Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-sk4tg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T18:06:26.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Separating real incentives and accountability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Ferdinand M. Vieider
Ferdinand M. Vieider*
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilans-University Munich, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accountability—the expectation on the side of the decision maker that she may have to justify her decisions in front of somebody else—has been found by psychologists to strongly influence decision-making processes. The awareness of this issue remains however limited amongst economists, who tend to focus on the motivational effects of financial incentives. Accountability and incentives may provide different motivations for decision makers, and disentangling their effects is thus important for understanding real-world situations in which both are present. Separating accountability and incentives, I find different effects. Accountability is found to reduce preference reversals between frames, for which incentives have no effect. Incentives on the other hand are found to reduce risk seeking for losses, where accountability has no effect. In a choice task between simple and compound events, accountability increases the preference for the normatively superior simple event, while incentives have a weaker effect going in the opposite direction.

Keywords

Real v. hypothetical incentivesExperimental economicsAccountabilityInternal validitySimple and compound eventsExternal validityAnchoring and adjustmentFraming effects

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty Z13: Economic Sociology • Economic Anthropology • Language • Social and Economic Stratification D71: Social Choice • Clubs • Committees • Associations
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 507 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am indebted to Peter P. Wakker, Philip E. Tetlock, and participants of the FUR in Barcelona for helpful comments. Any errors remain mine.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9279-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Bar-Hillel, M. (1973). On the subjective probability of compound events. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 296–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, M. S., Carter, J. R., Gominiak, R. D., & Ohl, D. F. (1996). An experimental note on the Allais paradox and monetary incentives. Empirical Economics, 21, 617–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Abrams, R. A. (1986). Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 230–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McKabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(5), 448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes, 75(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenberg, M., & Perner, J. (2002). Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1162–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Libby, R., & Lipe, M. G. (1992). Incentives, effort, and the cognitive processes involved in accounting- related judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 30(2), 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A., Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., & Kerkvliet, J. (2004). Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. American Economic Review, 94(3), 741–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. American Economic Review, 90(2), 426–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. M., & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variation, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newberry Park: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reason: the case of attraction and compromise effect. The Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, I., & Nye, P. (1992). The effect of accountability and susceptibility on decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 416–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics: induced value theory. The American Economic Review, 66(2), 274–279.Google Scholar
Takemura, K. (1993). The effect of decision frame and decision justification on risky choice. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, L. I. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 700–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, S. T., Vieider, F. M., & Wakker, P. P. (2008). Causes of ambiguity aversion: known versus unknown preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainly, 36, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, New Series, 211(4481), 453–458.Google ScholarPubMed
Vieider, F.M., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). Accountability: a meta-analysis of effect sizes and situated identity analysis of research settings. Working paper.Google Scholar
Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Vieider supplementary material

Vieider supplementary material
Download Vieider supplementary material(File)
File 44.5 KB