., & Tenney, E. R. (2017) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2525 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Self-citation“Leaving it to chance”—Passive risk taking in everyday life
Keinan, R., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. (2012) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500003259 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017) · The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism · doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n32 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Forecasting tournaments, epistemic humility and attitude depolarization
Mellers, B., Tetlock, P., & Arkes, H. R. (2019) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.021 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citationThe effect of rater accountability on performance ratings: a meta-analytic review
Harari, M. B., & Rudolph, C. W. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.007 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Danry, V., Pataranutaporn, P., Groh, M., & Epstein, Z. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713408 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
One for all: What representing a group may do to us
Reinders Folmer, C. P., Klapwijk, A., De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.009 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Waung, M., Hymes, R., Beatty, J. E., & McAuslan, P. (2015) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12119 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Talking the talk, not walking the walk: The coevolution of overconfidence and loss aversion
Dawson, C., & de Meza, D. (2026) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000644 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making
Shrestha, S., Ahn, E., & Vorobeychik, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v9i4.43309
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and 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
