IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v8y1999i2d10.1023_a1008604128795.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Utpal Bose

    (Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi)

  • David B. Paradice

    (Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Utpal Bose & David B. Paradice, 1999. "The Effects of Integrating Cognitive Feedback and Multi-attribute Utility-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods in GDSS," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 157-182, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008604128795
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008604128795
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008604128795
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008604128795?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Harmon, Joel & Rohrbaugh, John, 1990. "Social judgment analysis and small group decision making: Cognitive feedback effects on individual and collective performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 34-54, June.
    2. Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.
    3. J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. & Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich & Douglas R. Vogel, 1991. "Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1325-1346, October.
    4. Davis, James 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, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 3-38, June.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. V. Srinivasan Rao & Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, 1991. "Computer Support of Groups: Theory-Based Models for GDSS Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1347-1362, October.
    7. Siegel, Jane & Dubrovsky, Vitaly & Kiesler, Sara & McGuire, Timothy W., 1986. "Group processes in computer-mediated communication," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 157-187, April.
    8. Bertrand Mareschal & Gérard Colson, 1994. "JUDGES: a descriptive group decision support system for the ranking of items," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9351, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. J. F. Nunamaker & Lynda M. Applegate & Benn R. Konsynski, 1988. "Computer-Aided Deliberation: Model Management and Group Decision Support," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 826-848, 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. Dias, Luis C. & Climaco, Joao N., 2005. "Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 291-307, January.
    2. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:547-569 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mandeep K. Dhami & Henrik Olsson, 2008. "Evolution of the interpersonal conflict paradigm," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 547-569, October.
    5. Suzana de Suzana Dantas Daher & Adiel Teixeira Almeida, 2012. "The Use of Ranking Veto Concept to Mitigate the Compensatory Effects of Additive Aggregation in Group Decisions on a Water Utility Automation Investment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 185-204, March.

    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. Robert Davison, 2000. "The Role of Groupware in Requirements Specification," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 149-160, March.
    2. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Robert L. Armacost & Jamshid C. Hosseini & Julie Pet-Edwards, 1999. "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 535-555, November.
    4. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.
    5. Rajiv D. Banker & Robert J. Kauffman, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A Fiftieth-Year Survey of the Literature in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 281-298, March.
    6. Islei, Gerd & Lockett, Geoff & Naudé, Peter, 1999. "Judgemental modelling as an aid to scenario planning and analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 61-73, February.
    7. Michael Parent & R. Brent Gallupe, 2001. "The Role of Leadership in Group Support Systems Failure," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 405-422, September.
    8. Sajda Qureshi, 1998. "Supporting a Network Way of Working in an Electronic Social Space," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(5), pages 399-416, September.
    9. Burton, F. Greg & Coller, Maribeth & Tuttle, Brad, 2006. "Market responses to qualitative information from a group polarization perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 107-127, February.
    10. N. F. Matsatsinis & E. Grigoroudis & A. Samaras, 2005. "Aggregation and Disaggregation of Preferences for Collective Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 217-232, May.
    11. Geldermann, Jutta & Bertsch, Valentin & Treitz, Martin & French, Simon & Papamichail, Konstantinia N. & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2009. "Multi-criteria decision support and evaluation of strategies for nuclear remediation management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 238-251, February.
    12. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    13. Yeh, Chung-Hsing & Chang, Yu-Hern, 2009. "Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 464-473, April.
    14. Huang, Yeu-Shiang & Chang, Wei-Chen & Li, Wei-Hao & Lin, Zu-Liang, 2013. "Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(2), pages 462-469.
    15. Ann Davey & David Olson, 1998. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 55-75, January.
    16. Fred Niederman & John Bryson, 1998. "Influence of Computer-Based Meeting Support on Process and Outcomes for a Divisional Coordinating Group," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 293-325, July.
    17. Anindya Ghose & Avi Goldfarb & Sang Pil Han, 2013. "How Is the Mobile Internet Different? Search Costs and Local Activities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 613-631, September.
    18. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    19. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    20. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.

    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:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1008604128795. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.