Draft Master thesis

!

!

!

DRAFT!MASTER!THESIS!

!

!

!

!

!

!

HOW!DOES!ACCOUNTABILITY!INFLUENCE!DECISION!ACCURACY?!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Benjamin(Henkes(

Student(ID:(360139(

January(7th,(2013(

(

Prof.(Dr.(Frank(Hartmann(

Dr.(René(Olie(

! !

(1(

CHAPTER!1:!INTRODUCTION! 3(

1!INTRODUCTION! 3(

CHAPTER!2:!THEORY! 6(

2.1!DECISION<MAKING! 6(

2.2!DUAL<PROCESS!THEORY! 6(

2.3!ACCOUNTABILITY! 8(

((((2.3.1(PROCESS(ACCOUNTABILITY(CONDITION( 9(

((((2.3.2(OUTCOME(ACCOUNTABILITY(CONDITION( 10(

((((2.3.3(NO(ACCOUNTABILITY(CONDITION( 11(

2.4!ACTIVATION!AND!TASK!EFFORT! 11(

2.5!INCENTIVES! 13(

2.6!INFLUENCE!OF!TASK!CHARACTERISTICS! 14(

2.7!DECISION!QUALITY!TRADE<OFF!AMONG!ACCURACY!AND!SPEED! 15(

2.8!CONCEPTUAL!MODEL! 15(

((((2.8.1(HYPOTHESES( 16(

CHAPTER!3:!METHOD! 19(

3.1!DESIGN! 19(

3.2!SUBJECTS! 19(

3.3!PROCEDURES! 19(

((((3.3.1(MANIPULATION(OF(INCENTIVES( 20(

((((((((3.3.1.1(Condition(1:(No(Incentives( 21(

((((((((3.3.1.2(Condition(2:(Incentives( 21(

((((3.3.2(MANIPULATION(OF(ACCOUNTABILITY( 21(

((((((((3.3.2.1(Condition(1:(Process(Accountability( 22(

((((((((3.3.2.2(Condition(2:(Outcome(Accountability( 22(

((((((((3.3.2.3(Condition(3:(No(Accountability( 23(

3.4!ANALYTICAL!TASK! 23(

3.5!INTUITIVE!TASK! 24(

( 2(

3.6!MANIPULATION!CHECK! 25(

((((3.6.1(PROCESS(AND(OUTCOME(ACCOUNTABILITY( 25(

((((3.6.2(PROCESS(ACCOUNTABILITY( 25(

((((3.6.3(OUTCOME(ACCOUNTABILITY( 25(

((((3.6.4(NO(ACCOUNTABILITY( 26(

((((3.6.5(INCENTIVIZATION( 26(

3.7!MEDIATOR!CHECK! 26(

((((3.7.1(TASK(EFFORT( 26(

((((3.7.2(COGNITIVE(APPROACH( 26(

3.8!NOTE! 26(

CHAPTER!4:!RESULTS! 28(

4.1!MANIPULATION!CHECK! 28(

((((4.1.1(ACCOUNTABILITY(VERSUS(NO(ACCOUNTABILITY( 28(

((((4.1.2(PROCESS(VERSUS(OUTCOME(ACCOUNTABILITY( 29(

((((4.1.3(INCENTIVES(VERSUS(NO(INCENTIVES( 29(

4.2!HYPOTHESES!TESTING! 30(

((((4.2.1(ANALYTICAL(TASKS( 30(

((((4.2.2(INTUITIVE(TASKS( 32(

((((4.2.3(INCENTIVES( 33(

CHAPTER!5:!DISCUSSION! 38(

5.1!FINDINGS! 38(

5.2!LIMITATIONS!AND!FURTHER!RESEARCH! 41(

5.3!CONCLUSION! 42(

REFERENCES! 43(

APPENDIX! 54(

APPENDIX!I:!EXPERIMENT!SCRIPT! 54(

APPENDIX!II:!EXPERIMENT!PROTOCOL! 60(

APPENDIX!III:!ANALYTICAL!TASK!DETAILS! 63(

(3(

CHAPTER(1:(INTRODUCTION!

1(Introduction(

It(is(Wednesday(morning.(David(Hannah(abruptly(wakes(up(and(hears(his(cell(phone(

ringing.(He(had(a(long(day(of(negotiations(with(a(potential(new(client(from(China.(David(is(

well(aware(of(the(cultural(differences(and(knows(that(good(conditions(during(official(

negotiations(are(not(all(to(winning(a(new(client(from(China.(Building(a(personal(relationship(

through(meetings(with(the(family,(having(dinner(together(and(exchanging(gifts(are(equally(

important.(He(actually(enjoyed(this(different(way(of(doing(business(and(talking(to(ChihaHao(

Tsai(until(late.(He(did(not(make(it(to(bed(before(3am(though.(He(takes(a(quick(look(at(his(

phone(before(picking(up;(it(reads(June(14,(20001(and(5.30am.(

(

David(Hannah(is(the(CEO(of(the(Los(Angeles(based(Reliance(Steel(&(Aluminum(Corporation.(

The(firm’s(primary(business(is(purchasing(metallic(raw(materials(and(processing(them(into(

specific(parts(required(by(clients(within(many(different(industry(sectors(for(further(

production.2(Picking(up(the(phone,(David(finds(himself(talking(to(his(colleague(Gregg(

Mollins,(who(takes(care(of(operations.(He(is(shouting.(“David,(we(are(out(of(power.(We(have(

not(been(able(to(get(back(since(two(hours([…](you(know(that(we(have(to(meet(the(deadline(

for(Boeing’s(new(prototype(in(two(days(in(order(to(ensure(our(stable(cash(flow(and([…]”(

David(interrupts,(switches(on(the(news(channel(and(simultaneously(asks(what(kind(of(

information(the(utility(firm(has(provided(Gregg(with(and(how(much(capacity(the(generator(

is(able(to(provide.(

(

Two(days(later,(David(has(to(present(a(loss(of(1.8(million(US$(to(the(supervisory(board(and(

the(loos(of(a(highly(valuable(client.(Reliance(Steel(&(Aluminum(Corporation(is(just(one(of(

many(that(suffered(from(blackouts.3(These(were(however(not,(as(many(would(probably(

assume,(caused(by(energy(production(shortages,(peak(demands(or(natural(disasters(

destroying(grids(and(connectivity.(The(Houston(based(company(Enron,(often(called(“the(

world’s(greatest(company”(and(its(chief(executive(officer(Kenneth(Lay,(founder(Jeffrey(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((1(One(of(the(blackout(dates(according(to(Leopold((2002).(2(Information(are(obtained(from(the(company(homepage.(3(No(information(is(available(to(proof(that(the(firm(has(suffered(from(the(energy(crisis.(

( 4(

Skilling(and(chief(financial(officer(Andrew(Fastow(were(actually(responsible(for(this(

disaster.(A(disaster(which(lead(to(a(multiple(billionadollar(crisis(in(California,(22.000(Enron(

employees(loosing(their(jobs(and(entire(pension(and(by(far(the(largest(fraud(in(the(history(of(

Corporate(America((Buchter(2006).(

(

Enron(was(known(for(extreme(accountability(mechanisms,(strong(incentivization(schemes(

and(a(culture(of(competition,(pressure(and(avarice.(This(master(thesis(deals(with(the(

investigation(of(how(accountability(influences(decisions.(Enron(held(people(accountable(for(

results.(How(did(employees(achieve(these(results(was(not(questioned(nor(challenged.(Enron(

embodies(an(example(of(how(outcome(accountability(and(basing(monetary(incentives(on(

such(can(lead(to(devilish(behavior(and(extremely(poor(decisions.(The(investigation(at(hand(

wants(to(proof(the(opposite.(

(

Research(has(found(that(holding(people(accountable(to(the(way(they(actually(make(

decisions,(leads(to(better(decisions(than(just(holding(them(accountable(to(the(outcome(of(

their(decisions.4(There(are(many(conditions(for(which(these(research(results(are(valid(and(

for(which(it(is(indeed(better(to(make(sure(employees(follow(a(certain(process(when(making(

a(decision(to(ensure(high(quality.(Nowadays,(many(corporations(including(the(innovative(

firm(Google,(have(implemented(accountability(and(incentivization(methods(which(are(

strongly(based(on(the(process(and(the(how(instead(of(just(the(outcome.(

(

Even(though(it(marks(a(positive(trend,(it(also(takes(away(a(certain(degree(of(freedom,(which(

might(be(necessary(for(certain(types(of(decisions.(Not(everyone(will(come(to(the(same(

answer(using(the(same(strategy.(Decisionamaking(theories(demonstrate(that(there(are(two(

decisionamaking(systems(within(ones(brain,(one(being(highly(rational(and(the(other(rather(

intuitive.5(Even(though(people(often(think(that(it(is(only(the(rational(mind,(that(makes(the(

best(decisions,(the(intuitive(mind(is(sometimes(even(referred(to(as(more(rational(than(the(

rational(mode(of(thinking(itself.(The(intuitive(mode(of(processing(works(unconsciously(and(

retrieves(an(immense(amount(of(information(related(to(experience(and(stored(in(memory(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4(Proof(and(details(can(be(found(in(section(2.3.1(‘Process(accountability(condition’.(5(Concept(is(further(elaborated(in(section(2.2(‘Dualaprocess(theory’.(

(5(

within(a(blink(of(an(eye.6(This(information(is(used(and(a(decision,(or(an(outcome(is(

presented.(It(does(not(however,(seem(rational(to(most(individuals,(which(is(natural,(as(most(

do(not(understand(the(process(of(how(that(decision(was(derived.(This(intuitive(decisiona

making(does(not(work(when(a(process(of(how(to(make(the(decision(is(required.(The(

question(is(thus(whether(or(not(certain(decisions(would(in(the(end(better(be(taken(

intuitively?(Might(it(be(that(holding(people(accountable(to(outcomes(in(the(end(turns(out(to(

be(better(despite(what(happened(at(Enron?(These(are(some(of(the(questions(motivating(the(

interest(of(investigating(the(different(methods(of(accountability,(namely(process(and(

outcome(accountability(and(their(influence(on(decision(accuracy.((

(

Theories,(details(and(the(most(recent(research(findings(on(the(particular(topics(of(interest(

are(presented(in(the(second(chapter(‘Theory’.(The(experimental(setaup(with(design,(subject(

and(procedure(including(manipulation(details(is(formulated(within(chapter(three(‘Method’.(

Details(concerning(the(statistical(analysis(on(manipulation(check(and(hypotheses(testing(

including(statistical(tables(and(graphs(are(presented(within(chapter(four(‘Results’.(Chapter(

five(‘Discussion’(entails(an(analysis(of(results(including(the(discussion(of(findings(and(

limitations(closely(followed(by(Chapter(six(‘Conclusion’.(

(

!

! !

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((6(Phenomenon(is(known(as(heuristics((also(see(section(2.2(‘Dualaprocess(theory’).(

( 6(

CHAPTER(2:(THEORY(

2.1(Decision=Making(

Decisionamaking(is(a(cognitive(action(of(choosing(a(certain(course(of(action(among(various(

alternatives.(In(its(most(simple(form,(the(rational(model(of(choice(implies(that(every(human(

being(has(purpose,(which(explains(behavior.(The(decisionamaking(research(community(has(

formulated(the(model(of(rational(action((Guetzkow(et(al.(1958;(Allison(1971)(which(leads(to(

the(general(understanding(of(personal(objectives.(When(entering(a(decision(situation,(this(

objective(facilitates(the(evaluation(of(possible(courses(of(action.(After(the(collection(of(

necessary(information(and(the(evaluation(of(alternatives,(the(optimal(course(can(be(chosen(

(Eisenhardt(&(Zbaracki(1992).(This(decisionamaking(process(has(been(framed(into(

comprehensive(models(depicting(stages(and(respective(elements(by(Gordon(et(al.((1978),(

Janis(&(Mann((1977)(and(Mintzberg(et(al.((1976).(

(

Every(decision(leads(to(a(certain(outcome(or(economically(speaking(utility.(In(an(

organizational(context,(such(decisionaoutcomes(ultimately(“[…](shape(the(course(of(a(firm”(

(Schwenk(1995,(p17).(With(the(rational(goal(of(every(individual(and(organization(to(

maximize(utility((Levy(1997)(research(on(how(to(optimize(the(quality(of(decisionaoutcomes(

has(become(highly(relevant.((

2.2(Dual=Process(Theory(

Economic(models(of(utility(maximization(have(been(applied(within(the(fields(of(economics,(

psychology,(and(other(social(sciences(to(understand(decisionamaking(processes(and(model(

accountability(and(control(systems(as(well(as(incentive(schemes(accordingly.(Behavioral(

decision(research(has(began(to(look(at(decisionamaking(from(another(perspective,(a(nona

utilityamaximization(perspective,(investigating(how(people(essentially(make(decisions(in(

real(life(taking(actual(circumstances(into(account.(

(

Simon((1955;(1957)(and(Guetzkow(et(al.((1958)(initiated(this(still(emerging(body(of(

research(by(identifying(the(limitations(of(rational(decisionamaking.(Accordingly,(people(are(

not(able(to(constantly(live(up(to(the(standard(of(purely(rational(decisionamaking(and(utility(

maximization.(“Sometimes(people(can(do(no(better(than(to(have(vague(preferences,([…](are(

(7(

only(able(to(make(vague(and(limited(probability(judgments,([…](and(consider(a(very(

restricted(number(of(options,(choosing(one(that(is(reasonably(satisfying([…](rather(than(

maximal”((Evans(&(Over(1996,(p31).(

(

Kahneman(&(Tversky((1979)(were(able(to(proof(that(real(life(choices(are(considerably(

different(from(optimal(choices.(Tversky(&(Kahneman((1974,(1981,(1983)(established(a(

behavioral(economic(model(named(prospect(theory.(This(construct(establishes(that(people(

confronted(with(decisions(involving(certain(outcomes(and(risk(levels(chose(alternatives(

according(to(potential(values(of(looses(and(gains(rather(than(purely(rational(outcomes(by(

mathematical(calculations.(This(is(yet(another(indication(for(nonarational(decisionamaking,(

also(explained(by(framing(and(heuristic(effects.(“[…](organizational(routines(or(heuristics(

are(procedures(for(weighing(and(taking(decisions(which(have(been(built(up(by(the(

organization,(or(by(individual(managers,(in(the(course(of(experience”((Krabuanrat(&(Phelps(

1998,(p84)(also(denoted(as(cognitive(shortcuts((Epstein(1994).(Individuals(make(use(of(

heuristics(as(it(reduces(the(“[…](complex(task(of(assessing(probabilities(and(predicting(

values(to(simpler(judgmental(operations”((Kahneman(2003,(p707).(In(addition,(people(are(

highly(influenced(by(the(framing(effect,(that(is,(whether(or(not(choices(are(represented(as(

losses(or(gains((Tversky(&(Kahneman(1981).(The(achievement(of(proving(that(decisiona

making(is(not(always(rational(but(frequently(boundedarational(was(rewarded(with(the(

Nobel(Prize(to(Kahneman((2002).(

(

This(area(of(research(essentially(goes(back(more(than(100(years,(when(Freud((1900)(

introduced(the(dual(theory(of(information(processing(with(“[…](one(variously(labeled(

intuitive,(automatic,(natural,(nonaverbal,(narrative,(and(experiential(processing(mode,(and(

another(labeled(as(analytical,(deliberative,(verbal,(and(rational(mode(of(processing”(

(Epstein,(1994,(p710).(Posner(&(Snyder((1975)(were(then(the(first(to(further(advance(

research(by(stating(that(people(make(use(of(two(distinct(systems(when(making(decisions.(

According(to(their(theory,(people(make(either(use(of(their(conscious(processing(system,(

which(comes(close(to(rational(decisionamaking,(or(use(automatic(activation,(symbolizing(

realalife(choices(or(bounded(rationality.(Similarly(have(Shiffrin(&(Schneider((1977)(called(

the(two(systems(automatic(and(controlled(processing(respectively.(Epstein((1994)(

( 8(

differentiates(among(an(experiential(and(rational(system.(Evans(&(Over((1996)(investigate(

the(area(from(a(knowledge(perspective(and(label(the(two(systems(tacit(and(explicit(thought(

process.(Sloman((1996)(sets(apart(an(associative(and(ruleabased(system.(

(

The(extensive(literature(on(dualaprocessing(and(the(underlying(two(concepts(have(been(

summarized(and(combined(into(System(1(and(System(2(by(Stanovich(&(West((2000).(

System(1(is(associative,(holistic,(automatic,(relatively(undemanding(of(cognitive(capacity,(

fast,(characterized(by(biology,(exposure(and(personal(experience,(highly(contextualized,(

personalized(and(conversational.(System(2(in(comparison(is(ruleabased,(analytic,(controlled,(

demanding(of(cognitive(capacity,(relatively(slow,(decontextualized,(depersonalized(and(

asocial.(

(

The(rather(intuitive(System(1(and(highly(rational(System(2(thinking(can(be(understood(as(

“[…](two(minds(in(one(brain”((Evans(2003,(p458)(working(simultaneously(together.(Also(

Epstein((1994)(understands(system(1(and(system(2(as(two(separate(dimensions.(According(

to(Eisenhardt(&(Zbaracki((1992,(p22)(however(“[…](they(anchor(ends(of(a(continuum”(

rather(than(representing(two(completely(different(systems.(

2.3(Accountability(

Next(to(system(1(and(system(2(processing,(accountability(is(highly(decisionainfluential(as(

well,(which(is(why(most(incentivization(and(control(systems(are(based(upon(this(particular(

method.(Accountability(is(defined(as(“[…](the(pressure(to(justify(one’s(opinions,(behavior,(

and(decisions(to(others”((Tetlock(1985,(p300).(The(interesting(question(is(how(

accountability(exactly(influences(decisionaquality(and(herewith(the(performance(of(the(

organization(in(the(long(run.((

!

