This proposal describes 12 experiments designed to test predictions derived from a social contingency model of judgment and choice in which key functions of social cognition include: (a)assessing the relative justifiability of available response options; (b)generating compelling justifications for one's opinions and decisions. The 12 experiments (plus exploratory study) test a host of predictions concerning: (a) the conditions under which people cope with accountability demands via low-effort impression-management of response thresholds (e.g., attitude shifting) as opposed to more demanding strategies that require considerable cognitive effort (effort that can take either self-critical or self-justifying forms); (b) the power of various types of accountability demands to amplify or attenuate response tendencies widely classified as "errors or biases" in the social cognition and decision-theory literatures; (c) the power of various types of accountability demands to alter perceptions of what counts as an "error or bias" by activating alternative "inferential sets" (e.g., conversational norms, intuitive scientist versus prosecutor). The proposed research places human thought in social context. People make most decisions within settings in which they feel, in varying ways and degrees, accountable to others. If our goal is an integrative theory of judgment and choice, we need to clarify how the psychology of the individual decision-maker interacts with the social, institutional and political context to shape thought and action. The current studies help to fill this gap in knowledge by clarifying when people respond to accountability demands by simply shifting their views toward the anticipated audience and when they respond to accountability by becoming either more self-critical and reflective or more self-justifying and defensive. The research should have important implications for designing organizations in ways that enhance the quality of individual and group judgment and decision-making .