AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF COMPUTER‐ASSISTED DECISION ANALYSIS*

Decision analysis tools often are used in semistructured and ill-structured situations. While some researchers have argued that computerized decision analysis programs may improve decision quality in such situations, research support for this assertion is weak. In this laboratory study, business students used a computerized decision-analysis program with short strategic-management cases to prepare decision reports. Independent raters' perceptions of aided and unaided decision performance were contrasted, attitudes of students toward the program were assessed, individual differences were correlated with attitudes, and the program's impact on students' perceptions of their decision processes and performance was examined. Student attitudes toward the computerized aid were favorable, and individual differences in reactions generally were as predicted. However, the program did not improve the independent ratings of students' decision reports and recommendations. These findings suggest that computerized decision aids should be adopted cautiously. If such aids result in positive user affect and heightened decision confidence without corresponding improvements in decision quality, they may be dysfunctional. Rigorous research methodologies which incorporate independent evaluations of analyses and decisions are recommended for use in future research on computerized decision-analysis programs.

[1]  Robert C. Joyner,et al.  Computer Augmented Organizational Problem Solving , 1970 .

[2]  Verling C. Troldahl,et al.  A Short-Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies , 1965 .

[3]  R. Hogarth Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. , 1981 .

[4]  G. Huber Cognitive Style as a Basis for MIS and DSS Designs: Much ADO About Nothing? , 1983 .

[5]  Harvey J. Brightman,et al.  The influence of the dogmatic personality upon information processing: A comparison with a Bayesian information processor , 1974 .

[6]  Ronald N. Taylor,et al.  Relative contribution of decision-maker attributes to decision processes , 1974 .

[7]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Does Cognitive Style Affect Diagnosis and intervention Strategies of Change Agents? , 1978 .

[8]  Marvin D. Dunnette,et al.  Influence of dogmatism, risk-taking propensity, and intelligence on decision-making strategies for a sample of industrial managers. , 1974 .

[9]  J. Rotter Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. , 1966, Psychological monographs.

[10]  D. Robey Cognitive Style and DSS Design: A Comment on Huber's Paper , 1983 .

[11]  P. Humphreys,et al.  Experiences with MAUD: Aiding decision structuring versus bootstrapping the decision maker☆ , 1980 .

[12]  H MCCLOSKY,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF ANOMY. , 1965, American sociological review.

[13]  L W MacNeil,et al.  Cognitive Complexity: A Brief Synthesis of Theoretical Approaches and a Concept Attainment Task Analogue to Cognitive Structure , 1974, Psychological reports.

[14]  J. Slocum,et al.  Individual Characteristics as Sources of Perceived Uncertainty Variability , 1977 .

[15]  R. Zmud INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND MIS SUCCESS: A REVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL LITERATURE* , 1979 .

[16]  E. Langer The illusion of control. , 1975 .

[17]  Daniel J. Power,et al.  Design and development of DECAID: a CAL decision formulation program , 1977 .

[18]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. , 1976 .

[19]  J. Bieri Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[20]  R. Cattell The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors. , 1966, Multivariate behavioral research.

[21]  Michael G Samet,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of a Decision-Analytic Aid1 , 1980 .