The Effect of Accountability on Judgment: Development of Hypotheses for Auditing.

Abstract Numerous social psychology studies show that holding decision makers accountable for their actions can influence the judgment process. An individual is accountable when he or she seeks to maintain a desired social image with an evaluative audience. Accountability is also an important aspect of the auditor's judgment environment (Gibbins 1984). Auditors have incentives to maintain a positive image with evaluative audiences such as clients, third parties, and other auditors. However, until recently, most studies of auditors' judgment have ignored the potential effects of accountability. The objective of this paper is to review the cognitive and social psychology literature on accountability and to assess its applicability to auditing research. The specific goal is to develop testable hypotheses for studying the effects of accountability on auditor judgment. Two major topics are discussed based on the literature review: (1) the various tactics that individuals use when they may be held accountable for their actions and (2) the effect of accountability on cognitive processes. This research indicates the following: First, auditors use accounts and apologies as tactics for dealing with accountability. Such tactics help the auditor defend decisions that may lead to potential adverse consequences. Second, accountability tends to increase the auditor's level of cognitive processing. This increased level of cognitive processing has both positive and negative effects on the judgment process.