Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Integrating Cognitive Feedback and Multi-attribute Utility-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods in GDSS

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive conflicts arise within groups because the members of a group view a problem from different perspectives, even when they have similar interests in achieving a goal. Disagreement within a group may occur due to: (a) differing judgment policies among the members, (b) inconsistency by any member in using a judgment policy, (c) group process losses that prevent group members from understanding each other better, or (d) limited processing capability which may prevent group members from processing all information effectively. Disagreement is especially likely when policies, processes, or information are conflicting in nature.

A level 2 GDSS to aid judging in cognitive conflict tasks is presented that combines cognitive feedback and Multi-attribute utility (MAU) theory based multicriteria decision-making techniques with the communication structure and activity-structuring capabilities of a level 1 GDSS. Though cognitive feedback and MAU methods have been used separately to help groups resolve cognitive conflicts, never before have the two decision aids been used together in a computer-based collaborative system.

The contributory effects of the components of this GDSS design were empirically tested in a laboratory setting. Three treatments: an unaided face-to-face meeting, a level 1 GDSS supported meeting, and a level 2 GDSS supported meeting were compared in a repeated measures experimental design.

Results largely supported the proposed research hypotheses. Some specific findings include: (1) the level 2 GDSS reduced disagreement between group members and improved consistency of judgments better than the other meeting environments did; (2) there was no significant difference in the reduction of disagreement between the level 1 GDSS and face-to-face meetings; and (3) while there was no difference in improvement of consistency of individual judgments between the face-to-face and level 1 GDSS supported meetings, group judgments made in face-to-face meetings were more consistent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi, M. (1994). “Computer-mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation,” MIS Quarterly, 18(2), 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H., “A Cognitive Theory of Judgment and Decision,” in B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens and G Sevon (eds). New Directions in Research on Decision Making, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  • Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning & Control Systems-A Framework for Analysis, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H. (1986). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, New York, NY: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bose, U., A. M. Davey and D. L. Olson. (1997). “Multi-attribute Utility Methods in Group Decision Making: Past Applications and Potential for Inclusion in GDSS,” Omega-International Journal of Management Science, 25(6), 691–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottger, P. C. and P. W. Yetton. (1983). “The Relationships among Group Size, Member Ability, Social Decision Schemes, and Performance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 145-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1976). “Social Judgment Theory and the Analysis of Interpersonal Conflict,” Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 985–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik E. (1955). “Representative Design and Probabilistic Theory in Functional Psychology,” Psychological Review, 62, 193–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunswik, E. (1952). Conceptual Framework of Psychology, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, N., O. K. Ngenyarna and A. Mobolurin. (1994). “A Qualitative Discriminant Process for Scoring and Ranking in Group Support Systems,” Information Processing & Management, 30(3), 389–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui, T., Co-oP. (1987). A Group Decision Support System for Cooperative Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making, Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram, L., R. P. Bostrom and B. E. Wynne. (1990). “An Empirical Investigation of Computer Support on Group Development,” Proceedings of the 23d HICSS, 3, 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colson, G. and B. Mareschal. (1994). “JUDGES: A Descriptive Group Decision Support System for the Ranking of Items,” Decision Support Systems, 12(4), 391–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. L. and K. R. Hammond. (1982). “Interpersonal Learning and Interpersonal Conflict Reduction in Decision-Making Groups,” in R.A. Guzzo (ed.), Improving Group Decision Making in Organizations: Approaches from Theory and Research, New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich, G. (1973). “Small Group Dynamics in Extended Judgment Situations,” in L. Rapoport and D Summers (eds). Human Judgment and Social Interaction, New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, pp. 315–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. (1992). “Some Compelling Intuitions about Group Consensus Decisions, Theoretical and Empirical Research, and Interpersonal Aggregation Phenomena: Selected Examples, 1950-1990,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., J. S. Valacich and J. F. Nunamaker. (1991). “Group, Sub-group and Nominal Group Idea Generation in an Electronic Meeting Environment,” Proceedings of the 24th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3, 573–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., J. F. George, L. M. Jessup, J. F. Nunamaker and D. R. Vogel. (1988). “Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings,” MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 591–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., M. D'Onofrio, V. Sambamurthy and M. S. Poole. (1989). “Comprehensiveness and Restriction in Group Decision Heuristics: Effects of Computer Support on Consensus Decision Making,” in J. DeGross, J.C. Henderson, and B. Konsynski (eds), Proceedings of Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Baltimore, NW: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 131–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G. and R. B. Gallupe. (1987). “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science, 33(5), 589–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. (1977). Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1977). “How to Use Multi-attribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision-making,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-7(5), 326–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. and W. Ury. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, J. P., M. S. Poole and R. Stutman. (1992). Working through Conflict, New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. B. (1990). “Is GDSS Use Appropriate for All Tasks?” Proceedings of the 23d Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, 3.

