The comparative effectiveness of dialectical inquiry and Devil's advocacy: The impact of task biases on previous research findings

Considerable debate has recently emerged concerning the comparative effectiveness of two methods of inquiry recommended for use in strategic decision making: dialectical inquiry (DI) and devil's advocacy (DA). Much of the comparative research surrounding this debate has made use of the Multiple Cue Probability Learning Paradigm (MCPLP). The equivocal nature of previous research findings using this paradigm and others, along with results from the present research indicating potential order of presentation effects, raises serious questions concerning previous operationalizations of these two methods.

[1]  Dialectical inquiry in strategic decision‐making: A comment on the continuing debate , 1982 .

[2]  E. Brunswik.  Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. , 1955, Psychological review.

[3]  I. Janis.  Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes , 1982 .

[4]  J. Glidewell,et al.  A Dialectical Analysis of Organizational Conflict , 1975 .

[5]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment , 1977 .

[6]  Dialectical problem solving , 1982 .

[7]  R. A. Cosier.  Methods for improving the strategic decisnio: Dialectic versus the Devil's advocate , 1982 .

[8]  I. Mitroff.  Talking past one's colleagues in matters of policy , 1982 .

[9]  Charles R. Schwenk.  EFFECTS OF INQUIRY METHODS AND AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE ON PREDICTION PERFORMANCE , 1982 .

[10]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  Further Thoughts on Dialectical Inquiry: A Rejoinder to Mitroff and Mason , 1981 .

[11]  John C. Aplin,et al.  An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dialectical Inquiry Systems , 1978 .

[12]  R. A. Cosier.  The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on prediction accuracy , 1978 .

[13]  L. Bourgeois.  Performance and consensus , 1980 .

[14]  C. Churchman,et al.  The design of inquiring systems: basic concepts of systems and organization , 1971 .

[15]  Charles R. Schwenk.  Why sacrifice rigour for relevance? A proposal for combining laboratory and field research in strategic management , 1982 .

[16]  R. Lewicki,et al.  Managing conflict at organizational interfaces , 1982 .

[17]  I. Mitroff,et al.  On Strategic Assumption-Making: A Dialectical Approach to Policy and Planning , 1979 .

[18]  Ian I. Mitroff.  DIALECTIC SQUARED: A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION ON THE MEANINGS OF SOME KEY CONCEPTS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE* , 1982 .

[19]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  Approaches for the experimental examination of the dialectic , 1983 .

[20]  John C. Aplin,et al.  A critical view of dialectical inquiry as a tool in strategic planning , 1980 .

[21]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  INQUIRY METHOD, GOAL DIFFICULTY, AND CONTEXT EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE , 1980 .

[22]  David L. Ford,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF TWO NORMATIVE STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS ON ESTABLISHED AND AD HOC GROUPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVING DECISION MAKING EFFECTIVENESS , 1976 .

[23]  Charles R. Schwenk.  LABORATORY RESEARCH ON ILL-STRUCTURED DECISION AIDS: THE CASE OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY* , 1983 .

[24]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  The Metaphysics of Policy and Planning: A Reply to Cosier , 1981 .

[25]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  The Application of Behavioral and Philosophical Technologies to Strategic Planning: A Case Study of a Large Federal Agency , 1977 .

[26]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  Effects of the expert, devil's advocate, and dialectical inquiry methods on prediction performance , 1980 .

[27]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  Dialectical Inquiry in Strategic Planning: A Case of Premature Acceptance , 1981 .

[28]  Richard O. Mason,et al.  A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning , 1969 .