Holding(individuals(accountable(is(practiced(among(most(organizations(and(societies(

worldwide.(Agency(theory(declares(that(agents(need(to(be(held(accountable(and(

incentivized(in(order(to(act(in(the(principle’s(interest((Eisenhardt(1989).(Accountability(is(

thus(a(necessary(intermediary(to(align(interests(by(incentivization(tools.(It(is(however(also(

proven(that(accountability(can(have(dysfunctional(effects(on(decisionaoutcomes((Tetlock(et(

al.(1989;(Tetlock(&(Boettger(1989;(Gordon(et(al.(1988).(

(9(

(

As(illustrated(by(Eisenhardt((1989),(accountability(is(often(strongly(connected(to(incentives.(

Such(extrinsic(monetary(incentives(are(usually(based(on(an(outcome,(for(which(individuals(

are(held(accountable.(Vieider((2011)(finds(differing(effects(among(accountability(and(

extrinsic(monetary(incentives,(which(is(why(the(two(constructs(are(dealt(with(separately(

here.(Extrinsic(monetary(incentives(are(dealt(with(in(detail(in(section(2.5.(Accountability(

without(extrinsic(monetary(incentives(can(also(be(incarnated(as(social(incentives.(People(

want(to(maintain(a(positive(selfaimage,(demonstrate(competence(and(be(perceived(as(

rational(decisionamakers((Beach(&(Tesser(1995;(Tesser(1988).(It(is(thus(accountability(

alone,(that(leads(people(to(induce(more(effort(in(order(to(enhance(their(performance(pride(

and(selfaimage((Smith(2000;(Greenberg(et(al.(2007).(

(

To(further(evaluate(the(exact(effects(of(accountability,(it(is(of(relevance(to(differentiate(

among(process(and(outcome(accountability.(“Outcome(accountability(has(been(defined(as(a(

condition(in(which(evaluation(is(based(on(the(quality(of(the(outcome(of(the(response”(

(SiegelaJacobs(&(Yates(1996,(p2).(“Process(accountability,(on(the(other(hand,(may(be(defined(

as(a(condition(in(which(evaluation(is(based(on(the(quality(of(the(decision(making(process(

used(to(produce(the(response”((Slaughter(et(al.(2006,(p49).((

2.3.1(Process(Accountability(Condition(

Ashton((1992),(De(Dreu(et(al.((2006)(Ford(&(Weldon((1981),(Gordon(et(al.((1988),(Hagafors(

&(Brehmer((1983),(Rozelle(&(Baxter((1981),(Simonson(&(Nye((1992),(Tetlock(&(Boettger(

(1989)(and(Tetlock(et(al.((1989)(proved(within(the(areas(of(public(policy,(employment(

interviews,(negotiations(and(sales(teams(that(process(accountability(relative(to(no(

accountability(leads(to(superior(decision(accuracy.(Holding(individuals(process(accountable(

leads(to(“[…](deep(and(systematic(information(processing([…]”((De(Dreu(et(al.,(2008,(p30),(

“[…](evenhanded(evaluation(of(decision(alternatives([…]”((De(Dreu(&(Carnevale,(2003,(

p270)(and(higher(judgmental(accuracy((Brtek(&(Motowidlo(2002).(

(

These(results(indicate(that(systematic,(ruleabased(and(analytical(decisionamaking(is(at(play,(

which(can(be(identified(as(making(use(of(system(2(processing(in(order(to(take(the(decision.(

It(can(be(concluded(that(process(accountability(leads(to(superior(decisionaaccuracy(as(

( 10(

individuals(are(herewith(induced(to(make(more(use(of(system(2(processing,(which(leads(to(

more(analytic(and(systematic(processing(of(information.(

2.3.2(Outcome(Accountability(Condition(

When(being(confronted(with(outcome(accountability,(individuals(are(being(evaluated(on(the(

outcome(without(taking(into(account(whether(or(not(the(process(of(achieving(such(was(

adequate.(Agency(theory((Eisenhardt(1989)(predicts(that(people(maximize(utility(by(

obtaining(the(best(ratio(of(wealth(and(effort,(enabling(as(much(leisure(next(to(wealth(as(

possible((Bonner(et(al.(2000).(Individuals(thus(avoid(processes(requiring(sustained(

concentration,(attention(and(computing(power((McGuire(1969;(Taylor(1980).(Instead,(

individuals(prefer(to(rely(on(heuristics(and(intuition((Einhorn(&(Hogarth,(2008;(Nisbett(&(

Ross,(1980;(Slovic,(Fischhoff(et(al.,(1977).(Outcome(accountability(provides(people(with(

more(freedom(in(respect(of(how(to(make(a(decision;(they(will(consequently(make(more(use(

of(cognitive(shortcuts,(increasingly(relying(on(their(rather(fast(and(effortless(system(1(

processing.(Outcome(accountability(can(be(expected(to(induce(system(1(processing.(

(

According(to(Brtek(&(Motowidlo((2002),(outcome(accountability(leads(to(negative(effects(on(

decisionaquality.(It(is(yet(important(to(notice,(that(outcome(accountability(was(

operationalized(by(the(provision(of(extrinsic(monetary(incentives(and(not,(as(is(the(case(in(

this(theory,(the(simple(evaluation(of(outcomes,(making(applicability(and(comparison(rather(

difficult.(Studies(investigating(outcome(accountability(in(combination(with(extrinsic(

monetary(incentives(have(identified(many(dysfunctional(effects.(Less(cooperation,(

helpfulness(and(truthfulness(as(well(as(selfish(behavior(lead(to(compromised(decisiona

quality.(Langhe(et(al.((2011,(p238)(“[…](challenge(the(view(that(it(is(always(better(to(hold(

decision(makers(accountable(for(their(decision(process(rather(than(their(decision(

outcomes”.(Their(investigation(takes(a(closer(look(at(the(relationship(of(process(in(

comparison(to(outcome(and(no(accountability(but(does(not(find(any(decisionaquality(

relationship(for(outcome(accountability.(It(is(interesting(to(observe(the(diversity(of(research(

results(indicating(in(some(cases(dysfunctional(effects(and(in(others(no(relationship(at(all.(

This(calls(for(further(investigation(and(factors(that(are(able(to(explain(such(differences.(

Exercises,(tasks(and(decisions(to(be(made(are(different(in(its(nature(and(consequently(

(11(

represent(one(of(the(possible(explanations(for(these(differences(in(research(findings.(The(

influence(of(task(characteristics(is(discussed(in(section(2.6.(

2.3.3(No(Accountability(Condition(

In(addition(to(the(cases(of(holding(people(accountable(to(their(process(or(outcome,(some(

individuals(are(not(held(accountable(at(all.(Decision(accuracy(differences(are(expected(

among(the(condition(of(no(accountability(in(comparison(to(process(and(outcome(

accountability.(Does(the(mode(of(cognitive(processing(help(to(explain(this(phenomenon?(

According(to(agency(theory((Eisenhardt(1989;(Bonner(&(Sprinkle(2002)(and(the(theory(of(

cognitive(misers((Taylor(1980;(McGuire(1969)(people(avoid(intensive(system(2(processing(

when(not(being(held(accountable(for(the(process,(which(in(turn(translates(into(the(

assumption(that(individuals(will(rely(on(system(1(processing(when(not(being(held(

accountable(at(all(as(well.(People(within(this(accountability(condition(consequently(prefer(

to(make(less(use(of(system(2(and(more(use(of(system(1(processing,(relying(on(heuristics,(

experiences(and(intuitive(gut(feeling.(

(

Given(that(this(implies(that(outcome(accountable(people(make(use(of(the(same(cognitive(

approach(as(individuals(not(held(accountable(at(all,(it(becomes(questionable(whether(the(

cognitive(approach(is(the(only(factor(explaining(performance(and(decision(accuracy(

differences(among(the(conditions(of(no(accountability(and(process(and(outcome(

accountability.(Next(to(system(1(and(system(2(processing,(there(must(be(another(highly(

important(determent,(explaining(the(performance(difference(one(will(most(likely(observe(

between(the(conditions(of(outcome(and(no(accountability.(

2.4(Activation(And(Task(Effort(

“Additional(cognitive(effort(induced(by(accountability(is(found(to(improve(decisions([…]”(

(Vieider(2009,(p99).(Accountability(in(general(leads(on(one(hand(to(a(certain(cognitive(

approach(as(well(as(task(effort.(The(chosen(cognitive(approach(of(system(1(and(system(2(is(

thus(present(in(all(accountability(cases(including(no(accountability.(Task(effort(however(is(

only(induced(by(process(and(outcome(accountability(leading(to(task(relevant(activation.((

(

( 12(

Ashby(et(al.((1999)(demonstrate(that(performance(is(consistently(influenced(by(positive(

affect.(“Activating([…](moods(increase(working(memory(capacity,(facilitating([…](more(

deliberate(analytical,(and(focused(processing(and(combining(of(information”((De(Dreu(et(al.(

2008,(p741).(At(the(same(time(Staw(et(al.((1981,(p506)(conduct(experiments(where(threat(

situations(are(induced(and(find(that(individuals(have(the(tendency(to(“[…](narrow(attention(

to(include(dominant(cues(and(exclude(peripheral(cues”(relying(on(heuristics(when(making(

decisions.(Accountability(inducing(activation,(leading(to(more(effort,(can(thus(be(proven(to(

work(simultaneously(with(both(system(1(and(system(2(processing.(

(

Lewinsohn(&(Mano((1993)(establish(a(twoadimensional(activation(model.(Accordingly,(

individuals(can(be(positively(and(negatively(affected(which(leads(to(pleasantness(and(

unpleasantness(respectively;(at(the(same(time(one(can(be(aroused(or(quiet,(representing(the(

second(dimension.(Individuals(in(the(“[…](more(pleasant(mood(deliberated(longer,(acquired(

more(information(before(deciding,(made(more(interadimensional(moves,(and(reaexamined(

more(information(to(which(they(had(been(previously(exposed”((Lewinsohn(&(Mano(1993,(

p41).(People(in(the(unpleasantness(stage(devoted(less(resources(and(time(as(the(task(and(its(

corresponding(decisions(represent(a(burden,(which(needed(to(be(overcome(as(quickly(as(

possible.(Individuals(threatened,(for(example(by(a(situation(of(being(held(accountable,(are(in(

general(aroused(instead(of(quite(and(calm.(“[…](aroused(subjects(tended(to(reveal(fewer(

entries,(made(fewer(repetitions(of(previously(revealed(items,(and(reduced(information(

search(by(ignoring(more(dimensions([…](enabling(the(decision(maker(to(allocate(scarce(

attentional(resources(in(a(simple(manner(and(to(the(few(dimensions(considered(as(most(

important”((Lewinsohn(&(Mano(1993,(p41).(Even(though(highly(interesting,(it(is(outside(the(

scope(of(the(current(study(to(investigate(the(linkage(of(task(effort(and(cognitive(approach,(

linking(affect(and(arousal(dimensions(with(system(1(and(system(2(processing.(Instead,(for(

this(study(it(is(relevant(to(understand(and(establish(that(both(process(and(outcome(

accountability(induce(task(relevant(activation,(which(in(turn(has(been(proven(to(lead(to(

superior(decision(quality(in(one(way(or(another((Ashby(et(al.,(1999;(Ashton,(2007;(

Aspinwall,(1998;(Carnevale(&(Isen,(1986;(Chamberlain(et(al.,(2006;(Drabant(et(al.,(2006;(

Flaherty,(2005;(Floresco(&(Phillips,(2001;(Lewinsohn(&(Mano,(1993;(Lyubomirsky(et(al.,(

2005;(Nieuwenhuis(et(al.,(2005;(Staw(et(al.,(1981;(Usher,(1999).(

(13(

2.5(Incentives(

Effort(is(however(not(induced(by(accountability(alone.(Next(to(the(activation(factor(of(

accountability,(incentives(play(a(large(role(as(well.(Incentives(are(in(this(case(defined(as(

extrinsic(monetary(incentives.((Such(“[…](monetary(incentives(work(by(increasing(effort(

which,(in(turn,(leads(to(increases(in(performance”((Bonner(&(Sprinkle(2002,(p304).(

(

Incentives(can(on(one(hand(lead(to(an(enhancement(of(current(performance(through(

increased(effort(direction,(duration(and(intensity.(On(the(other(hand,(incentives(lead(to(

acquiring(the(necessary(skills,(also(called(strategy(development,(for(increasing(performance(

in(the(future,(once(task(relevant(skills(have(been(obtained((Bettman(et(al.(1990;(Kahneman(

1973;(Locke(&(Latham(1990).(Incentives(lead(in(both(cases(to(more(effort,(with(the(only(

difference,(that(only(the(first(will(lead(to(immediate(performance(enhancement((Bonner(&(

Sprinkle(2002).(

(

Vroom((1964)(investigated(the(topic(of(motivation,(effort(and(performance(in(detail(and(

published(detailed(results(in(his(book(‘Work(and(motivation’.(In(general,(people(prefer(to(

work(and(invest(effort(as(it(“[…](offers(financial(remuneration,(expenditure(of(energy,(

involves(the(production(of(goods(and(services,(requires(social(interaction(and(affects(the(

social(status(of(the(worker”((Vroom(1964,(p43).(The(provision(of(remuneration(in(the(form(

of(financial(incentives(is(one(of(the(many(motivating(factors(to(invest(an(increasing(amount(

of(effort.(

(

Vroom's(expectancy(theory((1964)(further(elucidates(how(motivation(to(invest(more(effort(

is(dependent(on(the(expected(relationship(of(the(amount(of(effort(that(needs(to(be(invested(

in(order(to(obtain(a(certain(outcome(as(well(as(the(valence(of(that(particular(outcome.(

Providing(monetary(incentives(as(an(additional(product(of(the(outcome,(the(attractiveness(

of(such(increases(and(thus(influences(the(expectancy(of(the(effortaoutcome(function(and(the(

motivation(for(investing(more(effort.(Financial(rewards(lead(to(the(opportunity(of(fulfilling(

ones(desires(as(individuals(can(obtain(things(they(want.(Next(to(pleasing(wishes,(monetary(

rewards(lead(to(symbolic(value(of(status(and(prestige((Jorgenson(&(Dunnette,(1973;(Locke(

