Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims

Abstract

This study assesses the impact of accountability, the status quo, and anticipated costs and benefits on judgement of the acceptability of a drug in the US pharmaceuticals market. Several effects are documented: (1) subjects were more accepting of a drug, the lower the anticipated risks of side effects and the greater the anticipated benefits; (2) subjects were especially unwilling to accept risk when the drug was not yet on the market and when they felt accountable for their decisions;( 3 ) accountable subjects confronted by an off-the-market drug that posed moderate or high risk were also especially likely to procrastinate, to buckpass. and to think in integratively complex ways about the problem, notwithstanding the fact that many more lives would be saved than lost. We explain these results by positing that perceptual-cognitive processes (loss aversion) and political processes (blame avoidance) mutually reinforce each other when decision makers are accountable for choices that raise the possibility of changing the status quo in ways that impose losses on identifiable constituencies. We conclude by commenting on the complex normative issues that arise in labelling response tendencies as biases. Choices that look irrational within one ethical or political framework sometimes appear quite reasonable with another. KEY WORDS Accountable Risk Rationality PharmaceuticalsPsychological research on judgement and choice addresses fundamental questions of human rationality: When do people draw inferences or make decisions in ways that are biased, flawed, or maladaptive? What normative models -Bayes' theorem, expected utility maximizationshould we use in gauging whether people have indeed made mistakes? How robust are the observed deviations from rational actor standards? (See Fiske and Taylor, 1991; Payne et al., 1992;Kahneman et al., 1982.) The social contingency model of judgement and choice both complements and contradicts this burgeoning research literature (Tetlock, 1992). The model begins with the uncontroversial claim that people make the vast majority of decisions in social settings in which they feel accountable (to varying degrees and in varying ways) to others. The model then goes on to make a series of more complex and controversial claims. It maintains, for example, that under certain conditions, accountability pressures will motivate people to engage in pre-emptive self-criticism and to anticipate objections 08943257f94JO 10001-23s 16.50 Not Aoaountable, S t a t u s QuoAooountable, New Dnrg LOW WSK M B M M m H w m Exhibit 1 . Acceptability of drug as a function of risk level, accountability and market statusin the other three conditions: M(I5) = 5.78 versus M(45) = 3.40. This interaction was again highly significant, F(2, 1 12) = 6.50, p < 0.0001. Again, .the results of the Turkey HSD test were unequivocal: the medium-and high-risk judgements of accountable subjects evaluating an off-the-market drug were not significantly different from each other, forming their own grouping, and were significantly different...

Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice

“…Other recent work also supports the idea that increases in processing effort can reduce decision quality. Tetlock and his colleagues demonstrated that increases in accountability lead to greater processing effort, while at the same time leading to increases in judgmental biases such as the dilution effect (Tetlock & Boettger, 1989) and the status quo bias (Tetlock & Boettger, 1994). Similarly, work by Buehler (Buehler, Griffin, & MacDonald, 1997;Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994) showed that an increase in processing effort can increase proneness to the planning fallacy.…”

How Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct Causation

“…Decision theorists refer to the emotions associated with these comparisons as anticipated regret and anticipated rejoicing (Bell, 1982;Loomes & Sugden, 1982), and many studies have demonstrated their effects on choice. As an example, Tetlock and Boettger (1994) demonstrated how social pressure to be accountable can amplify anticipated regret, thereby inducing decision makers to be especially averse to imposing losses or costs on anyone who may be affected by their choices. Janis and Mann (1977) proposed from their early review of the literature that anticipated regret changes decision-making processes toward greater vigilance and information gathering, ultimately leading to better decisions (i.e., decisions with a higher chance of a good outcome).…”

Conflicts Of Interest And The Case Of Auditor Independence: Moral Seduction And Strategic Issue Cycling

“…Those with a vested interest in the status quo (such as the major accounting firms and investment banks) are typically more willing to invest resources to maintain the status quo than the forces for reform can expend on inducing change. Overwhelming evidence is often necessary to build up the necessary political momentum to change legislation (Tetlock & Boettger, 1994). Rather than ask what the best system would look like, legislators ask whether public pressure warrants changes to the status quo.…”