IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v21y2010i1p56-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Query Reuse Potentially Harmful? Anchoring and Adjustment in Adapting Existing Database Queries

Author

Listed:
  • Gove Allen

    (Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84601)

  • Jeffrey Parsons

    (Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador A1B 3X5, Canada)

Abstract

Reusing database queries by adapting them to satisfy new information requests is an attractive strategy for extracting information from databases without involving database specialists. However, the reuse of information systems artifacts has been shown to be susceptible to the phenomenon of anchoring and adjustment. Anchoring often leads to a systematic adjustment bias in which people fail to make sufficient changes to an anchor in response to the needs of a new task. In a study involving 157 novice query writers from six universities, we examined the effect of this phenomenon on the reuse of Structured Query Language (SQL) queries under varying levels of domain familiarity and for different types of anchors. Participants developed SQL queries to respond to four information requests in a familiar domain and four information requests in an unfamiliar domain. For two information requests in each domain, participants were also provided with sample queries (anchors) that answered similar information requests. We found evidence that the opportunity to reuse sample queries resulted in an adjustment bias leading to poorer quality query results and greater overconfidence in the correctness of results. The results also indicate that the strength of the adjustment bias depends on a combination of domain familiarity and type of anchor. This study demonstrates that anchoring and adjustment during query reuse can lead to queries that are less accurate than those written from scratch. We also extend the concept of anchoring and adjustment by distinguishing between surface-structure and deep-structure anchors and by considering the impact of domain familiarity on the adjustment bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Gove Allen & Jeffrey Parsons, 2010. "Is Query Reuse Potentially Harmful? Anchoring and Adjustment in Adapting Existing Database Queries," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 56-77, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:21:y:2010:i:1:p:56-77
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1080.0189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0189
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1080.0189?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wright, William F. & Anderson, Urton, 1989. "Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 68-82, August.
    2. Eric J. Johnson & John W. Payne, 1985. "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 395-414, April.
    3. Vijay Khatri & Iris Vessey & V. Ramesh & Paul Clay & Sung-Jin Park, 2006. "Understanding Conceptual Schemas: Exploring the Role of Application and IS Domain Knowledge," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 81-99, March.
    4. Sandeep Purao & Veda C. Storey & Taedong Han, 2003. "Improving Analysis Pattern Reuse in Conceptual Design: Augmenting Automated Processes with Supervised Learning," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 269-290, September.
    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. Jan Mendling & Jan Recker & Hajo A. Reijers & Henrik Leopold, 2019. "An Empirical Review of the Connection Between Model Viewer Characteristics and the Comprehension of Conceptual Process Models," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 1111-1135, October.

    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. Nitin Walia & Mark Srite & Wendy Huddleston, 2016. "Eyeing the web interface: the influence of price, product, and personal involvement," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 297-333, September.
    2. Arbel, Yuval & Ben-Shahar, Danny & Gabriel, Stuart, 2014. "Anchoring and housing choice: Results of a natural policy experiment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 68-83.
    3. Tim R. Holcomb & R. Duane Ireland & R. Michael Holmes Jr. & Michael A. Hitt, 2009. "Architecture of Entrepreneurial Learning: Exploring the Link among Heuristics, Knowledge, and Action," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 33(1), pages 167-192, January.
    4. Dunn, Cheryl L. & Gerard, Gregory J. & Grabski, Severin V., 2017. "The combined effects of user schemas and degree of cognitive fit on data retrieval performance," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 46-67.
    5. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    6. Merle, Aurélie & St-Onge, Anik & Sénécal, Sylvain, 2022. "Does it pay to be honest? The effect of retailer-provided negative feedback on consumers’ product choice and shopping experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 532-543.
    7. Shuk Ying Ho & David Bodoff & Kar Yan Tam, 2011. "Timing of Adaptive Web Personalization and Its Effects on Online Consumer Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 660-679, September.
    8. Gafari Lukumon & Mark Klein, 2023. "Crowd-sourced idea filtering with Bag of Lemons: the impact of the token budget size," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 50(2), pages 205-219, June.
    9. Li, Fengfei & Lin, Ji-Chai & Lin, Tse-Chun & Shang, Longfei, 2023. "Behavioral bias, distorted stock prices, and stock splits," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    10. Gebauer, Judith & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2013. "Joining Supply and Demand Conditions of IT Enabled Change: Toward an Economic Theory of Inter-firm Modulation," Working Papers 13-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    11. John S. Osmundson & Russell Gottfried & Chee Yang Kum & Lau Hui Boon & Lim Wei Lian & Poh Seng Wee Patrick & Tan Choo Thye, 2004. "Process modeling: A systems engineering tool for analyzing complex systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 320-337.
    12. Gensch, Dennis H. & Soofi, Ehsan S., 1995. "An information-theoretic two-stage, two-decision rule, choice model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 271-280, March.
    13. R.S. Wilson & J.L. Arvai, 2010. "Why less is more: exploring affect-based value neglect," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 399-409, June.
    14. J. Edward Russo & Margaret G. Meloy & T. Jeffrey Wilks, 2000. "Predecisional Distortion of Information by Auditors and Salespersons," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 13-27, January.
    15. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    16. Pantelis P. Analytis & Amit Kothiyal & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Multi-attribute utility models as cognitive search engines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 403-419, September.
    17. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    18. Hess, Stephane & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2013. "Linking response quality to survey engagement: A combined random scale and latent variable approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-12.
    19. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    20. Steffen Nauhaus & Johannes Luger & Sebastian Raisch, 2021. "Strategic Decision Making in the Digital Age: Expert Sentiment and Corporate Capital Allocation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1933-1961, 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:inm:orisre:v:21:y:2010:i:1:p:56-77. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.