  • Gallupe, R. B., G. DeSanctis and G. W. Dickson. (1988). “The Impact of Computer Based Support on the Process and Outcomes of Group Decision Making,” MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 277–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, R. B. (1985). “The Impact of Task Difficulty on the Use of a Group Decision Support Meeting,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. and C. G. Morris. (1975). “Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. and R. E. Kaplan. (1974). “Interventions into Group Process: An Approach to Improving the Effectiveness of Groups,” Decision Sciences, 5, 459–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R. and B. Brehmer. (1973). “Quasi-rationality and Distrust: Implications for International Conflict,” in L. Rappoport and D. Summers (eds). Human Judgment and Social Interaction, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R. and D. A. Summers. (1972). “Cognitive Control,” Psychological Review, 79, 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R. “New Directions in Research on Conflict Resolution,” Journal of Social Issues, 21, 44–66, 1965

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, J. and J. Rohrbaugh. (1990). “Social Judgment Analysis and Small Group Decision Making: Cognitive Feedback Effects on Individual and Collective Performance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 34–54, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz S. R., M. Turoff and K. Johnson. (1989). “Experiments in Group Decision Making 3: Disinhibition, Deindividuation, and Group Process in Pen Name and Real Name Computer Conferences,” Decision Support Systems, 5(2), 217–232, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiltz S. R. and M. Turoff. (1985). “Structuring Computer-mediated Communication Systems to Avoid Information Overload,” Communications of the ACM, 28, 680–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa, R. Y. and D. D. Johnston. (1989) “Toward a General Theory of Group Decision Making: Development of an Integrated Model,” Small Group Behavior, 20(4), 500–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth R. M. (1987). Judgment and Choice, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1984). “Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems,” MIS Quarterly, 8, 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iz, P. H. and L. R. Gardiner. (1993). “Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Support Systems for Cooperative Groups,” Group Decision and Negotiation, forthcoming, 1993.

