Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers
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?
Prior research shows that performance improves when decision makers are responsible for the decision-making process, but not when they are responsible for the decision-making outcome.
“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 Doney and Armstrong, 1995
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection
Kupfer, C., Prassl, R., Fleiß, J., Malin, C., Thalmann, S., & Kubicek, B. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118723 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Doney, P. M., & Armstrong, G. M.
- Affiliations
- Florida Atlantic University (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
- Published
- 1995-12-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-65
- ISSN
- 0092-0703 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4255564604
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Competitive and Knowledge Intelligence
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- organizational buying behavior, information analysis, decision accountability, process accountability
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
