IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpd/articl/v2y2019i2jbpa.22.66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Marija Aleksovska

    (Utrecht University)

  • Thomas Schillemans

    (Utrecht University)

  • Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen

    (Utrecht University)

Abstract

The study of accountability in public administration has developed largely in parallel to the study of accountability in the behavioral sciences. In an effort to bridge this divide, we present a systematic review of the experimental literature on accountability in the behavioral sciences and draw lessons for public administration. We summarize the findings of 266 experiments exploring the effects of accountability mechanisms, presented in 211 articles published between 1970 and 2016. These findings are organized in four broad themes: effects of accountability on decision-making, behavior, and outcomes; and effects of the specific characteristics of accountability mechanisms. The review shows numerous desirable effects of accountability on individual decision-making and behaviors. This is of high relevance to public administration studies on accountability as it sheds light on causal mechanisms and allows for a balanced perspective on positive and negative effects of various types of accountability mechanisms. It is however not always possible to translate findings from behavioral research directly to public administration settings. We discuss the meaning and value of our findings for public administration studies and develop an agenda for future behavioral research on public sector accountability.

Suggested Citation

  • Marija Aleksovska & Thomas Schillemans & Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, 2019. "Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:bpd:articl:v:2:y:2019:i:2:jbpa.22.66
    DOI: 10.30636/jbpa.22.66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journal-bpa.org/index.php/jbpa/article/download/66/49
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.30636/jbpa.22.66?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ordonez, Lisa D. & Benson, Lehman & Beach, Lee Roy, 1999. "Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 63-80, April.
    2. Thomas Schillemans, 2008. "Accountability in the Shadow of Hierarchy: The Horizontal Accountability of Agencies," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 175-194, June.
    3. Thomas Schillemans, 2016. "Calibrating Public Sector Accountability: Translating experimental findings to public sector accountability," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(9), pages 1400-1420, October.
    4. Kennedy, J, 1993. "Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245.
    5. Tom Willems & Wouter Van Dooren, 2012. "Coming to Terms with Accountability," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(7), pages 1011-1036, January.
    6. Lee, Hanjoon & Herr, Paul M. & Kardes, Frank R. & Kim, Chankon, 1999. "Motivated Search: Effects of Choice Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowledge on Information Acquisition and Use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-88, May.
    7. Tan, HT & Kao, A, 1999. "Accountability effects on auditors' performance: The influence of knowledge, problem-solving ability, and task complexity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 209-223.
    8. Ashton, Robert H., 1992. "Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 292-306, July.
    9. Mary E. Huneke & Catherine Cole & Irwin P. Levin, 2004. "How Varying Levels of Knowledge and Motivation Affect Search and Confidence during Consideration and Choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 15(2_3), pages 67-79, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert M. Gillenkirch & Louis Velthuis, 2023. "Delegated risk-taking, accountability, and outcome bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 137-161, October.
    2. Beshears, John & Kosowsky, Harry, 2020. "Nudging: Progress to date and future directions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 3-19.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    2. El-Hussein E. El-Masry, 2008. "Factors affecting auditors' utilization of evidential cues," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(1), pages 26-50, January.
    3. Jim Psaros, 2007. "Do principles‐based accounting standards lead to biased financial reporting? An Australian experiment," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(3), pages 527-550, September.
    4. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    5. Sweeney, John T. & Suh, Ik Seon & Dalton, Kenneth C. & Meljem, Sylvia, 2017. "Are workpaper reviews preparer-specific?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 560-577.
    6. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    7. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    8. Dinuja Perera & Parmod Chand & Rajni Mala, 2020. "Confirmation bias in accounting judgments: the case for International Financial Reporting Standards for small and medium‐sized enterprises," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4093-4119, December.
    9. Mahan, Joseph E. & Seo, Won Jae & Jordan, Jeremy S. & Funk, Daniel, 2015. "Exploring the impact of social networking sites on running involvement, running behavior, and social life satisfaction," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 182-192.
    10. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    11. Odette M. Pinto, 2015. "Effects of Advice on Effectiveness and Efficiency of Tax Planning Tasks," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 307-329, December.
    12. Lau, Yeng Wai, 2014. "Aggregated or disaggregated information first?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2376-2384.
    13. Chang, Shin-Shin & Chang, Chung-Chau & Liao, Yen-Yi, 2015. "A joint examination of effects of decision task type and construal level on the attraction effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 168-182.
    14. Tom Christensen & Per Lægreid, 2015. "Performance and Accountability—A Theoretical Discussion and an Empirical Assessment," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 207-225, June.
    15. Román, Sergio & Riquelme, Isabel P. & Iacobucci, Dawn, 2023. "Fake or credible? Antecedents and consequences of perceived credibility in exaggerated online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    16. Eldor, Liat & Hodor, Michal & Cappelli, Peter, 2023. "The limits of psychological safety: Nonlinear relationships with performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    17. Mourali, Mehdi & Nagpal, Anish, 2013. "The powerful select, the powerless reject: Power's influence in decision strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 874-880.
    18. Chris Skelcher & Jacob Torfing, 2010. "Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 71-91, March.
    19. Welton Chang & Pavel Atanasov & Shefali Patil & Barbara A. Mellers & Philip E. Tetlock, 2017. "Accountability and adaptive performance under uncertainty: A long-term view," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(6), pages 610-626, November.
    20. Cowley, Elizabeth, 2004. "Recognition confidence, recognition accuracy and choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 641-646, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Accountability; Experiments; Systematic review; Decision-making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • Z00 - Other Special Topics - - General - - - General
    • D90 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpd:articl:v:2:y:2019:i:2:jbpa.22.66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sebastian Jilke (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journal-bpa.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.