  • Jarvenpaa, S. L., V. S. Rao and G. P. Huber. (1988). “Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment,” Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12, 645–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelassi, M. T. and A. Foroughi. (1989). “Negotiation Support Systems: An Overview of Design Issues and Existing Software,” Decision Support Systems, 5(2), 167–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L. M. and J. S. Valacich. (1993). Group support systems: New perspectives, New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D., P. Slovic and A. Tversky. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heiuristics and Biases, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraenier K. L. and J. L. King. (1988). “Computer-based Systems for Cooperative Work and Group Decision Making,” ACM Computing Surveys, 20(2), 115–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamm H. and G. Tronunsdorf. (1973). “Group versus Individual Performance on Tasks Requiring Ideational Proficiency (Brainstorming): A Review,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 361–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine J. M. and R. L. Moreland. (1990). “Progress in Small Group Research,” Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCartt, A. T. and J. Rohrbaugh. (1989). “Evaluating Group Decision Support System Effectiveness: A Performance Study of Decision Conferencing,” Decision Support Systems, 5(2), 243–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minch, P. R. and L. G. Sanders. (1986). “Computerized Information Systems Supporting Multicriteria Decision Maldng,” Decision Sciences, 17, 395–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., D. Raisinghani and A. Theoret. (1976). “The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., A. R. Dennis and J. S. Valacich. (1991a). “Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gains,” Management Science, 37, 1325–1346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., A. R. Dennis, J. S. Valacich, D. R. Vogel and J. F. George. (1991b). “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,” Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J. F., L. M. Applegate and B. R. Konsynski. (1988). “Computer-aided Deliberation: Model Management and Group Decision Support,” Operations Research, 36(6), 826–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradice, D. P. and J. F. Courtney. (1987). “Causal and Non-causal Relationships and Dynamic Model Construction in a Managerial Advisory System,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(4), 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole M. S., M. Holmes and G. L. DeSanctis. (1991). “Conflict Management in a Computer-Supported Meeting Environment,” Management Science, 37(8), 926–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, V. S. and S. L. Jarvenpaa. (1991). “Computer Support of Groups: Theory-based Models for GDSS Research,” Management Science, 37(10), 1347–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan-Cirincione P. (1994). “Improving the Accuracy of Group Judgment: A Process Intervention Combining Group Facilitation, Social Judgment Analysis, and Information Technology,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(2), 246–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh J. (1988). “Cognitive Conflict Tasks and Small Group Processes,” in B. Brehmer and C. R. B. Joyce (eds.) Human Judgment: the SJT View, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy V. and W. W. Chin. (1994) “The Effects of Group Attitudes Toward Alternative GDSS Designs on the Decision-making Performance of Computer-Supported Groups,” Decision Sciences, 25(2), 215–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy V. and M. S. Poole. (1992) “The Effects of Variations in Capabilities of GDSS Design on Management of Cognitive Conflict,” Information Systems Research, 3(3), 224–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta K. and D. Te'eni. (1993). “Cognitive Feedback in GDSS: Improving Control and Convergence,” MIS Quarterly, 17, 87–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun M. F. (1988). Evolutionary Systems Design: Policy Making under Complexity and Group Decision Support Systems, Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M. E. (1932). “Comparisons of Individuals and Small Groups in the Rational Solution of Complex Problems,” American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel J. V., V. Dubrovsky, S. Kiesler and T. W. McGuire. (1986). “Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 157–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks D. B. (1982). The Dynamics of Effective Negotiation, Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G. (1992). “Pooling of Unshared Information During Group Discussion,” in S. Worchel, W. Wood and J. Simpson (eds.) Group Process and Productivity, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications pp. 48–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steeb R. and S. C. Johnston. (1981). “A Computer-Based Interactive System for Group Decision Making,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 11(8), 544–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefik M., G. Foster, D. G. Bobrow, K. Kahn, S. Lanning and L. Suchman. (1987) “Beyond the Chalkboard: Computer Support for Collaboration and Problem Solving in Meetings,” Communication of the ACM, 30(1), 32–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner E. (1972). Group Process and Productivity, New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart T. R. (1988). “Judgment Analysis: Procedures,” in B. Brehmer and C. R. B. Joyce (eds), Human Judgment: the SJT View, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 41–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson O. (1979). “Process Descriptions of Decision Making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 86–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker L. R. (1964). “A Suggested Alternative Formulation in the Developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch, and by Hammond, Hursch, and Todd,” Psychological Review, 71(6), 528–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turoff M. and S. R. Hiltz. (1982). “Computer Support for Group versus Individual Decisions,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, 30(1), 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • VisionQuest Version 2.1. (1992). Collaborative Technologies Corporation, Austin, TX.

  • Vogel D. and J. Nunamaker. (1990). “Group Decision Support System Impact: Multi-Methodological Exploration,” Information and Management, 18, 15–28

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX, 78412 E-mail

    Utpal Bose & David B. Paradice

Authors
  1. Utpal Bose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Paradice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bose, U., Paradice, D.B. The Effects of Integrating Cognitive Feedback and Multi-attribute Utility-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods in GDSS. Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 157–182 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008604128795

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008604128795

Search

Navigation