&(Latham,(1990;(Pritchard(et(al.,(1976).(

( 14(

(

The(link(of(monetary(incentives(leading(to(more(effort(and(ultimately(performance(can(also(

be(explained(by(agency(theory((Baiman(1990;(Eisenhardt(1989).(Accordingly,(agents(

behave(rationally,(maximizing(utility(by(increasing(wealth(and(decreasing(effort(as(much(as(

possible(to(obtain(as(much(leisure(and(wealth(as(possible.(Increasing(wealth(by(financial(

rewards(offsets(increasing(effort.(

(

One(can(thus(suggest(that(extrinsic(monetary(incentives(lead(to(superior(decisionaaccuracy(

through(increased(task(effort.((

2.6(Influence(Of(Task(Characteristics(

Despite(the(recognition(of(incentive(effects,(scholars(have(found(different(results(when(

investigating(the(effects(of(different(conditions(of(accountability(on(the(accuracy(of(

decisions.(Understanding(the(particular(context(and(circumstances,(under(which(decisions(

are(being(made(can(help(to(understand(such(differing(research(results.(One(of(the(many(

circumstances(are(the(very(vital(task(characteristics,(which(highly(influence(the(accuracy(of(

decisionaoutcomes.(In(general,(any(task,(exercise(or(decision(to(be(carried(out(has(a(certain(

degree(of(complexity(and(time(pressure((Payne(et(al.(1993).(Task(complexity(is(dependent(

on(the(amount(of(possible(alternatives(and(the(number(of(attributes(to(be(taken(into(

consideration.(The(more(alternatives(and(the(less(time(made(available,(the(more(complex(

evolves(the(task(to(be.((

(

Langhe(et(al.((2011)(further(draw(a(distinction(among(elemental(and(configural(tasks.(In(

elemental(tasks(“[…](the(true(outcome(can(be(relatively(well(approximated(by(a(linear(

additive(combination(of(cue(values([…]”(whereas(“[…](cues(interact(with(each(other(to(

predict(the(outcome”(in(configural(tasks((Langhe(et(al.,(2011,(p239).(Elemental(tasks(are(

consequently(better(approached(by(analytical(and(rational(processing.(Translating(task(

characteristics(into(dualaprocess(theory,(one(might(argue(that(analytical(tasks(are(better(

solved(by(the(usage(of(system(2(processing,(which(is(analytic,(ruleabased(and(controlled.(For(

the(nature(of(configural(tasks,(system(1(processing,(characterized(by(intuition(and(

automation(is(more(adequate,(as(cognitive(shortcuts(in(ones(brain(enable(to(find(a(solution(

despite(the(vast(complexity.(It(is(as(a(result(established(that(both(system(1(and(system(2(

(15(

processing(can(lead(to(superior(but(also(suboptimal(decision(accuracy(depending(on(task.(

When(confronted(with(an(intuitive(task,(system(1(processing(leads(to(superior(outcomes,(

whereas(analytical(tasks(are(best(engaged(by(system(2(processing.(

2.7(Decision(Quality(Trade=Off(Among(Accuracy(And(Speed(

Most(scholars(and(psychological(studies(treat(decision(quality(as(a(function(of(accuracy(and(

speed((Förster(et(al.(2003).(Quality(is(a(tradeaoff(among(speed(and(accuracy.(Naturally,(the(

more(time(one(takes(to(come(to(a(conclusion,(the(more(time(is(available(for(proper(and(deep(

analysis(leading(to(higher(accuracy.(However,(at(some(point(the(extra(time(needed(to(come(

to(higher(accuracy(does(not(compensate(for(the(increase(in(accuracy.(This(is(why(the(

academic(community(has(defined(decision(quality(in(terms(of(decision(accuracy(and(speed.(

Throughout(this(contribution,(focus(is(set(on(decision(accuracy(rather(than(quality,(which(

would(imply(to(take(speed(into(account(as(well.((

2.8(Conceptual(Model(

Now,(that(a(clear(distinction(is(drawn(among(task(types(and(the(tradeaoff(among(accuracy(

and(speed,(the(vast(amount(of(published(research(results(stating(that(process(accountability(

in(comparison(to(outcome(accountability(leads(to(superior(performance(and(decision(

accuracy(can(be(challenged.(It(is(of(high(interest(to(investigate(whether(or(not(outcome(

accountability(could(actually(be(beneficial(for(performing(intuitive(tasks.(Through(inducing(

system(1(processing,(outcome(accountability(could(result(in(higher(decision(accuracy(than(

process(or(no(accountability.(

(

Analyzing(this(particular(issue(from(a(more(practical(viewpoint,(it(has(often(been(suggested(

that(process(accountability(can(also(lead(to(unnecessary(costs(without(the(benefit(of(better(

decision(accuracy(in(the(end.(Individuals(will(often(make(their(decision(within(a(blink(of(an(

eye.(The(idea(of(process(accountability(is(however(to(carefully(retrieve,(sort(and(analyze(

information(in(order(to(then(make(a(proper(decision(with(those(respective(information(

which(are(then(also(used(to(justify(the(decision(itself(in(the(end.(In(practice(however,(

individuals(often(make(up(their(mind(intuitively(using(system(1(and(if(process(

accountability(is(however(required,(they(will(make(use(of(information(tunneling(and(

retrospective(reasoning.(These(concepts(imply(that(after(the(decision(has(been(taken,(

( 16(

information(is(obtained(and(analyzed(in(a(way(to(fit(the(already(taken(decision(outcome.(

This(method,(which(most(individuals(have(most(likely(experienced(for(themselves,(leads(on(

one(hand(to(unnecessary(time(consumption(and(possibly(to(suboptimal(decision(accuracy.((

(

Figure(2.8:(‘Theoretical(Model’(depicts(the(outlined(relationships(influencing(decision(

accuracy.(Accountability([A](induces(task(effort(and(cognitive(approach([B],(which(in(turn(

affect(decision(accuracy([D](depending(on(task(characteristics([C].(Incentivization([A](

further(induces(task(effort([B].(In(order(to(thoroughly(investigate(the(effects(of(

accountability(on(decision(accuracy,(six(hypotheses(have(been(outlined.(

(Figure(2.8:(Theoretical(Model(

2.8.1(Hypotheses(

One(can(expect(that(performing(analytical(tasks(lead(to(higher(decision(accuracy(under(the(

condition(of(process(accountability,(lower(decision(accuracy(under(the(condition(of(

outcome(accountability(and(the(lowest(decision(accuracy(under(the(condition(of(no(

accountability.(

(

Process(accountability(induces(system(2(processing,(which(is(highly(suitable(for(analytical(

tasks.(In(addition,(accountability(in(general(leads(to(activation(and(increased(task(effort.(

These(two(factors(combined(lead(to(higher(decision(accuracy(relative(to(the(conditions(of(

outcome(and(no(accountability.(When(being(confronted(with(the(condition(of(outcome(

accountability(however,(system(1(processing(is(induced,(which(is(not(particular(suitable(for(

analytical(tasks,(as(a(rather(intuitive(cognitive(approach(with(the(reliance(on(heuristics(is(

(17(

being(applied.(Without(any(accountability,(system(1(processing(without(activation(and(

additional(effort(is(induced,(resulting(in(the(lowest(decision(accuracy.(

(

In(analytical(tasks:(

H1:(Process(accountability(leads(to(higher(decision(accuracy(relative(to(outcome(

accountability.(

H2:(No(accountability(leads(to(lower(decision(accuracy(relative(to(both(process(and(

outcome(accountability.(

(

One(can(expect(that(performing(intuitive(tasks(lead(to(higher(decision(accuracy(under(the(

condition(of(outcome(accountability,(lower(decision(accuracy(under(the(condition(of(

process(accountability(and(the(lowest(decision(accuracy(under(the(condition(of(no(

accountability.(

(

Outcome(accountability(induces(system(1(processing,(which(is(highly(suitable(for(intuitive(

tasks.(In(combination(with(additional(effort(through(the(effect(of(activation,(higher(decision(

accuracy(is(expected.(Process(accountability(and(no(accountability(will(lead(to(lower(and(

the(lowest(decision(accuracy(respectively(as(explained(above(in(the(case(of(analytical(tasks.(

(

In(intuitive(tasks:(

H3:(Outcome(accountability(leads(to(higher(decision(accuracy(relative(to(process(

accountability.(

H4:(No(accountability(leads(to(lower(decision(accuracy(relative(to(both(outcome(and(

process(accountability.(

(

One(can(expect(that(extrinsic(monetary(incentives(increase(decision(accuracy.(Incentives(

induce(activation,(which(in(turn(leads(to(an(increased(amount(of(task(effort.(In(both(analytic(

and(intuitive(tasks,(decision(accuracy(under(all(accountability(types(should(marginally(

increase.(

(

H5:(Incentives(increase(decision(accuracy.(

( 18(

(

A(motivational(ceiling(effect(leads(to(incremental(instead(of(strongly(increasing(effects.(For(

the(sake(of(argument(an(individual(is(able(to(have(a(maximal(effort(of(1.5(induced(by(

conditions(of(both(incentives(and(accountability.(If(a(person(is(however(induced(by(only(one(

condition(of(either(incentives(or(accountability,(he(will(have(an(effort(amount(of(1.(Since(

there(is(a(ceiling(effect,(putting(incentives(on(top(of(the(accountability(condition(does(not(

lead(to(a(total(effort(of(2(but(only(1.5(resulting(in(a(marginal(increase(of(0.5(in(effort(and(

consequently(decision(accuracy(in(the(end.(

(

This(translates(into(the(assumption(that(individuals(not(being(held(accountable(will(

increase(their(decision(accuracy(more(than(those(within(the(conditions(of(process(and(

outcome(accountability(when(providing(extrinsic(monetary(incentives.(Individuals(within(

the(condition(of(process(or(outcome(accountability(are(already(confronted(with(1(for(effort,(

increased(by(0.5(to(1.5.(In(the(case(of(no(accountability(however,(it(increases(from(0(to(1(

with(an(increase(of(1.(This(leads(to(the(hypothesis:(

(

H6:(Incentives(within(the(condition(of(no(accountability(increase(decision(accuracy(more(

than(within(the(conditions(of(process(and(outcome(accountability.(

! !

(19(

CHAPTER(3:(METHOD(

3.1(Design(

As(used(in(most(accounting(research,(this(contribution(makes(use(of(an(experiment(in(order(

to(test(the(outlined(hypotheses.(A(3(x(2(between(subject(design(is(used,(with(three(

accountability(conditions((process/outcome/no)(and(two(incentive(conditions((yes/no).(

The(experiment(was(conducted(at(the(Erasmus(Behavioral(Lab(at(the(Rotterdam(School(of(

Management,(Erasmus(University(in(the(Netherlands(within(multiple(oneahour(sessions(

throughout(the(period(of(one(week.(

3.2(Subjects(

The(sample(consisted(of(132(students(from(the(Erasmus(University.(49%(of(the(

participating(subjects(hold(the(Dutch(nationality,(8%(are(Chinese,(7%(Bulgarian(and(the(

remaining(36%(consist(of(participants(from(27(more(nations.(Subjects’(gender(is(to(57%(

female(and(83%(were(within(the(age(range(of(19(and(24(years.(83%(studied(business(and(

economic(related(programs.(Others(were(following(studies(within(the(areas(of(psychology,(

sociology(and(law.(58%(were(pursuing(their(undergraduate(program(with(the(remaining(

participants(working(on(a(Master’s(degree.(Participants(were(incentivized(to(participate(

within(the(experiment(by(offering(a(compensation(of(fixed(10(Euros(plus(the(possibility(of(a(

bonus(for(a(period(of(one(hour.((

3.3(Procedures(

Subjects(were(able(to(register(for(the(experiment(online.(The(sessions(took(place(during(the(

last(week(of(November(2012.(One(of(the(instructors(picked(up(the(students(for(each(session(

at(the(waiting(room(by(calling(out(their(names.(After(following(the(instructor(to(the(testing(

area,(students(were(seated(into(one(of(the(six(available(cubicles.(Next,(they(were(told(to(

switch(off(their(cell(phones(to(then(begin(with(the(computerized(experiment.(Participants(

were(in(addition(informed(that(the(study(would(last(one(hour.(All(instructions(were(

provided(on(the(screen(and(the(instructor(was(available(for(any(remaining(questions(any(

time.((

(

( 20(

After(pressing(the(‘start’(button,(a(screen(asking(for(general(demographic(information(such(

as(age,(gender,(nationality,(study(program(and(year(of(study(appeared.(A(screen(with(

instructions(was(shown(afterwards,(which(was(automatically(adapted(to(the(randomly(

assigned(condition(of(accountability(and(incentivization.(All(participants(were(informed(

that(a(final(score(would(be(computed(to(track(their(performance.(Instructions(appeared(as(

follows:(

(

This%session%consists%of%a%number%of%separate,%unrelated%tasks.%Each%task%is%introduced%in%a%

separate%instruction.%Throughout%the%session,%you%can%score%points%by%performing%well.%Try%to%

score%as%many%points%as%you%can.%For%each%task,%the%minimum%score%is%0%and%the%maximum%

score%is%100.%The%tasks%have%been%designed%to%be%approximately%equally%difficult.%The%specific%

task%instructions%further%explain%how%you%can%score%the%points.%At%the%end%of%the%computer%

session,%your%points%are%added%up%and%converted%into%a%final%score%according%to%the%table%

below.%You%will%then%be%informed%of%your%final%score.%

%

%

%

%

(

(

(

(

(

3.3.1(Manipulation(Of(Incentives(

Half(of(the(participants(were(randomly(assigned(to(the(incentive(condition.(Upfront,(all(

individuals(were(informed(that(the(participation(of(this(experiment(would(results(in(a(fixed(

compensation(of(10(Euros(plus(the(possibility(of(a(bonus(payment.(Everyone(was(

encouraged(to(score(as(many(points(as(possible.(Based(on(Arkes(et(al.((1986),(Ashton(

(2007),(Eskenazi((2012),(Jorgenson(&(Dunnette((1973),(Pokorny((2008)(and(Vieider((2011)(

participants(within(the(condition(of(incentives(were(additionally(informed(that(depending(

on(their(score,(they(were(able(to!gain(up(to(additional(10(Euros,(resulting(in(a(possible(

Points! Final!score!

0(–(50( 0(

51(–(100( 2(

101(–(150( 4(

151(–(200( 6(

201(–(250( 8(

251(–(300( 10(

(21(

maximum(outcome(of(20(Euros.(Subjects(within(the(condition(of(no(incentivization(were(

informed(that(they(would(receive(a(fixed(bonus(payment(of(5(Euros(in(order(to(keep(the(

average(median(gain(of(all(participants(constant.(Concrete(instructions(were(provided(as(

follows:(

3.3.1.1$Condition$1:$No$Incentives$

Your%participation%will%be%rewarded%with%10%Euros.%In%addition,%you%will%receive%5%Euros%as%a%

bonus%payment.%You%will%be%able%to%collect%the%final%amount%of%15%Euros%at%the%end%of%the%

experiment.%

3.3.1.2$Condition$2:$Incentives$

Your%participation%will%be%rewarded%with%10%Euros.%In%addition,%you%will%receive%a%bonus%of%0%to%

10%Euros,%depending%on%your%final%score.%You%will%be%able%to%collect%the%final%amount%of%10%to%20%

Euros%at%the%end%of%the%experiment.%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

(

3.3.2(Manipulation(Of(Accountability(

The(manipulation(of(accountability(conditions(is(adopted(from(Brtek(&(Motowidlo((2002),(

Langhe(et(al.((2011),(Markman(&(Tetlock((2000),(SiegelaJacobs(&(Yates((1996)(Simonson(&(

Staw((1992)(and(Slaughter(et(al.((2006),(who(have(manipulated(various(forms(of(

accountability(including(process(and(outcome(versus(the(condition(of(no(accountability.(

Before(manipulation,(subjects(were(informed(that:(

(

In%this%study,%we%are%interested%to%learn%about%people’s%decisionGmaking.%Please%use%the%

approach%you%believe%is%most%suitable%for%each%task.%

Points! Final!score! Reward!

