The Effect of Task Demands and Graphical Format on Information Processing Strategies
AbstractThe designers of decision support systems lack theoretically based principles for designing graphical interfaces. The purpose of the reported research is to take a step toward developing such principles for graphical information presentation formats. Specifically, this paper presents an investigation of the effects of graphical formats and task demands upon decision processes and decision outcomes. In a laboratory setting, research participants made choices under differing task and graphical format conditions, and their information acquisition and evaluation behaviors were recorded. The results suggest that information presentation format influences the decision time and the selection of acquisition and evaluation strategies by influencing the cognitive costs and benefits of the task environment. Other factors influencing the decision time and the choice of strategies include the characteristics of the task and the interactions between the presentation format and the other task demands. The interactions between the task demands and the graphical format appear to be complex and may impact different stages of decision process differently (e.g., acquisition versus evaluation). The findings of the current study extend the results of previous studies on information format into the domain of graphical displays. The findings also suggest that the cognitive cost/benefit framework can provide a robust theoretical foundation for design decisions regarding graphical presentation formats in decision support systems.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.
Volume (Year): 35 (1989)
Issue (Month): 3 (March)
graphics; graphical decision aids; cognitive strategies; information processing; multiattribute choice tasks;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Butler, David J., 1998. "A choice-rule formulation of intransitive utility theory," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 323-329, June.
- Orlikowski, Wanda J. (Wanda Janina)., 2003. "The duality of technology : rethinking the concept of technology in organizations," Working papers #105, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
- Lurie, Nicholas H. & Swaminathan, Jayashankar M., 2009. "Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 315-329, March.
- Lupia, Arthur & Grafstrom, Cassandra & Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam Seth & MacMillan, William & McGovern, Erin, 2008.
"How “Point Blindness” Dilutes the Value of Stock Market Reports,"
8191, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Lupia, Arthur & Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam Seth & Grafstrom, Cassandra & MacMillan, William & McGovern, Erin, 2008. "How “Point Blindness” Dilutes the Value of Stock Market Reports," MPRA Paper 9604, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Lupia, Arthur & Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam Seth & Grafstrom, Cassandra & MacMillan, William & McGovern, Erin, 2008. "How “Point Blindness” Dilutes the Value of Stock Market Reports," MPRA Paper 9612, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Lupia, Arthur & Grafstrom, Cassandra & Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam Seth & MacMillan, William & McGovern, Erin, 2007. "Loonies Under Your Bed: Misdirected Attention and the Diluted Value of Stock Market Reports," MPRA Paper 4912, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Neeraj Arora & Xavier Dreze & Anindya Ghose & James Hess & Raghuram Iyengar & Bing Jing & Yogesh Joshi & V. Kumar & Nicholas Lurie & Scott Neslin & S. Sajeesh & Meng Su & Niladri Syam & Jacquelyn Thom, 2008. "Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 305-321, December.
- Butler, D. J., 2000. "Do non-expected utility choice patterns spring from hazy preferences? An experimental study of choice 'errors'," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 277-297, March.
- Sengupta, K., 1995. "Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 125-143, April.
- Zhang, Jiao & Hsee, Christopher K. & Xiao, Zhixing, 2006. "The majority rule in individual decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 102-111, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.