当前位置: X-MOL 学术Academy of Management Journal › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
When and Why Bias Suppression is Difficult to Sustain: The Asymmetric Effect of Intermittent Accountability
Academy of Management Journal ( IF 9.5 ) Pub Date : 2021-07-26 , DOI: 10.5465/amj.2020.0441
Brittany Solomon 1 , Matthew E. K. Hall 2 , Cindy P. Muir (Zapata) 3
Affiliation  

The justice literature suggests that adhering to justice rules should be self-reinforcing. Yet, the literature on bias suppression (a facet of procedural justice) indicates that the effects of debiasing initiatives are transient. We aim to explain why sustained bias suppression is intrinsically challenging under the condition of intermittent accountability. We theorize that bias suppression with high accountability induces counterfactual thinking and regret and, ultimately, with subsequent low accountability, decision reversal. However, this process does not occur when accountability is initially low and subsequently high. Thus, intermittent accountability has an asymmetric effect on bias suppression over time—bias suppression is reversed (and biased decisions are sustained). We initially provide a proof of concept using S&P’s 500 Firms’ CEOs. We then conduct a field study of prominent decision-makers: U.S. Supreme Court judges (Study 1). We find that bias suppression is negatively associated with consistency when accountability is initially high but later reduced, as seemingly mediated through counterfactual thinking. Next, we test our full model in two experiments using recall and a self-focused vignette (Studies 2 and 3). Finally, we explore why bias yields consistency even when accountability increases. Our work highlights the power of cognitive and emotional processing relative to external control.

中文翻译:

何时以及为何难以维持偏见抑制:间歇性问责的不对称效应

正义文献表明,坚持正义规则应该是自我强化的。然而,关于偏见抑制(程序正义的一个方面)的文献表明,消除偏见举措的影响是短暂的。我们旨在解释为什么在间歇性问责制的情况下,持续的偏见抑制本质上具有挑战性。我们的理论是,高问责制的偏见抑制会导致反事实思维和后悔,并最终导致随后的低问责制导致决策逆转。但是,当问责制最初较低而随后较高时,则不会发生此过程。因此,随着时间的推移,间歇性问责对偏见抑制具有不对称的影响——偏见抑制被逆转(并且有偏见的决定得以维持)。我们最初使用标准普尔 500 强公司的 CEO 来提供概念验证。然后,我们对著名决策者进行实地研究:美国最高法院法官(研究 1)。我们发现,当问责制最初很高但后来降低时,偏见抑制与一致性呈负相关,这似乎是通过反事实思维进行调解的。接下来,我们在两个实验中使用召回和以自我为中心的小插图(研究 2 和 3)测试我们的完整模型。最后,我们探讨了为什么即使问责制增加,偏见也会产生一致性。我们的工作强调了相对于外部控制的认知和情绪处理的力量。我们在两个实验中使用召回和自我关注的小插图来测试我们的完整模型(研究 2 和 3)。最后,我们探讨了为什么即使问责制增加,偏见也会产生一致性。我们的工作强调了相对于外部控制的认知和情绪处理的力量。我们在两个实验中使用召回和自我关注的小插图来测试我们的完整模型(研究 2 和 3)。最后,我们探讨了为什么即使问责制增加,偏见也会产生一致性。我们的工作强调了相对于外部控制的认知和情绪处理的力量。
更新日期:2021-09-09
down
wechat
bug