0(–(50( 0( EUR(0(

51(–(100( 2( EUR(2(

101(–(150( 4( EUR(4(

151(–(200( 6( EUR(6(

201(–(250( 8( EUR(8(

251(–(300( 10( EUR(10(

( 22(

%

Depending(on(condition,(the(information(was(further(continued(by(the(respective(

manipulation(text((see(below).(

3.3.2.1$Condition$1:$Process$Accountability$

Subjects(in(the(condition(of(process(accountability(were(informed(that(they(would(be(

evaluated(using(a(faceatoaface(interview(in(the(end(with(one(of(the(instructors,(where(they(

would(have(to(justify(the(approach(they(made(use(of(in(order(to(solve(the(tasks.(After(each(

task(set,(individuals(were(asked(to(write(down(a(short(text(about(the(way(they(made(their(

decisions.(In(addition,(they(were(explicitly(told(that(their(evaluation(was(based(on(the(way(

they(made(the(decisions(instead(of(their(final(score.(The(text(attached(to(the(first(sentence(

looked(in(this(particular(case(as(follows:(

(

The%approach%you%take%in%solving%the%tasks%will%be%evaluated%in%a%faceGtoGface%interview%with%

the%experiment%leader%at%the%end%of%the%session.%You%will%have%to%justify%the%process%you%used%in%

the%tasks.%Your%responses%and%final%score%will%not%be%known%to%the%interviewer.%

%

Additionally,%at%the%end%of%each%task,%you%will%be%asked%to%briefly%describe%in%writing%the%way%

you%approached%the%task.%

3.3.2.2$Condition$2:$Outcome$Accountability$

Participants(in(the(condition(of(outcome(accountability(were(informed(that(their(final(score(

would(be(discussed(within(a(faceatoaface(interview(in(the(very(end.(After(each(task(set,(

individuals(were(asked(to(write(down(a(short(selfaevaluation.(The(text(attached(to(the(first(

sentence(looked(like(the(following(in(this(case:(

(

The%final%score%you%achieve%in%solving%the%tasks%will%be%evaluated%in%a%faceGtoGface%interview%

with%the%experiment%leader%at%the%end%of%the%session.%The%interviewer%will%review%your%

responses%and%final%score,%and%will%ask%you%to%comment.%

%

Additionally,%at%the%end%of%each%task,%you%will%be%asked%to%briefly%describe%in%writing%how%you%

assess%your%own%performance.%

(23(

3.3.2.3$Condition$3:$No$Accountability$

Participants(in(the(condition(of(no(accountability(were(simply(informed(that(all(of(their(

responses(would(be(kept(confidential(and(anonymous.(To(keep(all(conditions(as(constant(as(

possible,(participants(were(asked(to(write(down(their(opinion(about(each(task.(The(attached(

text(read(as(follows:(

(

Care%is%taken%to%guarantee%your%anonymity.%The%computer%program%stores%your%responses%

under%a%randomly%assigned%participant%number.%Your%responses%will%remain%anonymous%and%

cannot%be%traced%back%to%you.%Your%name%will%not%be%linked%in%any%way%to%the%data%collected%in%

this%session.%%

%

At%the%end%of%each%task,%you%will%be%asked%to%briefly%describe%in%writing%your%personal%opinion%

on%the%task.%

(

After(reading(explanations(and(instructions,(participants(were(able(to(start(working(on(the(

first(task.(

3.4(Analytical(Task(

The(analytical(task7(consists(of(16(math(problems(presented(in(matrices((see(Figure(2:(

‘Analytical(Task(Example’).(The(objective(is(to(identify(the(cell(with(the(highest(product.(The(

product(of(each(red(cell(is(calculated(by(multiplying(the(number(of(the(red(cell(with(the(

column(header(number(and(row(header(number.(

(

!! 9! 6! 7! 3! 8!

9! 6! 9! 2! 5! 5!

10! 5! 7! 7! 3! 6!

6! 4! 5! 5! 8! 10!

4! 8! 10! 6! 9! 4!

8! 6! 8! 9! 8! 7!

Figure(3.4:(Analytical(Task(Example(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((7(The(analytical(task(has(been(designed(by(coastudent(Dijkstra((2012).(

( 24(

(

For(Figure(2:(‘Analytical(Task(Example’,(the(correct(answer(corresponds(to(the(numbers(8a

9a7((rowacellacolumn),(resulting(in(the(multiplication(product(of(504,(which(represents(the(

highest(product(within(this(matrix.(

(

According(to(Payne(et(al.((1993),(individuals(confronted(with(such(complex(problems(are(

likely(to(adopt(two(possible(strategies(in(solving(these(tasks.(One(of(these(strategies(

includes(the(calculation(of(all(possibilities(to(find(the(correct(answer(by(comparing(all(

results.(The(other(strategy,(which(is(based(on(heuristics,(includes(the(identification(of(the(

two(highest(numbers(in(the(column(headline,(the(row(headline(and(red(matrix(itself(to(then(

simply(compare(numbers(or(calculate(those(combinations(and(identify(the(highest(product(

of(such(in(the(end.(Strategy(one(corresponds(to(system(2(processing,(whereas(the(later(

corresponds(to(system(1(processing.(

(

Two(versions(of(analytical(tasks(are(being(used(in(the(present(study,(which(are(randomly(

mixed.(One(version(includes(eight(dominant(tasks.(With(a(dominant(task,(the(highest(

product(will(always(be(within(the(two(highest(numbers(of(each(row(header,(column(header(

and(matrix.(For(the(eight(nonadominant(tasks,(the(highest(product(will(always(lie(for(one(or(

two(numbers(outside(the(two(highest(numbers,(which(requires(subjects(to(solve(the(

problem(with(systematic(system(2(processing(in(order(to(arrive(at(the(correct(solution.(As(

the(task(needs(to(be(not(only(system(2(compatible(but(also(system(1(compatible,(the(

dominant(task(version(is(used(during(the(results(analysis(only.(Subjects(are,(next(to(system(

2(processing,(able(to(solve(the(task(by(identifying(the(highest(numbers(and(make(a(decision(

rather(intuitive(as(well.(

3.5(Intuitive(Task(

The(intuitive(task8(involved(the(evaluation(of(advertisements((ads).(The(ads(have(been(

evaluated(by(a(group(of(RSM(students(in(a(recent(study(and(the(task(throughout(this(study(

consisted(of(estimating(the(score(each(ad(had(received(during(that(particular(past(

investigation.(Students(in(the(past(were(instructed(to(particularly(rate(the(ad(itself,(and(not(

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((8(The(intuitive(task(is(reproduced(with(permission(from(Eskenazi((2012).(

(25(

the(product(or(brand(being(promoted.(A(likert(scale(from(one(to(nine(was(used(to(estimate(

the(score(each(ad(had(received.(The(subject(was(presented(with(a(total(of(20(ads(with(a(

maximum(of(100(points(to(be(scored.(

(

The(task(has(been(adapted(from(McMackin(&(Slovic((2000).(It(is(particularly(beneficial(for(

testing(task(approach,(as(it(is(on(one(hand(“[…](visual(and(complex,(but(also(includes(

features(which(are(readily(identifiable(by(untrained(observers((e.g.(good(picture(or(catchy(

byline).(As(such,(this(is(a(task(which(can(be(approached(either(analytically(or(holistically”(

(McMackin(&(Slovic,(2000,(p532).(The(task(thus(allows(for(both(system(1(and(system(2(

processing,(which(is(vital(to(not(influence(the(subject(with(the(task(itself(but(with(the(

condition(of(manipulation(only.(Individuals(can(therefore(either(make(use(of(system(2(

processing(by(“[…](identifying(specific(characteristics(of(each(ad(which(she(feels(are(likely(to(

appeal(to(the(target(audience(and(then(select(the(ad(which(has(the(highest(number(of(

positive(features”((McMackin(&(Slovic,(2000,(p532)(or(make(use(of(system(1(processing(by(

“[…](simply(selecting(the(ad(which(she(finds(most(‘intuitively’(appealing”((McMackin(&(

Slovic,(2000,(p532).(

3.6(Manipulation(Check(

In(order(to(validate(the(manipulations,(a(posttest(questionnaire(was(provided(at(the(end(of(

the(experiment.(For(the(various(manipulations(of(accountability(and(incentivization,(

subjects(were(asked(about(the(possibility(of(a(faceatoaface(interview,(their(task(approach,(

their(final(score,(their(feeling(of(anonymity(and(their(perceived(payment(structure(with(the(

possibility(to(not(agree(at(all(or(to(agree(very(much(with(various(possibilities(on(a(likert(

scale.(

3.6.1(Process(And(Outcome(Accountability(

I%am%expecting%to%have%a%faceGtoGface%interview.%%

3.6.2(Process(Accountability$

During%the%faceGtoGface%interview%I%am%expecting%to%explain%how%I%solved%the%tasks.%%

3.6.3(Outcome(Accountability$

During%the%faceGtoGface%interview%I%am%expecting%to%discuss%my%score%with%an%instructor.%%

( 26(

3.6.4(No(Accountability(

I%felt%that%my%answers%would%be%treated%anonymously.%(

3.6.5(Incentivization(

Achieving%a%higher%final%score%leads%to%a%better%pay.%%

3.7(Mediator(Check(

In(addition(to(validating(the(manipulation(of(independent(variables,(the(provision(of(two(

additional(questions(enabled(the(comparison(of(results(and(how(they(are(related(to(the(

mediating(variables.(Subjects(were(asked(questions(about(task(effort(as(well(as(cognitive(

approach(with(the(same(answer(possibilities(used(in(the(manipulation(check(questionnaire.(

3.7.1(Task(Effort(

During%the%tasks,%I%was%highly%focused.%%

During%the%tasks,%I%believed%that%more%effort%led%to%a%higher%score.%%

3.7.2(Cognitive(Approach(

During%the%tasks,%I%relied%on%rational%thinking.%

During%the%tasks,%I%relied%on%intuitions.%

%

At(the(end(of(the(experiment,(subjects(were(informed(about(their(final(score(and(in(case(of(

incentivization(condition(their(extra(earnings.(Subjects(in(the(condition(of(outcome(or(

process(accountability(were(asked(to(follow(one(of(the(instructors(to(a(separate(room(for(

conducting(the(final(faceatoaface(interview.(The(interview(lasted(no(longer(than(three(

minutes;(subjects(had(to(either(explain(their(approach(in(solving(the(tasks(or(discuss(the(

final(score(and(their(corresponding(selfaassessment.(After(paying(subjects(for(their(

participation,(subjects(were(released.(

3.8(Note(

For(more(details(of(the(procedure(of(this(experiment,(please(also(refer(to(Appendix(I:(

‘Experiment(Script’(and(Appendix(II:(‘Experiment(Script’.(The(study(was(part(of(a(series(and(

has(been(conducted(in(cooperation(with(three(additional(Master(students,(which(is(why(the(

description(above(only(includes(instructions,(questions(and(tasks,(relevant(for(this(

(27(

contribution.(In(addition(subjects(were(confronted(with(tasks(of(creativity(as(well(as(

questionnaires(about(personal(differences,(which(are(not(of(relevance(in(the(present(study.(

!

!

! !

( 28(

CHAPTER(4:(RESULTS(

4.1(Manipulation(Check((

For(testing(whether(or(not(manipulations(have(worked(as(anticipated,(a(postatest(

questionnaire(was(presented(to(participants(at(the(very(end(of(the(experiment.(A(oneaway(

betweenagroups(analysis(of(variance(and(two(independentasamples(tatest’s(were(conducted(

to(explore(the(impact(of(the(manipulation(text(in(the(beginning(on(the(outcome(differences(

among(the(different(accountability(groups.(Tables(with(an(overview(of(the(most(important(

figures(are(provided(at(the(end(of(each(section.(

4.1.1(Accountability(Versus(No(Accountability(

The(oneaway(betweenagroups(analysis(of(variance(was(conducted(to(explore(the(

manipulation(impact(on(the(scores(of(the(question(“I(expect(to(have(a(faceatoaface(interview(

at(the(end(of(this(session”.(Subjects(within(the(groups(of(Process(and(Outcome(

Accountability(were(expected(to(answer(significantly(different(than(participants(within(the(

group(of(No(Accountability.(There(was(a(statistically(significant(difference(at(the(p(<(.05(

level(in(scores(for(the(three(manipulation(groups:(F((2,(129)(=(21.5,(p(=(.000.(In(addition(to(

reaching(statistical(significance,(the(actual(difference(in(mean(scores(between(the(groups(

was(extremely(large.(The(effect(size,(calculated(using(eta(squared,(was(.25.(Postahoc(

comparisons(using(the(Tukey(HSD(test(indicated(that(the(mean(score(of(the(No(

Accountability(condition((M(=(2.02,(SD(=(1.02)(was(significantly(different(from(both(the(

Outcome(Accountability(condition((M(=(3.55,(SD(=(1.25)(and(the(Process(Accountability(

condition((M(=(3.45,(SD(=(1.37).(As(the(faceatoaface(interviews(were(only(announced(for(

accountability(conditions,(results(prove(that(manipulating(subjects(in(Accountability(versus(

No(Accountability(conditions(worked(as(expected.(

(

(29(

(Figure(4.1.1:(Result(Overview(

4.1.2(Process(Versus(Outcome(Accountability(

An(independentasamples(tatest(was(conducted(to(compare(the(manipulation(impact(among(

process(and(outcome(accountability(by(asking(the(question(“During(the(faceatoaface(

interview(I(expected(to(discuss(my(score(with(the(experiment(leader”.(A(marginally(

significant(difference(with(t((86)(=(1.68,(p(=(.097((twoatailed)(has(been(found(between(the(

two(groups(of(Process(Accountability((M(=(3.18,(SD(=(1.35)(and(Outcome(Accountability((M(

=(3.64,(SD(=(1.18).(The(magnitude(of(the(differences(in(the(means((mean(difference(=(.46,(

95%(CI:(a.08(to(.99)(was(however(still(of(moderate(effect((eta(squared(=(.03).(Only(outcome(

accountable(participants(were(asked(to(specifically(discuss(the(score,(which(is(why(the(

corresponding(significance(and(direction(of(means(confirm(the(manipulation(of(process(and(

outcome(accountability(as(valid.(

(


4.1.3(Incentives(Versus(No(Incentives(

To(compare(the(manipulation(impact(of(incentives,(another(independentasamples(tatest(was(

conducted(by(asking(the(question(“I(believe(achieving(a(higher(final(score(leads(to(a(higher(

reward”.(A(significant(difference(with(t((130)(=(a2.69,(p(=(.008((twoatailed)(has(been(found(

among(the(two(groups(of(Incentives((M(=(4.21,(SD(=(.12)(and(No(Incentives((M(=(3.71,(SD(=(

( 30(

.14).(The(magnitude(of(the(differences(in(the(means((mean(difference(=(a.5,(95%(CI:(a.87(to(a

.13)(was(moderate((eta(squared(=(.05).(Only(subjects(within(the(incentive(group(were(

informed(that(they(were(able(to(gain(an(extra(reward(depending(on(performance.(Due(to(a(

significant(difference(with(mean(scores(undermining(the(manipulation,(the(incentive(

condition(can(be(validated(as(well.(

(


4.2(Hypotheses(Testing(

The(main(hypotheses(of(this(study(are(statistically(explored(within(the(next(sections.(Tables(

with(an(overview(of(the(most(important(figures(and(findings(are(provided(at(the(end(of(each(

section(and(summarize(the(result(of(each(tested(hypothesis.(

4.2.1(Analytical(Tasks(

For(testing(hypothesis(one,(an(independentasamples(tatest(was(conducted(to(compare(the(

analytical(scores(subjects(scored(when(being(held(accountable(to(process(or(outcome.(There(

was(no(significant(difference(in(scores(with(t((86)(=(1.02,(p(=(.31((twoatailed)(for(individuals(

held(accountable(to(process((M(=(39.77,(SD(=(28.99)(or(outcome((M(=(45.50,(SD(=(23.14).(

The(magnitude(of(the(differences(in(the(means((mean(difference(=(5.73,(95%(CI:(a5.39(to(

