IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v23y1995i2p125-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information

Author

Listed:
  • Sengupta, K.

Abstract

Research in human information processing demonstrates that the presence of irrelevant information has an adverse effect on the quality of decisions. Decision makers are unable to identify and separate the effect of irrelevant information, thereby reducing the quality of decisions. The propensity to overutilize irrelevant information is significant because present day work environments are increasingly rich in information. This study examines the comparative efficacies of two types of information--cognitive feedback and outcome feedback--in identifying irrelevant information and thereby improving decision quality. Outcome feedback is information on the accuracy of a decision. Cognitive feedback is information on the how and why underlying the accuracy. The results show that subjects provided with cognitive feedback attained significantly better identification of irrelevant information than those relying solely on outcome feedback. The use of cognitive feedback also resulted in greater accuracy and cognitive control. We discuss the implications of the results for designing decision support systems and for research in decision aiding.

Suggested Citation

  • Sengupta, K., 1995. "Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 125-143, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:23:y:1995:i:2:p:125-143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(94)00061-E
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothstein, Howard G., 1986. "The effects of time pressure on judgment in multiple cue probability learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 83-92, February.
    2. Balzer, William K. & Sulsky, Lorne M. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E., 1992. "Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-54, October.
    3. Tindale, R. Scott, 1989. "Group vs individual information processing: The effects of outcome feedback on decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 454-473, December.
    4. Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, 1989. "The Effect of Task Demands and Graphical Format on Information Processing Strategies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 285-303, March.
    5. Balzer, William K. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E. & Birchenough, Todd R. & Martens, Sandra Parham & Raymark, Patrick H., 1994. "Effects of Cognitive Feedback Components, Display Format, and Elaboration on Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 369-385, June.
    6. O'Connor, Raymond M. & Doherty, Michael E. & Tweney, Ryan D., 1989. "The effects of system failure error on predictions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 1-11, August.
    7. Brehmer, Berndt, 1987. "Note on subjects' hypotheses in multiple-cue probability learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 323-329, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ninko Kostovski & Marjan Bojadjiev & Hari Lokvenec, 2017. "Decision Support Systems For New Project Development In Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industries," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 4-14, October.
    2. Gerrit H. van Bruggen & Ale Smidts & Berend Wierenga, 1998. "Improving Decision Making by Means of a Marketing Decision Support System," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 645-658, May.
    3. Patrick Krieger & Carsten Lausberg, 2021. "Entscheidungen, Entscheidungsfindung und Entscheidungsunterstützung in der Immobilienwirtschaft: Eine systematische Literaturübersicht [Decisions, decision-making and decisions support systems in r," Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie (German Journal of Real Estate Research), Springer;Gesellschaft für Immobilienwirtschaftliche Forschung e. V., vol. 7(1), pages 1-33, April.
    4. Jan A. Kempkes & Francesco Suprano & Andreas Wömpener, 2024. "How management support systems affect job performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 2013-2086, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leung, Patrick W. & Trotman, Ken T., 2005. "The effects of feedback type on auditor judgment performance for configural and non-configural tasks," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 537-553, August.
    2. Phillips, Jean M., 1999. "Antecedents of Leader Utilization of Staff Input in Decision-Making Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 215-242, March.
    3. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    4. Montazemi, A. R. & Gupta, K. M., 1997. "On the effectiveness of cognitive feedback from an interface agent," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 643-658, December.
    5. Patrick W. Leung & Ken T. Trotman, 2008. "Effect of different types of feedback on the level of auditors’ configural information processing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(2), pages 301-318, June.
    6. Stone, Eric R. & Opel, Ryan B., 2000. "Training to Improve Calibration and Discrimination: The Effects of Performance and Environmental Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 282-309, November.
    7. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    8. Cindy Moeckel, 1991. "Two factors affecting an auditor's ability to integrate audit evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 270-292, September.
    9. Monideepa Tarafdar & Sufian Qrunfleh, 2017. "Agile supply chain strategy and supply chain performance: complementary roles of supply chain practices and information systems capability for agility," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(4), pages 925-938, February.
    10. Adrian Hillenbrand & André Schmelzer, 2015. "Beyond Information: Disclosure, Distracted Attention, and Investor Behavior," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2015_20, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    11. Boon-itt, Sakun & Wong, Chee Yew & Wong, Christina W.Y., 2017. "Service supply chain management process capabilities: Measurement development," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Kayande, U. & de Bruyn, A. & Lilien, G.L. & Rangaswamy, A. & van Bruggen, G.H., 2006. "How Feedback Can Improve Managerial Evaluations of Model-based Marketing Decision Support Systems," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-039-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Marieke Huysentruyt & Eva Lefevere, 2010. "Child Benefit Support and Method of Payment: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Belgium," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 163-184, May.
    14. Deb Feldman-Stewart & Nancy Kocovski & Beth A. McConnell & Michael D. Brundage & William J. Mackillop, 2000. "Perception of Quantitative Information for Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(2), pages 228-238, April.
    15. Vandegrift, Donald & Brown, Paul, 2005. "Gender differences in the use of high-variance strategies in tournament competition," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 834-849, December.
    16. Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber, 2019. "Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 76-100, March.
    17. Jan A. Kempkes & Francesco Suprano & Andreas Wömpener, 2024. "How management support systems affect job performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 2013-2086, December.
    18. Oun-Joung Park & Jong-hyun Ryu, 2019. "Cognitive fit effects of online reviews on tourists’ information search," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 313-335, September.
    19. Gogi, Anastasia & Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2016. "An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 931-944.
    20. J. Michael Haynie & Dean A. Shepherd & Holger Patzelt, 2012. "Cognitive Adaptability and an Entrepreneurial Task: The Role of Metacognitive Ability and Feedback," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(2), pages 237-265, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:23:y:1995:i:2:p:125-143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.