IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v25y1997i6p643-658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the effectiveness of cognitive feedback from an interface agent

Author

Listed:
  • Montazemi, A. R.
  • Gupta, K. M.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of task information (TI) provided by an interface agent during the idea evaluation and integration step of the problem formulation stage of the problem solving process. The effectiveness assessment was based on solving diagnostic decision problems in the domain of complex industrial machinery. Ten domain experts participated in this study. Decision support was provided by a case-based reasoning system. Findings suggest that TI provided by the interface agent had no effect on the decision maker's performance, nor on the associated cognitive effort. However, a verbal protocol analysis revealed that the ten subjects used the interface agent to verify their decision processes. The results and their implications are discussed with respect to current findings in the area of decision support systems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:25:y:1997:i:6:p:643-658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(97)00028-5
    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. 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.
    2. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    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. David W. Cravens, 1970. "An Exploratory Analysis of Individual Information Processing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(10), pages 656-670, June.
    5. Richard O. Mason & Ian I. Mitroff, 1973. "A Program for Research on Management Information Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 475-487, January.
    6. Montazemi, A. R. & Chan, L., 1990. "An analysis of the structure of expert knowledge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 275-292, April.
    7. Jasbir S. Dhaliwal & Izak Benbasat, 1996. "The Use and Effects of Knowledge-Based System Explanations: Theoretical Foundations and a Framework for Empirical Evaluation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 342-362, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sengupta, K., 1995. "Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 125-143, April.
    2. 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).
    3. Binswanger, J., 2008. "A Simple Bounded-Rationality Life Cycle Model," Discussion Paper 2008-13, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Binswanger, Johannes, 2012. "Life cycle saving: Insights from the perspective of bounded rationality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 605-623.
    5. Steven B. Redd, 2002. "The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 335-364, June.
    6. Petersen, Knut & Patzke, Henning, 1986. "Individuelles Informationsverhalten als Gegenstand des "Behavioral Accounting": Eine Meta-Analyse der empirischen Forschung," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 177, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    7. Julian N. Marewski & Katja Mehlhorn, 2011. "Using the ACT-R architecture to specify 39 quantitative process models of decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(6), pages 439-519, August.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:733-739 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    11. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Carlson, Kurt A. & Guha, Abhijit, 2011. "Leader-focused search: The impact of an emerging preference on information search," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 133-141, May.
    13. Müller, Martin & Olsen, Jerome & Kirchler, Erich & Kogler, Christoph, 2023. "How explicit expected value information affects tax compliance decisions and information acquisition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. Manis, K.T. & Madhavaram, Sreedhar, 2023. "AI-Enabled marketing capabilities and the hierarchy of capabilities: Conceptualization, proposition development, and research avenues," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    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. Mridu Prabal Goswami & Manipushpak Mitra & Debapriya Sen, 2022. "A Characterization of Lexicographic Preferences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 170-187, June.
    17. Vicky Arnold & Nicole Clark & Philip A. Collier & Stewart A. Leech & Steve G. Sutton, 2004. "Explanation provision and use in an intelligent decision aid," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 5-27, January.
    18. Nicolas Vaillant & François-Charles Wolff, 2011. "Positive and negative preferences in human mate selection," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 273-291, June.
    19. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    20. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    21. Huizenga, Hilde M. & Wetzels, Ruud & van Ravenzwaaij, Don & Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, 2012. "Four empirical tests of Unconscious Thought Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 332-340.

    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:25:y:1997:i:6:p:643-658. 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.