16.84)(was(small((eta(squared(=(.01).(Hypothesis(one(is(not(supported(and(it(is(not(proven(

that(process(accountability(leads(to(higher(decision(accuracy(relative(to(outcome(

accountability(in(analytical(tasks.(

(

(Figure(4.2.1a1:(Result(Overview(

(31(

(

For(testing(hypothesis(two,(a(oneaway(betweenagroups(analysis(of(variance(was(conducted(

to(explore(the(impact(of(no(versus(process(or(outcome(accountability(on(analytical(score(

outcomes.(There(was(a(statistically(significant(difference(at(the(p(<(.05(level(in(scores(for(the(

three(accountability(groups:(F((2,(63)(=(3.4,(p(=(.04.(Next(to(reaching(statistical(significance,(

the(actual(difference(in(mean(scores(between(the(groups(was(relatively(large.(The(effect(

size,(calculated(using(eta(squared,(was(.1.(However,(postahoc(comparisons(using(the(Tukey(

HSD(test(indicated(that(neither(the(mean(score(of(the(Outcome(Accountability(group((M(=(

47.73,(SD(=(20.76)(nor(the(Process(Accountability(group((M(=(28.77,(SD(=(22.54)(to(be(

significantly(different(from(the(No(Accountability(group((M(=(42.41,(SD(=(30.34).(Hypothesis(

two(is(not(supported(and(it(is(not(proven(that(no(accountability(leads(to(lower(decision(

accuracy(relative(to(both(process(and(outcome(accountability(in(analytical(tasks.(

(


(

These(analyses(have(been(conducted(using(the(dominant(questions(of(the(complete(

analytical(task(only(as(indicated(in(section(3.4.(In(order(to(find(significant(results,(both(

hypotheses(have(in(addition(been(tested(with(the(complete(analytical(sample(as(well.(

Hypotheses(would(not(have(been(supported(in(these(cases(as(well.(Hypothesis(two(has(been(

analyzed(using(subjects(within(the(No(Incentive(condition(only(in(order(to(not(get(an(

interference(among(individuals(that(are(not(being(held(accountable(on(one(hand(but(being(

incentivized(extrinsically(on(the(other.(Again,(results(do(not(change(if(this(condition(is(lifted.(

Both(hypotheses(are(not(supported(in(any(of(these(possible(testacombinations.(

( 32(

4.2.2(Intuitive(Tasks(

For(testing(hypothesis(three,(an(independentasamples(tatest(was(conducted(to(compare(the(

intuitive(scores(subjects(scored(when(being(held(accountable(to(process(or(outcome.(There(

was(a(significant(difference(in(scores(with(t((86)(=(3.28,(p(=(.002((twoatailed)(for(individuals(

held(accountable(to(process((M(=(63.18,(SD(=(12.90)(or(outcome((M(=(71.90,(SD(=(12.08).(

The(magnitude(of(the(differences(in(the(means((mean(difference(=(8.73,(95%(CI:(3.43(to(

14.02)(was(large((eta(squared(=(.11).(Hypothesis(three(is(supported(and(it(is(proven(that(

outcome(accountability(leads(to(higher(decision(accuracy(relative(to(process(accountability(

in(intuitive(tasks.(

(


(

For(testing(hypothesis(four,(a(oneaway(betweenagroups(analysis(of(variance(was(conducted(

to(explore(the(impact(of(no(versus(process(or(outcome(accountability(on(intuitive(score(

outcomes.(There(was(a(statistically(significant(difference(at(the(p(<(.05(level(in(scores(for(the(

three(accountability(groups:(F((2,(63)(=(3.67,(p(=(.031.(Next(to(reaching(statistical(

significance,(the(actual(difference(in(mean(scores(between(the(groups(was(relatively(large.(

The(effect(size,(calculated(using(eta(squared,(was(.10.(Postahoc(comparisons(using(the(Tukey(

HSD(test(however(only(indicated(the(mean(score(of(the(Outcome(Accountability(group((M(=(

71.14,(SD(=(9.96)(to(be(significantly(different(from(the(No(Accountability(group((M(=(60.45,(

SD(=(16.17)(but(not(the(Process(Accountability(group((M(=(62.82,(SD(=(14.31).(Hypothesis(

four(is(moderately(supported.(It(is(thus(proven(that(no(accountability(leads(to(lower(

decision(accuracy(relative(to(outcome(accountability(but(not(necessarily(process(

accountability(in(intuitive(tasks.(Hypothesis(four(has(again(been(analyzed(using(subjects(

within(the(No(Incentive(condition(only.(

(33(


4.2.3(Incentives(

For(investigating(hypotheses(five(and(six(two(twoaway(betweenagroups(analysis(of(variance(

were(conducted(to(explore(the(relationship(of(incentives(on(intuitive(and(analytical(scores.(

In(addition,(the(impact(of(incentives(on(such(scores(is(analyzed(in(detail(by(investigating(the(

score(differences(according(to(accountability(condition.(

(

The(first(twoaway(betweenagroups(analysis(of(variance(deals(with(the(dominant(part(of(the(

analytical(task.(Here,(the(interaction(effect(between(the(conditions(of(accountability(and(

incentive(was(only(marginally(significant,(F((2,(126)(=(2.87,(p(=(.06.(In(addition,(there(was(a(

marginally(significant(main(effect(for(the(incentive(condition,(F((1,126)(=(3.88,(p(=(.051;(the(

effect(size(was(small((partial(eta(squared(=(.03).(The(marginally(significant(difference(

among(No(Incentives((M(=(39.64,(SD(=(25.79)(and(Incentives((M(=(48.52,(SD(=(26.72)(points(

into(the(expected(direction(too.(This(would(lead(one(to(moderately(support(the(analytical(

part(of(hypothesis(five,(which(would(proof(that(incentives(increase(decision(accuracy.(

Looking(at(results(in(a(more(detailed(fashion(by(exploring(the(mean(incentive(differences(of(

every(accountability(condition(separately(by(looking(at(simple(effects,(one(will(however(

come(to(a(different(conclusion.(

(

Three(independentasamples(tatest’s(were(conducted(to(compare(the(scores(for(the(

conditions(of(Incentive(and(No(Incentive(within(the(three(different(accountability(

conditions(by(selecting(the(corresponding(case(of(accountability(respectively.(There(was(no(

significant(difference(in(scores(for(the(Incentive((M(=(51.50,(SD(=(23.49)(and(No(Incentive(

group((M(=(42.41,(SD(=(30.33)(within(the(condition(of(No(Accountability(with(t((42)(=(a1.11,(

( 34(

p(=(.273.(Next(to(no(significant(differences(in(scores(for(the(Incentive((M(=(43.27,(SD(=(

25.59)(and(No(Incentive(group((M(=(47.73,(SD(=(20.76)(within(the(condition(of(Outcome(

Accountability(with(t((42)(=(.634,(p(=(.109,(the(direction(of(mean(scores(was(different(than(

expected((see(Graph(4.2.3a2:(Incentive(Investigation).(This(calls(for(further(investigation(of(

why(participants(within(the(condition(of(No(Incentives(scored(more(points(relative(to(those(

in(the(condition(of(Incentives.(There(was(a(significant(difference(in(scores(for(the(Incentive(

(M(=(50.77,(SD(=(30.97)(and(No(Incentive(group((M(=(28.77,(SD(=(22.54)(within(the(

condition(of(Process(Accountability(with(t((42)(=(a2.96(,(p(=(.010.(

(

Hypothesis(five(is(thus(moderately(supported(as(it(is(supported(for(Process(Accountability(

and(not(supported(for(Outcome(and(No(Accountability.(There(was(no(significant(main(effect(

for(the(accountability(condition,(F((2,126)(=(.95,(p(=(.39.(Hypothesis(six(is(not(supported(as(

incentives(do(not(increase(scores(more(in(the(condition(of(No(Accountability(relative(to(both(

Process(and(Outcome(Accountability.(

(


(

(35(

(Graph(4.2.3a2:(Incentive(Investigation(

(

The(second(twoaway(betweenagroups(analysis(of(variance(deals(with(the(intuitive(task.(

Here,(the(interaction(effect(between(the(conditions(of(accountability(and(incentive(was(only(

marginally(significant,(F((2,(126)(=(2.37,(p(=(.098.(There(was(a(significant(main(effect(for(the(

incentive(condition,(F((1,126)(=(4.15,(p(=(.044;(however,(the(effect(size(was(small((partial(eta(

squared(=(.03).(There(is(a(significant(difference(among(No(Incentives((M(=(64.80,(SD(=(

14.28)(and(Incentives((M(=(69.42,(SD(=(12.82)(with(the(expected(direction.(

(

Further(evaluation(of(simple(effects(using(again(three(independentasamples(tatest’s(to(

compare(scores(within(the(conditions(of(Incentive(and(No(Incentive(for(the(different(

accountability(conditions(by(selecting(cases(respectively(was(carried(out.(There(was(a(

statistically(significant(difference(in(scores(for(the(Incentive((M(=(72.05,(SD(=(10.99)(and(No(

Incentive(group((M(=(60.45,(SD(=(16.17)(within(the(condition(of(No(Accountability(with(t(

(42)(=(a1.78,(p(=(.008.(There(was(no(significant(differences(in(scores(for(the(Incentive((M(=(

72.68,(SD(=(14.08)(and(No(Incentive(group((M(=(71.14,(SD(=(9.96)(within(the(condition(of(

Outcome(Accountability(with(t((42)(=(a.420,(p(=(.676.(There(was(also(no(significant(

difference(in(scores(for(the(Incentive((M(=(63.55,(SD(=(11.64)(and(No(Incentive(group((M(=(

( 36(

62.82,(SD(=(14.31)(within(the(condition(of(Process(Accountability(with(t((42)(=(a.185(,(p(=(

.854.(

(

These(results(support(hypothesis(five(for(the(condition(of(No(Accountability(and(do(not(

support(hypothesis(five(for(the(conditions(of(Process(and(Outcome(Accountability.(Results(

support(hypothesis(six(and(proof(that(incentives(within(the(condition(of(no(accountability(

increase(decision(accuracy(more(than(within(the(conditions(of(process(and(outcome(

accountability((see(Graph(4.2.3a4:(Incentive(Investigation).(

(


(

(37(

(Graph(4.2.3a4:(Incentive(Investigation(

(

To(summarize,(hypothesis(five(is(moderately(supported(for(both(the(analytic(and(intuitive(

part.(Hypothesis(six(is(not(supported(for(the(analytical(part(and(supported(for(the(intuitive(

part.(This(translates(into(moderate(support(for(both(hypotheses(five(and(six.! (

( 38(

CHAPTER(5:(DISCUSSION(

5.1(Findings(

The(purpose(of(this(experiment(was(based(on(the(investigation(of(different(decision(

accuracy(outcomes(depending(on(accountability(and(incentivization(methods(used(within(

the(context(of(various(types(of(tasks.(The(study(was(particularly(motivated(in(challenging(

research(claiming(that(process(accountability(leads(to(superior(decision(accuracy(in(general.(

This(contribution(however(argues(that(a(strict(distinction(needs(to(be(drawn(among(

intuitive(and(analytical(tasks.(It(is(therefore(conceptualized(that(the(body(of(past(research(

on(accountability(and(in(particular(process(accountability(only(holds(for(analytical(tasks,(

where(process(accountability(indeed(leads(to(superior(decision(accuracy.(Here,(it(is(

however(claimed,(that(when(being(confronted(with(an(intuitive(task,(outcome(

accountability(will(result(in(superior(decision(accuracy(in(comparison(to(process(

accountability.(

(

As(expected(and(theorized(by(hypothesis(three,(within(the(condition(of(intuitive(decisions,(

outcome(accountability(does(lead(to(superior(decision(accuracy(in(comparison(to(process(

accountability.(This(result(alone(establishes(that(the(procedural(freedom(of(outcome(

accountability(as(well(as(the(cognitive(approach(of(system(1(processing(leads(to(superior(

decision(accuracy(in(the(end.(

(

Hypothesis(four,(stating(that(no(accountability(leads(to(lower(decision(accuracy(relative(to(

both(outcome(and(process(accountability(was(moderately(supported.(Scores(within(the(

condition(of(No(accountability(result(to(be(significantly(lower(than(scores(within(the(

condition(of(outcome(accountability.(Surprisingly(however,(the(same(does(not(hold(to(be(

true(for(process(accountability.(Scores(of(individuals(being(held(process(accountable(did(not(

perform(significantly(better(than(individuals(not(being(held(accountable(at(all.(Hypotheses(

three(and(four(were(constructed(with(the(expectation(that(the(condition(of(outcome(

accountability(would(lead(to(the(highest(scores,(no(accountability(to(the(lowest(scores(and(

process(accountability(to(moderate(scores.(Despite(this(expectation,(the(experiment(

demonstrates(that(for(intuitive(tasks,(holding(someone(accountable(to(the(process(turns(out(

(39(

to(be(as(effective(as(not(holding(him(accountable(at(all.(In(spite(of(this(rather(unexpected(

result,(it(is(highly(valuable(as(it(demonstrates(the(importance(of(careful(selection(of(the(

accountability(method(to(be(used(for(specific(task(types.(

(

Whereas(research(has(established(that(process(accountability(leads(to(superior(results,(it(

can(now(be(proven(that(within(the(case(of(intuitive(tasks,(making(use(of(process(

accountability(is(simply(wasted(time(and(money(as(there(is(no(effect(at(all.(In(practice,(

process(accountability(can(even(lead(to(information(tunneling(and(retrospective(reasoning,(

consuming(valuable(resources(of(corporate(and(public(institutions.(Additionally,(Brtek(&(

Motowidlo((2002)(who(argue(that(outcome(accountability(leads(to(negative(effects(on(

decisionaquality(can(be(challenged.(Despite(such(critiques,(within(this(particular(case,(

outcome(accountability(remains(to(be(a(good(method(of(accountability,(control(and(

incentivization.(This(studies’(outcome(also(adds(value(to(the(theory(developed(by(Langhe(et(

al.((2011),(who(did(not(find(a(decisionaquality(relationship(for(outcome(accountability.(

(

Another(goal(of(this(study(was(to(proof(that(with(analytical(tasks(process(accountability(

would(lead(to(superior(decision(accuracy(in(comparison(to(outcome(or(no(accountability.(

Both(hypotheses(one(and(two(concerning(this(particular(theory(were(not(supported.(

Thankfully,(the(existing(body(of(research(has(already(proven(that(process(accountability(

leads(in(general(to(higher(decision(accuracy((see(section(2.3.1:(‘Process(Accountability(

Condition’).(To(not(simply(replicate(research(by(adopting(already(tested(tasks,(an(entire(

new(taskaset(has(been(designed(for(operationalizing(this(experiment.(

(

There(are(in(general(two(main(answers(to(the(question(of(why(a(hypothesis(was(not(

supported.(Either(the(theory(used(for(developing(the(hypotheses(was(not(correct(or(the(

operationalization(and(testing(of(hypotheses(did(not(correspond(well(with(the(outlined(

hypotheses.(As(past(research(has(already(established(theory(with(multiple(experiments(

confirming(the(outlined(theory(as(well(as(an(operationalization(with(a(completely(new(

highly(mathematical(task,(one(might(believe(that(the(later(answer(holds.(The(task(did(not(do(

a(proper(job(at(translating(theory(and(hypotheses(into(practice.(Not(being(able(to(support(

hypotheses(one(and(two(should(therefore(not(disqualify(the(outlined(theory(within(this(

( 40(

contribution.(For(more(specific(details(on(the(analytical(task(and(further(hypotheses(testing,(

please(refer(to(Appendix(III:(‘Analytical(Task(Details’.(

(

Two(additional(hypotheses(were(formulated(to(test(theory(on(extrinsic(monetary(

incentivization(tools.(As(can(be(expected,(results(for(the(analytical(part(did(not(turn(out(to(

be(useful,(which(is(why(the(analytical(part(of(the(incentivization(analysis(are(disregarded(at(

this(point.(Hypothesis(five,(stating(that(incentives(increase(decision(accuracy,(was(

moderately(supported.(There(was(a(significant(score(difference(among(the(Incentive(and(No(

