References
- Aleksovska, M. (2021). Accountable for what? The effect of accountability standard specification on decision-making behavior in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.1900880
- Aleksovska, M., Schillemans, T., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2019). Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.22.66
- Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational. The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins.
- Ashton, R. H. (2000). A review and analysis of research on the test–retest reliability of professional judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<277::AID-BDM350>3.0.CO;2-B
- Bednarik, P., & Schultze, T. (2015). The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(3), 265–276.
- Biela, J., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2014). The empirical assessment of agency accountability: A regime approach and an application to the German Bundesnetzagentur. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 80(2), 362–381. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313514526
- Black, J. (2008). Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. Regulation & Governance, 2(2), 137–164. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2008.00034.x
- Black, J., & Baldwin, R. (2010). Really responsive risk‐based regulation. Law & Policy, 32(2), 181–213. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2010.00318.x
- Black, R. C., Hall, M. E., Owens, R. J., & Ringsmuth, E. M. (2016). The role of emotional language in briefs before the US Supreme Court. Journal of Law and Courts, 4(2), 377–407. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/685660
- Bouwman, R., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2016). Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: A systematic literature review and ways forward. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 110–131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0129
- Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
- Braithwaite, J. (2011). The essence of responsive regulation. UBCL Review, 44, 475–520.
- Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In S. T. Fiske, H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 3–16). Cambridge University Press.
- Cianci, A. M., Houston, R. W., Montague, N. R., & Vogel, R. (2017). Audit partner identification: Unintended consequences on audit judgment. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(4), 135–149. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51629
- Coffeng, T. (2022). Bias in supervision: A social psychological perspective on regulatory decision-making. Utrecht University.
- Coglianese, C., Nash, J., & Olmstead, T. (2003). Performance-based regulation: Prospects and limitations in health, safety, and environmental protection. Admin. L. Rev, 55, 705.
- Cohen, J. R., Krishnamoorthy, G., Peytcheva, M., & Wright, A. M. (2013). How does the strength of the financial regulatory regime influence auditors' judgments to constrain aggressive reporting in a principles-based versus rules-based accounting environment? Accounting Horizons, 27(3), 579–601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50502
- Collins, P. M., Jr, Corley, P. C., & Hamner, J. (2015). The influence of amicus curiae briefs on US Supreme Court opinion content. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 917–944. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12166
- Cooper-Martin, E. (1994). Measures of cognitive effort. Marketing Letters, 5(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993957
- Cushing, B. E., & Ahlawat, S. S. (1996). Mitigation of recency bias in audit judgment: The effect of documentation. Auditing, 15(2), 110.
- Cutler, B. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2011). Expert psychological testimony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388802
- Dudley, S. E., & Xie, Z. (2019). Nudging the nudger: Toward a choice architecture for regulators [Working paper]. GW Regulatory Studies Center.
- Dudley, S. E., & Xie, Z. (2020). Designing a choice architecture for regulators. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 151–156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13112
- Espinosa-Pike, M., & Barrainkua, I. (2016). An exploratory study of the pressures and ethical dilemmas in the audit conflict. Revista de Contabilidad, 19(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcsar.2014.10.001
- Feitsma, J. (2019). Brokering behaviour change: The work of behavioural insights experts in government. Policy & Politics, 47(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15174915040678
- Fernández-I-Marín, X., Jordana, J., & Bianculli, A. (2015). Varieties of accountability mechanisms in regulatory agencies. In A. Bianculli, X. Fernández-i-Marín, & J. Jordana (Eds.), Accountability and regulatory governance (pp. 23–50). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609
- Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 204–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2052
- Han, Y., & Robertson, P. J. (2021). Public employee accountability: An empirical examination of a nomological network. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(3), 494–522.
- Harari, M. B., & Rudolph, C. W. (2017). The effect of rater accountability on performance ratings: A meta-analytic review. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.007
- Helm, R. K., Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2016). Are arbitrators human? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13(4), 666–692. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12129
- Hood, C., James, O., Jones, G., Scott, C., & Travers, T. (1998). Regulation inside government: Where new public management meets the audit explosion. Public Money and Management, 18(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00117
- Hurley, P. J. (2015). Ego depletion: Applications and implications for auditing research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 35, 47–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2015.10.001
- Jordana, J., Levi-Faur, D. I., & Marín, X. F. (2011). The global diffusion of regulatory agencies: Channels of transfer and stages of diffusion. Comparative Political Studies, 44(10), 1343–1369. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414011407466
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
- Kim, C. (2017). An economic rationale for dismissing low‐quality experts in trial. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 445–466. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/sjpe.12129
- Koop, C., & Hanretty, C. (2018). Political independence, accountability, and the quality of regulatory decision-making. Comparative Political Studies, 51(1), 38–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017695329
- Koop, C., & Lodge, M. (2017). What is regulation? An interdisciplinary concept analysis. Regulation & Governance, 11(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12094
- Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 574–586. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574
- Lee, R. K. (2013). Judging judges: Empathy as the Litmus Test for Impartiality. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 82, 145.
- Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.
- Libby, R., & Trotman, K. T. (1993). The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(6), 559–574. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)90003-O
- Lindholm, T. (2008). Who can judge the accuracy of eyewitness statements? A comparison of professionals and lay‐persons. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1301–1314. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1439
- Maggetti, M. (2010). Legitimacy and accountability of independent regulatory agencies: A critical review. Living Reviews in Democracy, 13, 2.
- Maggetti, M., Ingold, K., & Varone, F. (2013). Having your cake and eating it, too: Can regulatory agencies be both independent and accountable? Swiss Political Science Review, 19(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12015
- Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01402389408425031
- Maroney, T. A. (2011). Emotional regulation and judicial behavior. California Law Review, 99, 1485.
- Martinov-Bennie, N., & Pflugrath, G. (2009). The strength of an accounting firm’s ethical environment and the quality of auditors’ judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9882-1
- May, P. J. (2007). Regulatory regimes and accountability. Regulation & Governance, 1(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00002.x
- Maynard‐Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street‐level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), S16–S23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02633.x
- McDermott, R. (2002). Experimental methods in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 5(1), 31–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.091001.170657
- Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 517–524. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.517
- Mills, R. W., & Koliba, C. J. (2015). The challenge of accountability in complex regulatory networks: The case of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Regulation & Governance, 9(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12062
- Moulin, V., Mouchet, C., Pillonel, T., Gkotsi, G. M., Baertschi, B., Gasser, J., & Testé, B. (2018). Judges’ perceptions of expert reports: The effect of neuroscience evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 61, 22–29.
- Ossege, C. (2012). Accountability–Are we better off without it? An empirical study on the effects of accountability on public managers' work behaviour. Public Management Review, 14(5), 585–607. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.642567
- Overman, S., Schillemans, T., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2021). A validated measurement for felt relational accountability: Gauging the account holder’s legitimacy and expertise. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1748–1767. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1751254
- Pitz, G. F., & Sachs, N. J. (1984). Judgment and decision: Theory and application. Annual Review of Psychology, 35(1), 139–164.
- Pollitt, C., & Hupe, P. (2011). Talking about government: The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.532963
- Rausch, A., & Brauneis, A. (2015). The effect of accountability on management accountants’ selection of information. Review of Managerial Science, 9(3), 487–521. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0126-8
- Samaha, A. M. (2018). If the text is clear-lexical ordering in statutory interpretation. Notre Dame Law Review, 94, 155.
- Schillemans, T. (2016). Calibrating public sector accountability: Translating experimental findings to public sector accountability. Public Management Review, 18(9), 1400–1420. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1112423
- Scott, C. (2000). Accountability in the regulatory state. Journal of Law and Society, 27(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00146
- Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon of accountability: forms and discourses. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2-3), 219–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0003-Y
- Spellman, B. A. (2010). Judges, expertise, and analogy. In D. Klein & G. Mitchell (Eds.), The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 149–163). Oxford University Press.
- Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Integrative complexity at forty: Steps toward resolving the scoring dilemma. Political Psychology, 35(5), 597–601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12206
- Svanberg, J., & Öhman, P. (2016). Does ethical culture in audit firms support auditor objectivity? Accounting in Europe, 13(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2016.1164324
- Szmer, J., & Ginn, M. H. (2014). Examining the effects of information, attorney capability, and amicus participation on US Supreme Court decision making. American Politics Research, 42(3), 441–471. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X13502219
- Tadei, A., Finnilä, K., Korkman, J., Salo, B., & Santtila, P. (2014). Features used by judges to evaluate expert witnesses for psychological and psychiatric legal issues. Nordic Psychology, 66(4), 239–253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2014.963648
- Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(4), 285–292. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3033716
- Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–376.
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.
- Thomann, E., & Sager, F. (2017). Hybridity in action: Accountability dilemmas of public and for-profit food safety inspectors in Switzerland. In P. Verbruggen & H. Havinga (Eds.), Hybridization of food governance (pp. 100–120). Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Thomann, E., Hupe, P., & Sager, F. (2018). Serving many masters: Public accountability in private policy implementation. Governance, 31(2), 299–319. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12297
- Tuijn, S. M., Van Den Bergh, H., Robben, P., & Janssens, F. (2014). Experimental studies to improve the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments on health care in the Netherlands: A randomized controlled trial and before and after case study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20(4), 352–361.
- Wainberg, J. S., Kida, T., Piercey, M. D., & Smith, J. F. (2013). The impact of anecdotal data in regulatory audit firm inspection reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(8), 621–636. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.10.005
- Wolfe, C. J., Fitzgerald, B. C., & Newton, N. J. (2017). The effect of partition dependence on assessing accounting estimates. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(3), 185–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51666
- Wright, J. E., & Houston, B. (2021). Accountability at its finest: Law enforcement agencies and body-worn cameras. Public Performance & Management Review, 44(4), 735–757. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2021.1916545