Prior research has shown that accountability influences decision-making processes (e.g., Tetlock, 1985a). Tetlock's work has found when accountable decision-makers know the view of the person to whom they are accountable, decision-makers will shift their decision towards that known view. In addition, these decision-makers may more frequently rationalize a previous decision. Accountable decision-makers who do not know the view of the person to whom they are accountable have been found to exhibit vigilant and complex cognitive processing. The goal of this study was to apply Tetlock's model of accountability to performance evaluations. Undergraduate raters in accountability conditions expected to meet with one of their actual professors to justify performance ratings. To further investigate the nature of accountability, this study contrasted with Tetlock's work in utilizing two different types of accountability and a decision shift control group. Results of this decision shift control group raised questions about Tetlock’s conclusions about accountability's effects on decision shifts. In addition, reward aspects of accountability may subsume Tetlock's regular operationalization of interpersonal accountability. Overall, raters appeared to focus on the possibility of giving unfavorable ratings. This focus may be of primary importance to accountability effects in performance evaluation. Suggestions for future research and the generalizability of these processes were discussed. / Ph. D.