Incentive(condition(within(the(condition(of(No(Accountability.(Interestingly,(for(Process(and(

Outcome(Accountability(the(increase(in(scores(from(No(Incentives(to(Incentives(was(not(

significant((also(see(graph(4.2.3a4:(‘Incentive(Investigation).(This(supports(hypothesis(six(

and(the(developed(theory(that(incentives(within(the(condition(of(no(accountability(increase(

decision(accuracy(more(than(within(the(conditions(of(process(and(outcome(accountability.(

What(however(comes(at(a(surprise(is(the(fact(that(extrinsic(monetary(incentives(have(no(

significant(effect(when(one(is(already(being(held(accountable(to(the(outcome(or(process.(It(

can(thus(be(concluded(that(accountability(and(control(acting(as(social(incentivization(are(as(

strong(as(extrinsic(monetary(incentivization.(For(intuitive(tasks,(there(is(no(need(to(make(

use(of(financial(rewards(on(top(of(social(incentivization,(as(it(will(not(result(in(more(

accurate(results(or(superior(decisions.(

(

The(investigation(at(hand(demonstrates(and(confirms(the(following:(Accountability(leads(on(

one(hand(to(task(effort(but(also(to(a(certain(cognitive(approach.(Outcome(and(No(

accountability(induce(the(automatic,(fast,(highly(contextualized,(personalized(and(

conversational(system(1(processing.(Process(accountability(induces(the(ruleabased,(analytic,(

controlled,(slow(and(depersonalized(system(2(processing.(When(confronted(with(intuitive(

tasks,(outcome(accountability(and(the(induced(system(1(processing(lead(to(superior(

decisions.(Decision(accuracy(for(the(rather(analytic(tasks(is(best(reached(by(holding(

individuals(process(accountable(inducing(system(2(processing.(External(monetary(

incentivization(leads(in(addition(to(more(effort(and(superior(decisions(in(the(case(of(not(

holding(individuals(accountable.(The(same(does(not(hold(for(people(being(held(accountable(

(41(

to(the(outcome(or(process(as(it(represents(a(social(incentivization(method(as(strong(as(

external(monetary(incentivization.(

5.2(Limitations(And(Further(Research(

Within(the(current(model,(process(accountability(induces(system(2(processing(and(outcome(

as(well(as(no(accountability(induce(system(1(processing.(Next(to(accountability(type,(

characteristics(of(the(task(itself,(will(however,(most(likely(also(moderate(the(degree(of(

which(processing(mode(is(made(use(of((Langhe(et(al.(2011).(If(for(example(outcome(

accountability(induces(an(individual(to(make(use(of(their(system(1(approach,(but(they(are(

confronted(with(a(highly(analytical(task,(it(is(very(likely(that(system(2(processing(plays(a(

role(as(well(next(to(the(predicted(system(1(processing.(Task(characteristics(are(however(in(

this(study(not(taken(into(account(as(additional(moderator(variable.(Future(research(could(

analyze(this(matter(in(detail.(

(

Affection,(activation,(arousal,(emotions(and(moods,(which(are(present(prior(the(

presentation(of(a(specific(task,(will(influence(the(performance(of(decisionamaking(next(to(

taskarelevant(activation.(In(addition,(positive(and(negative(affect(as(well(as(arousal,(

translated(into(task(effort,(will(most(likely(have(an(interaction(effect(with(the(cognitive(

approach.(If(for(example(external(monetary(incentives(induce(positive(activation(and(

arousal,(this(in(turn(leads(to(more(systematic(processing((Ashby(et(al.(1999;(Lewinsohn(&(

Mano(1993;(Staw(et(al.(1981),(which(could(further(induce(system(2(processing.(Such(

interaction(effects(and(the(presence(of(external(activation(effects(are(not(considered(in(this(

study(and(present(an(interesting(angel(of(research(to(be(conducted(in(the(near(future.(

(

Tetlock((1983)(finds(that(decisionaquality(and(especially(cognitive(effort(is(highly(affected(

by(holding(people(accountable(to(an(unknown(audience.(When(an(individual(is(familiar(with(

the(person(or(superior,(he(is(being(held(accountable(by,(results(may(change(and(more(

system(1(processing(as(well(as(less(effort(could(be(invested.(It(is(therefore(relevant(in(this(

study,(to(assume(that(the(audience,(one(is(being(held(accountable(to,(is(unknown(to(the(

individual(in(focus.(

( 42(

5.3(Conclusion(

Outcome(accountability(still(proofs(to(be(highly(useful.(It(provides(people(with(a(great(

amount(of(freedom.(It(is(the(freedom(to(make(decisions(and(perform(tasks(without(the(

necessity(of(justifying(how(those(were(taken.(The(advantage(translates(into(the(possibility(

of(making(use(of(system(1(processing,(which(is(often(referred(to(be(even(more(rational(than(

the(analytical(system(2(processing.(Superiors(need(to(let(go(a(bit(more,(start(trusting(their(

employees(and(hereby(achieve(greater(results(through(superior(decision(accuracy.(This(

freedom(enables(such(without(the(risk(of(making(use(of(information(tunneling(and(

retrospective(reasoning,(which(is(simply(wasted(time(and(money.(This(freedom(comes(

however(at(a(price;(peers(and(superiors(are(no(longer(able(to(proof(and(understand(how(

those(decisions(were(taken.(If(making(use(of(outcome(accountability(mechanisms,(it(is(thus(

essential(to(endorse(a(culture(of(trust(and(cooperation(and(not(making(use(of(excessive(

financial(rewards.(

(

It(is(consequently(established(that(the(type(of(accountability(strongly(influences(the(

outcome(of(decisions.(This(is(not(to(say(that(either(process(or(outcome(accountability(are(

better;(they(are(different(and(induce(different(thinking(and(decisionamaking(processes.(It(is(

for(that(reason(necessary(to(carefully(analyze(the(particular(characteristics(of(tasks(to(be(

performed(and(decisions(to(be(taken(before(implementing(any(accountability,(control(or(

incentivization(method.(People(usually(perform(different(tasks(within(corporate(and(public(

institutions,(which(is(why(it(is(in(most(cases(necessary(to(adopt(accountability(and(

incentivization(methods(to(the(specific(task(at(hand.(This(translates(into(holding(individuals(

accountable(to(the(process(at(some(times(and(the(outcome(of(their(work(at(others.(

(

Institutions(should(install(flexible(hybrid(solutions(making(use(of(the(variety(of(

accountability(methods(and(hereby(provide(a(great(amount(of(freedom(for(intuitive(tasks(

but(lay(out(the(exact(process(to(be(followed(for(analytical(tasks.(Financial(rewards(should(be(

used(rather(careful(in(the(case(of(not(holding(people(socially(accountable(only(to(achieve(

superior(decision(accuracy.(

! !

(43(

REFERENCES(

Allison,(G.T.,(1971.(Essence%of%decision,(Little,(Brown.(Available(at:(

http://eur.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.cmd=addFacetValueFilters(Content

Type,Newspaper+Article:t)&s.q=Essence+of+Decision:+Explaining+the+Cuban+Missile

+Crisis.&x=48&y=16([Accessed(October(2,(2012].(

Arkes,(H.R.,(Dawes,(R.M.(&(Christensen,(C.,(1986.(Factors(influencing(the(use(of(a(decision(

rule(in(a(probabilistic(task.(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Decision%Processes,(

37(1),(pp.93–110.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749a5978(86)90046a4(

[Accessed(September(17,(2012].(

Ashby,(F.G.,(Isen,(A.M.(&(Turken,(A.U.,(1999.(A(neuropsychological(theory(of(positive(affect(

and(its(influence(on(cognition.(Psychological%Review,(106(3),(pp.529–550.(

Ashton,(R.H.,(1992.(Effects(of(justification(and(a(mechanical(aid(on(judgment(performance.(

Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Decision%Processes,(52(2),(pp.292–306.(Available(

at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749a5978(92)90040aE([Accessed(July(18,(2012].(

Ashton,(R.H.,(2007.(Pressure(and(Performance(in(Accounting(Decision(Settings:(Paradoxical(

Effects(of(Incentives,(Feedback,(and(Justification.(Journal%of%Accounting%Research,(28,(

pp.148–180.(Available(at:(http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2491253([Accessed(

October(20,(2012].(

Aspinwall,(L.G.,(1998.(Rethinking(the(Role(of(Positive(Affect(in(SelfaRegulation.(Motivation%

and%Emotion,(22(1),(pp.1–32.(

Baiman,(S.,(1990.(Agency(research(in(managerial(accounting:(A(second(look.(Accounting,%

Organizations%and%Society,(15(4),(pp.341–371.(Available(at:(

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361a3682(90)90023aN([Accessed(October(29,(2012].(

Beach,(S.R.H.(&(Tesser,(Abraham,(1995.(SelfGesteem%and%the%extended%selfGevaluation%

maintenance%model:%The%self%in%social%context.,(

( 44(

Bettman,(J.R.,(Johnson,(E.J.(&(Payne,(John(W,(1990.(A(componential(analysis(of(cognitive(

effort(in(choice.(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Decision%Processes,(45(1),(pp.111–

139.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749a5978(90)90007aV([Accessed(

October(29,(2012].(

Bonner,(S.E.(et(al.,(2000.(A(Review(of(the(Effects(of(Financial(Incentives(on(Performance(in(

Laboratory(Tasks:(Implications(for(Management(Accounting.(Journal%of%Management%

Accounting%Research,(12(1),(pp.19–64.(Available(at:(

http://aaajournals.org/doi/abs/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.19?journalCode=jmar(

[Accessed(October(17,(2012].(

Bonner,(S.E.(&(Sprinkle,(G.B.,(2002.(The(effects(of(monetary(incentives(on(effort(and(task(

performance:(theories,(evidence,(and(a(framework(for(research.(Accounting,%

Organizations%and%Society,(27(4a5),(pp.303–345.(Available(at:(

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361a3682(01)00052a6([Accessed(October(17,(2012].(

Brtek,(M.D.(&(Motowidlo,(S.J.,(2002.(Effects(of(procedure(and(outcome(accountability(on(

interview(validity.(Journal%of%Applied%Psychology,(87(1),(pp.185–191.(

Buchter,(H.,(2006.(Dummheit(ist(kein(Verbrechen.(Die%Zeit%Online,(p.2.(Available(at:(

http://www.zeit.de/2006/06/Enron/komplettansicht?print=true.(

Carnevale,(P.J..(&(Isen,(A.M.,(1986.(The(influence(of(positive(affect(and(visual(access(on(the(

discovery(of(integrative(solutions(in(bilateral(negotiation.(Organizational%Behavior%and%

Human%Decision%Processes,(37(1),(pp.1–13.(Available(at:(

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749a5978(86)90041a5([Accessed(October(23,(2012].(

Chamberlain,(S.R.(et(al.,(2006.(Noradrenergic(modulation(of(working(memory(and(emotional(

memory(in(humans.(Psychopharmacology,(188(4),(pp.397–407.(Available(at:(

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d2387v73w211085m/([Accessed(October(11,(

2012].(

Dijkstra,(N.,(2012.(Analytical(Task(Design.(,(p.5.(

(45(

Drabant,(E.M.(et(al.,(2006.(Catechol(Oamethyltransferase(val158met(genotype(and(neural(

mechanisms(related(to(affective(arousal(and(regulation.(Archives%of%general%psychiatry,(

63(12),(pp.1396–406.(Available(at:(

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=209910([Accessed(October(

22,(2012].(

De(Dreu,(Carsten(K(W,(Baas,(M.(&(Nijstad,(B.(a,(2008.(Hedonic(tone(and(activation(level(in(the(

moodacreativity(link:(toward(a(dual(pathway(to(creativity(model.(Journal%of%personality%

and%social%psychology,(94(5),(pp.739–56.(Available(at:(

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18444736([Accessed(October(11,(2012].(

De(Dreu,(Carsten(K(W,(Nijstad,(B.A.(&(van(Knippenberg,(D.,(2008.(Motivated(information(

processing(in(group(judgment(and(decision(making.(Personality%and%social%psychology%

review,(12(1),(pp.22–49.(Available(at:(http://psr.sagepub.com/content/12/1/22.short(

[Accessed(July(31,(2012].(

De(Dreu,(Carsten(K.(W.(et(al.,(2006.(Motivated(information(processing,(strategic(choice,(and(

the(quality(of(negotiated(agreement.(Journal%of%Personality%and%Social%Psychology,(90(6),(

pp.927–943.(

Dreu,(Carsten(K.W(De(&(Carnevale,(P.J.,(2003.(Motivational(bases(of(information(processing(

and(strategy(in(conflict(and(negotiation.(In(Advances%in%Experimental%Social%Psychology.(

Elsevier(Science,(pp.(235–291.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065a

2601(03)01004a9([Accessed(July(20,(2012].(

Einhorn,(H.J.(&(Hogarth,(R.M.,(2008.(Behavioral(Decision(Theory:(Processes(of(Judgment(and(

Choice.(Journal%of%Accounting%Research,(19(1),(pp.1–31.(Available(at:(

http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2490959([Accessed(October(28,(2012].(

Eisenhardt,(K.,(1989.(Making(Fast(Strategic(Decisions(in(HighaVelocity(Environments.(

Academy%of%Management%journal.(Available(at:(

http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/256434([Accessed(September(4,(2012].(

( 46(

Eisenhardt,(K.M.,(1989.(Agency(Theory:(An(Assessment(and(Review.(The%Academy%of%

Management%Review,(14(1),(pp.57–74.(Available(at:(


Eisenhardt,(K.M.(&(Zbaracki,(M.J.,(1992.(Strategic(decision(making.(Strategic%Management%

Journal,(13(2),(pp.17–37.(Available(at:(http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/smj.4250130904(


Epstein,(S.,(1994.(Integration(of(the(cognitive(and(the(psychodynamic(unconscious.(

American%Psychologist,(49(8),(pp.709–724.(Available(at:(

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/49/8/709/([Accessed(September(3,(2012].(

Eskenazi,(P.,(2012.(A(dualaprocess(approach(to(accountability.(,((October(2012),(pp.1–14.(

Evans,(J.S.B..(&(Over,(D.E.,(1996.(Rationality%and%reasoning,(Psychology(Press.(Available(at:(

http://eur.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.q=Rationality+and+Reasoning.+Hov

e,+UK+Psychology+Press([Accessed(September(20,(2012].(

Evans,(J.S.B.T.,(2003.(In(two(minds:(dualaprocess(accounts(of(reasoning.(Trends%in%Cognitive%

Sciences,(7(10),(pp.454–459.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012(

[Accessed(July(12,(2012].(

Flaherty,(A.W.,(2005.(Frontotemporal(and(dopaminergic(control(of(idea(generation(and(

creative(drive.(The%Journal%of%comparative%neurology,(493(1),(pp.147–53.(Available(at:(

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2571074&tool=pmcentr

ez&rendertype=abstract([Accessed(October(22,(2012].(

Floresco,(S.B.(&(Phillips,(A.G.,(2001.(DelayaDependent(Modulation(of(Memory(Retrieval(by(

Infusion(of(a(Depamine(D1(agonist(into(the(rat(medial(prefrontal(cortex.(Behavioral%

neuroscience,(115(4),(pp.934–939.(

Ford,(J.K.(&(Weldon,(E.,(1981.(Forewarning(and(Accountability:(Effects(on(MemoryaBased(

Interpersonal(Judgments.(Personality%and%Social%Psychology%Bulletin,(7(2),(pp.264–268.(

(47(

Available(at:(http://psp.sagepub.com/content/7/2/264.short([Accessed(September(19,(

2012].(

Freud,(S.,(1900.(The%Interpretation%of%Dreams.%SE,%4–5,(Available(at:(

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+Interpretation

+of+Dreams#5([Accessed(October(1,(2012].(

Förster,(J.,(Higgins,(E.T.(&(Bianco,(A.T.,(2003.(Speed/accuracy(decisions(in(task(performance:(

Builtain(tradeaoff(or(separate(strategic(concerns?(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%

Decision%Processes,(90(1),(pp.148–164.(Available(at:(

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749597802005095([Accessed(October(

26,(2012].(

Gordon,(L.A.,(Larcker,(D.F.(&(Tuggle,(F.D.,(1978.(Strategic(decision(processes(and(the(design(

of(accounting(information(systems:(Conceptual(linkages.(Accounting,%Organizations%and%

Society,(3(3a4),(pp.203–213.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361a

3682(78)90012a0([Accessed(August(29,(2012].(

Gordon,(R.A.,(Rozelle,(R.M.(&(Baxter,(J.C.,(1988.(The(effect(of(applicant(age,(job(level,(and(

accountability(on(the(evaluation(of(job(applicants.(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%

Decision%Processes,(41(1),(pp.20–33.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749a

5978(88)90044a1([Accessed(September(19,(2012].(

Greenberg,(J.,(AshtonaJames,(C.E.(&(Ashkanasy,(N.M.,(2007.(Social(comparison(processes(in(

organizations.(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Decision%Processes,(102(1),(pp.22–

41.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.006([Accessed(November(

9,(2012].(

Guetzkow,(H.S.,(Simon,(Herbert(Alexander(&(March,(J.G.,(1958.(Organizations,(Chapman(&(

Hall.(Available(at:(

http://eur.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.q=organizations+march+simon(


( 48(

Hagafors,(R.(&(Brehmer,(B.,(1983.(Does(having(to(justify(one’s(judgments(change(the(nature(

of(the(judgment(process?(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Performance,(31(2),(

pp.223–232.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030a5073(83)90122a8(


Homepage,(2012.(Reliance(Steel(&(Aluminum(Co.(Available(at:(

http://www.rsac.com/index.htm.(

Janis,(I.L.(&(Mann,(L.,(1977.(Decision%making:%A%psychological%analysis%of%conflict,%choice,%and%

commitment.,(New(York:(The(Free(Press.(

Jorgenson,(D.O.(&(Dunnette,(M.D.,(1973.(Effects(of(the(manipulation(of(a(performancea

reward(contingency(on(behavior(in(a(simulated(work(setting.(Journal%of%Applied%

Psychology,(57(3),(pp.271–280.(

Kahneman,(D.,(1973.(Attention%and%effort(E.(Cliffs,(ed.,(PrenticeaHall.(

Kahneman,(Daniel,(2003.(A(perspective(on(judgment(and(choice:(mapping(bounded(

rationality.(American%psychologist,(58(9),(pp.697–720.(Available(at:(

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/58/9/697/([Accessed(September(1,(2012].(

Kahneman,(Daniel,(2002.(Maps(of(bounded(rationality:(A(perspective(on(intuitive(judgment(

and(choice.(Nobel%prize%lecture,((December),(pp.449–489.(Available(at:(

http://wisopsy.uniakoeln.de/uploads/media/kahnemann_Nobelpreisrede_20.pdf(


Kahneman,(Daniel(&(Tversky,(Amos,(1979.(Prospect(theory:(An(analysis(of(decision(under(

risk.(Econometrica:%Journal%of%the%Econometric%Society,(47(2),(pp.263–292.(Available(at:(

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1914185([Accessed(August(6,(2012].(

Krabuanrat,(K.(&(Phelps,(R.,(1998.(Heuristics(and(rationality(in(strategic(decision(making:(An(

exploratory(study.(Journal%of%Business%Research,(41(1),(pp.83–93.(Available(at:(

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148a2963(97)00014a3([Accessed(August(29,(2012].(

(49(

Langhe,(B.(de,(van(Osselaer,(S.M.J.(&(Wierenga,(B.,(2011.(The(effects(of(process(and(outcome(

accountability(on(judgment(process(and(performance.(Organizational%Behavior%and%

Human%Decision%Processes,(115(2),(pp.238–252.(Available(at:(

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.003([Accessed(July(18,(2012].(

Leopold,(J.,(2002.(Enron(linked(to(California(blackouts:(Traders(said(manipulation(began(

energy(crisis.(Market%Watch,(p.1.(Available(at:(

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/enronacausedacaliforniaablackoutsatradersasay(

[Accessed(November(19,(2012].(

Levy,(J.S.,(1997.(Prospect(Theory,(Rational(Choice,(and(International(Relations.(International%

Studies%Quarterly,(41(1),(pp.87–112.(Available(at:(http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/0020a

8833.00034([Accessed(August(5,(2012].(

Lewinsohn,(S.(&(Mano,(H.,(1993.(Multiaattribute(choice(and(affect:(The(influence(of(naturally(

occurring(and(manipulated(moods(on(choice(processes.(Journal%of%Behavioral%Decision%

Making,(6(1),(pp.33–51.(Available(at:(http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bdm.3960060103(


Locke,(E.A.(&(Latham,(G.P.,(1990.(A%theory%of%goal%setting%and%task%performance(E.(Cliffs,(ed.,(

PrenticeaHall.(

Lyubomirsky,(S.,(King,(L.(&(Diener,(E.,(2005.(The(Benefits(of(Frequent(Positive(Affect:(Does(

Happiness(Lead(to(Success?(Psychological%bulletin,(131(6),(pp.803–855.(

Markman,(K.D.(&(Tetlock,(P.(E.,(2000.(Accountability(and(CloseaCall(Counterfactuals:(The(

Loser(Who(Nearly(Won(and(the(Winner(Who(Nearly(Lost.(Personality%and%Social%

Psychology%Bulletin,(26(10),(pp.1213–1224.(Available(at:(

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/26/10/1213.short([Accessed(August(4,(2012].(

McGuire,(W.J.,(1969.(The(nature(of(attitudes(and(attitude(change.(In(E.(Aronson(&(G.(Lindzey,(

eds.(Handbook%of%social%psychology.(Mass.:(Addisona(Wesley.(

( 50(

McMackin,(J.(&(Slovic,(Paul,(2000.(When(does(explicit(justification(impair(decision(making?(

Applied%Cognitive%Psychology,(14(1),(pp.527–541.(

Mintzberg,(H.,(Raisinghani,(D.(&(Theoret,(A.,(1976.(The(structure(of(“unstructured”(decision(

processes.(Administrative%science%quarterly,(21(2),(pp.246–275.(Available(at:(


Nieuwenhuis,(S.,(AstonaJones,(G.(&(Cohen,(J.D.,(2005.(Decision(making,(the(P3,(and(the(locus(

coeruleusaanorepinephrine(system.(Psychological%bulletin,(131(4),(pp.510–532.(

Nisbett,(R.E.(&(Ross,(L.,(1980.(Human%inference:%Strategies%and%shortcomings%of%social%

judgment.(E.(Cliffs,(ed.,(PrenticeaHall.(

Payne,(John(Wayne,(Bettman,(J.R.(&(Johnson,(D.E.J.,(1993.(The%Adaptive%Decision%Maker,(

Available(at:(http://books.google.com/books?hl=de&lr=&id=QzXFqwrPLXkC&pgis=1(

[Accessed(November(10,(2012].(

Pokorny,(K.,(2008.(Pay—but(do(not(pay(too(much.(Journal%of%Economic%Behavior%&%

Organization,(66(2),(pp.251–264.(Available(at:(

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.03.007([Accessed(August(5,(2012].(

Posner,(M.I.(&(Snyder,(C.R.R.,(1975.(Attention(and(cognitive(control.(In(Cognitive%psychology.(

Psychology(Press.(Available(at:(

http://eur.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?s.q=Attention+and+cognitive+control

+posner+snyder([Accessed(October(2,(2012].(

Pritchard,(R.D.(et(al.,(1976.(The(effects(of(varying(schedules(of(reinforcement(on(human(task(

performance.(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Performance,(16(2),(pp.205–230.(

Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030a5073(76)90014a3([Accessed(October(

29,(2012].(

Rozelle,(R.M.(&(Baxter,(J.C.,(1981.(Influence(of(role(pressures(on(the(perceiver:(Judgments(of(

videotaped(interviews(varying(judge(accountability(and(responsibility.(Journal%of%

Applied%Psychology,(66(4),(pp.437–441.(

(51(

Schwenk,(C.,(1995.(Strategic(decision(making.(Journal%of%Management,(21(3),(pp.471–493.(

Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149a2063(95)90016a0([Accessed(August(29,(

2012].(

Shiffrin,(R.M.(&(Schneider,(W.,(1977.(Controlled(and(automatic(human(information(

processing:(II.(Perceptual(learning,(automatic(attending(and(a(general(theory.(

Psychological%Review,(84(2),(pp.127–190.(

SiegelaJacobs,(K.(&(Yates,(J.F.,(1996.(Effects(of(Procedural(and(Outcome(Accountability(on(

Judgment(Quality.(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Decision%Processes,(65(1),(pp.1–

17.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0001([Accessed(July(18,(2012].(

Simon,(Herbert(A.,(1955.(A(Behavioral(Model(of(Rational(Choice.(The%Quarterly%Journal%of%

Economics,(69(1),(p.99.(Available(at:(

http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/69/1/99.abstract([Accessed(August(9,(2012].(

Simon,(Herbert(A.,(1957.(Models%of%man;%social%and%rational.,(New(York.(

Simonson,(I.(&(Nye,(P.,(1992.(The(effect(of(accountability(on(susceptibility(to(decision(errors.(

Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Decision%Processes,(51(3),(pp.416–446.(Available(

at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749a5978(92)90020a8([Accessed(September(19,(

2012].(

Simonson,(I.(&(Staw,(B.M.,(1992.(Deescalation(strategies:(A(comparison(of(techniques(for(

reducing(commitment(to(losing(courses(of(action.(Journal%of%Applied%Psychology,(77(4),(

pp.419–426.(

Slaughter,(J.E.,(Bagger,(J.(&(Li,(A.,(2006.(Context(effects(on(groupabased(employee(selection(

decisions.(Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%Decision%Processes,(100(1),(pp.47–59.(

Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.003([Accessed(July(18,(2012].(

Sloman,(S.A.,(1996.(The(empirical(case(for(two(systems(of(reasoning.(Psychological%bulletin,(

119(1),(pp.3–22.(

( 52(

Slovic,(P,(Fischhoff,(B.(&(Lichtenstein,(S.,(1977.(Behavioral(Decision(Theory.(Annual%Review%of%

Psychology,(28(1),(pp.1–39.(Available(at:(

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.000245(


Smith,(R.,(2000.(Assimilative(and(contrastive(emotional(reactions(to(upward(and(downward(

social(comparisons.(In(J.(Suls(&(L.(Wheeler,(eds.(Handbook%of%Social%Comparison:%Theory%

and%Research.(New(York:(Academic/Plenum(Publishers,(pp.(173–200.(

Stanovich,(K.E.(&(West,(R.F.,(2000.(Individual(differences(in(reasoning:(Implications(for(the(

rationality(debate?(Behavioral%and%brain%sciences,(23(5),(pp.645–726.(

Staw,(B.M.,(Sandelands,(L.E.(&(Dutton,(J.E.,(1981.(Threat(Rigidity(Effects(in(Organizational(

Behavior:(A(Multilevel(Analysis.(Administratie%Science%Quarterly,(26(4),(pp.501–524.(

Available(at:(http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2392337([Accessed(October(22,(2012].(

Taylor,(S.,(1980.(The(interface(of(cognitive(and(social(psychology.(In(N.(J.(Hillsdale,(ed.(

Cognition,%social%behavior,%and%the%environment.(

Tesser,(A.,(1988.(Toward(a(selfaevaluation(maintenance(model(of(social(behavior.(In(L.(

Berkowitz,(ed.(Advances%in%Experimental%Social%Psychology.(pp.(181–228.(

Tetlock,(Philip(E.,(1983.(Accountability(and(complexity(of(thought.(Journal%of%personality%and%

social%psychology,(45(1),(pp.73–83.(

Tetlock,(Philip(E.,(1985.(Accountability:(The(Neglected(Social(Context(of(Judegment(and(

Choice.(Organizational%Behavior,(7,(pp.292–332.(

Tetlock,(Philip(E.(&(Boettger,(R.,(1989.(Accountability:(A(social(magnifier(of(the(dilution(

effect.(Journal%of%Personality%and%Social%Psychology,(57(3),(pp.388–398.(

Tetlock,(Philip(E.,(Skitka,(L.(&(Boettger,(R.,(1989.(Social(and(cognitive(strategies(for(coping(

with(accountability:(Conformity,(complexity,(and(bolstering.(Journal%of%Personality%and%

Social%Psychology,(57(4),(pp.632–640.(

(53(

Tversky,(A(&(Kahneman,(D,(1974.(Judgment(under(Uncertainty:(Heuristics(and(Biases.(

Science%(New%York,%N.Y.),(185(4157),(pp.1124–31.(Available(at:(

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/185/4157/1124.abstract([Accessed(July(15,(

2012].(

Tversky,(A(&(Kahneman,(D,(1981.(The(framing(of(decisions(and(the(psychology(of(choice.(

Science,(211(4481),(pp.453–458.(Available(at:(

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/211/4481/453.abstract([Accessed(July(24,(

2012].(

Tversky,(Amos(&(Kahneman,(Daniel,(1983.(Extensional(versus(intuitive(reasoning:(The(

conjunction(fallacy(in(probability(judgment.(Psychological%Review,(90(4),(pp.293–315.(

Usher,(M.,(1999.(The(Role(of(Locus(Coeruleus(in(the(Regulation(of(Cognitive(Performance.(

Science,(283(5401),(pp.549–554.(Available(at:(

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/283/5401/549.abstract([Accessed(October(4,(

2012].(

Vieider,(F.,(2011.(Separating(real(incentives(and(accountability.(Experimental%Economics,(

p.37.(Available(at:(http://www.springerlink.com/index/R3533QX7342W1884.pdf(


Vieider,(F.M.,(2009.(The(effect(of(accountability(on(loss(aversion.(Acta%psychologica,(132(1),(

pp.96–101.(Available(at:(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.05.006([Accessed(

October(12,(2012].(

Vroom,(V.H.,(1964.(Work%and%motivation,(New(York:(Wiley.(

!

! !

( 54(

APPENDIX(

Appendix(I:(Experiment(Script(

Screen:(Demographics(Please(provide(the(following(information.(

•( Age(

•( Gender((M/F)(

•( Nationality(

•( Study(program(

•( Year(of(study(

Screen:(General(instructions(This(session(consists(of(a(number(of(separate,(unrelated(tasks.(Each(task(is(introduced(in(a(

separate(instruction.(Throughout(the(session,(you(can(score(points(by(performing(well.(Try(

to(score(as(many(points(as(you(can.(For(each(task,(the(minimum(score(is(0(and(the(maximum(

score(is(100.(The(tasks(have(been(designed(to(be(approximately(equally(difficult.(The(

specific(task(instructions(further(explain(how(you(can(score(the(points.(At(the(end(of(the(

computer(session,(your(points(are(added(up(and(converted(into(a(final(score(according(to(

the(table(below.(You(will(then(be(informed(of(your(final(score.(

[Incentives$manipulation]$[Incentives(present](

Your(participation(will(be(rewarded(with(10(euros.(In(addition,(you(will(receive(a(bonus(of(0(

to(10(euros,(depending(on(your(final(score.(You(will(be(able(to(collect(the(final(amount(of(10(

to(20(euros(at(the(end(of(the(experiment.(

(

[Incentives(absent](

Your(participation(will(be(rewarded(with(10(euros.(In(addition,(you(will(receive(5(euros(as(a(

bonus(payment.(You(will(be(able(to(collect(the(final(amount(of(15(euros(at(the(end(of(the(

experiment.(

(

[End(of(incentives(manipulation](

(

(55(

In(this(study,(we(are(interested(to(learn(about(people’s(decision(making.(Please(use(the(

approach(you(believe(is(most(suitable(for(each(task.(

[Accountability$manipulation]$[PA](

The(approach(you(take(in(solving(the(tasks(will(be(evaluated(in(a(faceatoaface(interview(with(

the(experiment(leader(at(the(end(of(the(session.(You(will(have(to(justify(the(process(you(

used(in(the(tasks.(Your(responses(and(final(score(will(not(be(known(to(the(interviewer.(

(

Additionally,(at(the(end(of(each(task,(you(will(be(asked(to(briefly(describe(in(writing(the(way(

you(approached(the(task.(

(

[OA](

The(final(score(you(achieve(in(solving(the(tasks(will(be(evaluated(in(a(faceatoaface(interview(

with(the(experiment(leader(at(the(end(of(the(session.(The(interviewer(will(review(your(

responses(and(final(score,(and(will(ask(you(to(comment.(

(

Additionally,(at(the(end(of(each(task,(you(will(be(asked(to(briefly(describe(in(writing(how(

you(assess(your(own(performance.(

(

[NA](

Care(is(taken(to(guarantee(your(anonymity.(The(computer(program(stores(your(responses(

under(a(randomly(assigned(participant(number.(Your(responses(will(remain(anonymous(

and(cannot(be(traced(back(to(you.(Your(name(will(not(be(linked(in(any(way(to(the(data(

collected(in(this(session.(

(

At(the(end(of(each(task,(you(will(be(asked(to(briefly(describe(in(writing(your(personal(

opinion(on(the(task.(

(

[End(of(accountability(manipulation](

(

( 56(

Remark:%the%analytic%task%and%intuitive%task%(with%all%their%associated%screens)%were%presented%

in%random%order.%

Block(I:(matrix(task(

Screen:(analytic(task(instruction(I(The(following(task(involves(matrix(problems.(In(the(instructions,(first(the(matrix(problems(

are(introduced,(and(then(the(point(scoring(system(is(explained.(

Screen:(analytic(task(instruction(II(Remark:%this%screen%featured%an%example%image%of%a%matrix.%Participants%clicked%through%the%

instructions%in%five%steps,%with%an%additional%block%of%text%appearing%each%time.%

(

The(following(task(involves(matrices(like(the(one(shown(below.(The(goal(is(to(find(the(cell(

with(the(highest(threeaway(product.(

(

Only(the(white(cells(are(under(consideration.(

(

The(threeaway(product(of(a(cell(is(calculated(by(multiplying((a)(the(number(in(the(cell(with(

(b)(the(number(in(the(corresponding(column(and(with((c)(the(number(in(the(corresponding(

row.(The(product(of(the(cell(in(the(example(is(5(x(7(x(6(=(210.(The(threeaway(product(of(a(

cell(is(calculated(by(multiplying((a)(the(number(in(the(cell(with((b)(the(number(in(the(

corresponding(column(and(with((c)(the(number(in(the(corresponding(row.(The(following(

table(shows(the(result(if(all(the(calculations(are(performed.(This(view(shows(that(the(middle(

cell(on(the(bottom(row(would(be(the(correct(answer(to(this(problem.(

To(select(your(answer,(click(a(cell(with(the(left(mouse(button.(You(can(also(mark(cells(as(

candidates(by(clicking(them(with(the(right(mouse(button.(To(deselect(a(cell,(simply(click(on(

it(again(with(the(corresponding(mouse(button.(Please(practice(the(mouse(functions(on(the(

matrix(above.(This(is(an(example(matrix,(so(your(answer(does(not(matter(yet.(

Practice(on(the(matrix,(then(click('Next'(to(continue(the(instruction.(

Screen:(analytic(task(instruction(III(The(complete(task(consists(of(12(matrix(problems.(You(will(have(a(maximum(of(15(minutes(

to(complete(them.(

(57(

Points(can(be(scored(in(two(ways:(by(choosing(the(correct(answer;(and(by(completing(the(

task(before(the(allocated(time(runs(out.(

You(receive(7(points(for(every(correct(answer:(the(cell(with(the(highest(threeaway(product.(

As(there(are(12(matrices,(you(can(earn(a(maximum(of(84(points(this(way.(

In(addition,(if(you(finish(before(time(runs(out,(you(receive(1(point(per(15(seconds(of(

remaining(time,(to(a(maximum(of(16(points.(

Please(click('Continue'(to(begin(the(task.(

Screen:(analytic(task(

Screen:(writing(prompt([PA](Please(describe(briefly(the(way(in(which(you(approached(the(task:(how(did(you(solve(

it?(

[OA](Please(describe(briefly(what(your(assessment(of(your(own(performance(is:(did(you(do(

well?(

[NA](Please(describe(briefly(your(opinion(on(the(task:(did(you(enjoy(it?(

Block(II:(ads(task(

Screen:(ads(task(instructions(In(this(task,(you(will(be(asked(to(look(at(twenty(pictures(of(advertisements((ads).(We(

recently(asked(another(group(of(male(and(female(RSM(students(to(rate(each(of(these(ads(on(

the(following(scale:(((((

(((((((((

Dislike(((((((((((((Neutral(((((((((((((((Like(

((((((1((((2((((3((((4((((5((((6((((7((((8((((9(

(

They(were(specifically(instructed(to(rate(how(much(they(liked(the(ad(itself,(and(not(the(

product(or(brand(being(promoted.((Your(task(is(to(estimate(how(each(ad(scored(in(that(

survey(of(your(fellow(students.(The(ads(will(be(presented(one(at(a(time.(You(can(make(your(

choice(by(clicking(the(button(which(you(believe(is(closest(to(the(average(rating(of(the(ad(on(

the(scale(from(1((Dislike)(to(9((Like).(

The(score(per(ad(is(calculated(as(follows.(If(your(estimation(is(less(than(one(scale(unit(away(

from(the(average(rating,(you(will(score(five(points;(if(it(is(between(one(and(two(scale(units(

away,(you(will(score(three(points;(if(it(is(between(two(and(three(scale(units(away,(you(will(

( 58(

score(one(point;(if(it(is(more(than(three(scale(units(away,(you(will(not(score(any(points.(Your(

score(across(the(twenty(ads(will(be(summed(to(determine(your(total(score(on(this(task.(

Screen:(ads(task((

Screen:(writing(prompt((see(Block(I(above)([end(of(Block(II](

Screen:(posttest(survey(instructions(This(was(the(last(task(in(the(experiment.(Please(answer(a(few(final(questions(to(end(the(

computer(session.(

Screen:(posttest(survey((• I(expect(to(have(a(faceatoaface(interview(at(the(end(of(this(session.(

[only(for(PA(and(OA:](

• During(the(faceatoaface(interview(I(expect(to(be(asked(to(explain(how(I(solved(the(

tasks.(

• During(the(faceatoaface(interview(I(expect(to(discuss(my(score(with(the(experiment(

leader.(

[for(all(participants:](

• I(believe(achieving(a(higher(final(score(leads(to(a(higher(reward.(

• I(believe(more(effort(on(these(tasks(leads(to(a(higher(score.(

• I(feel(my(answers(will(be(treated(anonymously.(

• During(the(tasks,(I(relied(mainly(on(rational(thinking.(

• During(the(tasks,(I(was(generally(highly(focused.(

• During(the(tasks,(I(followed(my(intuitions.(

All(of(the(above(on(a(scale(from(1((=Do(not(agree(at(all)(to(5((=Agree(very(much).(

Screen:(End(You(scored(a(total(of([x](points.(This(means(your(final(score(is([y](out(of(10.(

[incentive(condition](

You(have(earned(a(bonus(of(EUR([z].(

[all(participants](

(59(

The(computer(session(has(now(ended.(Please(open(the(door(of(your(cubicle(to(notify(the(

experiment(leader.(He(or(she(will(be(with(you(as(soon(as(possible.(Please(do(not(leave(the(

cubicle.(

( 60(

Appendix(II:(Experiment(Protocol(

AII.1(Cubicle(Preparation(

• All(questionnaires(are(labeled(with(participant(numbers(from(101(–(230.((

• There(are(four(different(versions(of(the(questionnaire.((

• It( is( important( that( for( all( experimental( sessions( the( participant( numbers( follow(

sequentially,( i.e.(no(number(is(left(out.(This(is(to(ensure(that(there(is(a(fit(/(balance(

with(the(manipulation(condition(that(the(computer(assigns.((

(

• Example:((

o Session(1:(9a10(o’clock.(6(participants.(Participant(numbers(101(a(106(

! Cubicle(1:(Questionnaire(with(Participant(Number(101(






(

o Session(2:(10(–(11(o’clock.(5(participants.(Participant(numbers(107(–(111(






(

o NOTE:( This( is( just( an( example.( It( is( important( that( you( randomly( put( the(

questionnaire( into( the( cubicles.( However,( randomly( means( out( of( the(

predefined(participant(numbers(for(each(session,(i.e.(101(–(106.((

(

• Put( the( questionnaire( into( the( cubicle( together( with( an( envelope.( Do( not( put( the(

questionnaire(into(the(envelope.((

(61(

(

AII.2(Instructions(for(participants(

• Waiting(Room:(Take(the(list(of(names(and(ask(if(participants(are(present(and(check(

their(names(off(the(list.(

• Instructor:( Follow(me,( please.( Please( start(with( filling(out( the(paper(questionnaire(

and( then(proceed( to( the( computerised(questions.(You(will( first(have( to( enter( your(

participant(number,(which(is(provided(on(the(top(right(corner(of(the(questionnaire.(

The( participant( number( is( not( linked( to( your( name.( Then,( you( can( put( your(

questionnaire(into(the(provided(envelope.(Please(do(not(seal(the(envelope!((

• The( experiment( will( last( for( one( hour( and( all( instructions( are( provided( on( your(

screen.( In(case(you(have(any(remaining(questions(please(ask( the( instructor.(Please(

switch(off(your(cellaphones.((

• Once(your(finished(please(open(the(door(of(your(cubicle(and(stay(inside.((

• Instructor:(Please(sign(the(form(for(the(payment((Give(out(the(payment).((

(

o NOTE:(4(out(of(6(participants(will(have(an(interview(after(the(experiment.(The(

participant(number( is( linked(to( the(condition.(Number(on(the(questionnaire(

also(shows(condition.(

AII.3(Interview(Instructions(

Interview( (1min)( in( a( separate( room.( During( the( interview( use( the( excel( sheet( with( the(

participant( number( to( write( down( any( comments( related( to( the( participant.( This( is(

important( if,( for( example,( the( participant( behaves( strangely.( ( Access( the( data( of( the(

participants(to(see(their(score(and(the(justification(text.(Tell(the(subjects,(with(a(stern(voice,(

to(have(a(seat.((

• Process(Accountability(

o So,(how(did(you(approach(each(task?((

o Did(you(feel(this(was(the(best(way(to(approach(this(problem?(Why?(

o Have(you(considered(any(alternative(strategies(to(derive(the(right(answer?(

(

(

( 62(

• Outcome(Accountability(

o How(satisfied(are(you(with(your(results?%

o How(do(you(believe(this(score(compares(relative(to(others?%

o What(do(you(think(you(could(have(done(different(to(get(a(better(result?%

Tell(participant(not(to(talk(about(this(experiment!(

(

(63(

Appendix(III:(Analytical(Task(Details((

AIII.1(Theory(

The(analytical(task,(used(within(this(study(allows(to(further(investigate(the(dispute(of(speed(

and(quality,(discussed(within(section(2.7(‘Decision(quality(tradeaoff(among(accuracy(and(

speed’.(Despite(the(fact(that(the(topic(of(speed(and(overall(quality(only(constitutes(a(small(

sideatopic(of(this(contribution,(it(is(worth(to(mention(and(appendix(hypotheses(one(and(two(

allow(to(have(a(closer(look(at(this(particular(interest.(

(

In(this(study(the(analytical(task(has(been(operationalized(using(two(different(versions(of(the(

task((see(section(3.4:(‘Analytical(Task’(for(a(detailed(description).(The(dominant(version(

allows(individuals(to(quicker(see(the(solution(intuitively(using(system(1(processing(without(

many(calculations(to(be(made.(The(nonadominant(version(forces(individuals(to(use(proper(

calculations(using(more(system(2(processing(in(order(to(arrive(at(the(correct(solution.(

(

Despite(the(fact(that(individuals(were(not(put(under(time(pressure,(time(was(recorded.(One(

can(expect(that(individuals(will(make(their(decisions(quicker(when(confronted(with(a(

dominant(task(in(comparison(to(a(nonadominant(task.(In(addition,(it(is(likely(that(people(will(

achieve(higher(accuracy(when(confronted(with(a(dominant(task,(leading(overall(to(higher(

quality.(

(

In(analytical(tasks:(

A.H1:(Individuals(will(achieve(higher(decision(accuracy(in(dominant(task(types(in(

comparison(to(nonadominant(task(types.((

A.H2:(Individuals(will(need(less(time(in(dominant(task(types(in(comparison(to(nonadominant(

task(types.(

AIII.2(Results(

These(hypotheses(were(statistically(explored(making(use(of(two(pairedasamples(tatest’s.(

Tables(with(an(overview(of(the(most(important(figures(are(provided(at(the(end(of(each(

section.(

( 64(

AIII.2.1$Analytical$Score$Differences$

A(pairedasamples(tatest(was(conducted(to(compare(the(score(differences(of(dominant(and(

nonadominant(tasks.(There(was(a(statistically(significant(difference(for(the(dominant((M(=(

44.08,(SD(=(26.53)(and(nonadominant(tasks((M(=(38.00,(SD(=(22.30)(with(t((131)(=(a2.58,(p(=(

.011((twoatailed).(The(mean(difference(was(a6.07(with(a(95%(confidence(interval(ranging(

from(a10.72(to(a1.42.(The(eta(squared(statistic((.02)(indicated(a(small(effect.(Hypothesis(one(

(Appendix(III)(is(supported(and(proves(that(individuals(achieve(higher(decision(accuracy(in(

dominant(task(types(in(comparison(to(nonadominant(task(types.(

(Figure(AIII.2.1:(Result(Overview(

AIII.2.2$Analytical$Time$Differences$

Another(pairedasamples(tatest(was(conducted(to(compare(the(time(differences(of(dominant(

and(nonadominant(tasks.(There(was(no(significant(difference(for(the(dominant((M(=(225.7,(

SD(=(70.70)(and(nonadominant(tasks((M(=(229.8,(SD(=(74.80)(with(t((131)(=(.619,(p(=(.537(

(twoatailed).(The(mean(difference(was(4.08(with(a(95%(confidence(interval(ranging(from(a

9.94(to(17.10.(The(eta(squared(statistic((.001)(indicated(a(very(small(effect.(Hypothesis(two(

(Appendix(III)(is(not(supported(and(does(not(proof(that(individuals(need(less(time(in(

dominant(task(types(in(comparison(to(nonadominant(task(types.(

(Figure(AIII.2.2:(Result(Overview(

AIII.3(Conclusion(

Section(5.1(‘Findings’(describes(how(the(analytical(task(did(not(translate(well(into(what(this(

study(tried(to(proof,(namely(how(process(accountability(leads(to(superior(decisions(in(

comparison(to(other(accountability(methods.(Despite(this(disappointment,(the(task(in(itself(

(65(

did(work(and(was(able(to(proof(that(individuals(scored(more(points(on(dominant(tasks(than(

nonadominant(tasks.(This(confirms(the(theory(that(individuals(quickly(scan(for(the(two(most(

useful(decision(alternatives(but(do(not(take(all(possibilities(into(account.(This(in(turn(proofs(

that(the(task(can(be(approached(by(analytical(but(also(intuitive(thinking,(namely(system(1(

and(system(2(processing.(Individuals(manipulated(to(use(system(1(or(system(2(processing(

should(thus(use(different(thinking(styles(and(come(to(different(results.(Even(though(this(

would(mean(that(the(task(should(just(work(fine(within(the(experiment(it(is(likely(that(

solving(the(nonadominant(tasks(was(simply(too(complex(and(difficult.(In(addition(it(requires(

participants(to(be(passionate(about(mathematics(to(be(motivated(enough(to(engage(into(the(

systematic(evaluation(of(many(alternatives.(

(

Summarizing,(the(task(itself(outside(the(context(of(the(experiment(was(thus(able(to(confirm(

how(people(make(decisions(and(proof(that(the(dominant(task(was(solved(a(lot(better(than(

the(nonadominant(task.(Against(expectations(and(experiences(from(preatesting,(participants(

were(not(significantly(faster(in(dealing(with(dominant(tasks.((

(

Documents

Draft Master thesis