IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v25y1997i6p643-658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the effectiveness of cognitive feedback from an interface agent

Author

Listed:
  • Montazemi, A. R.
  • Gupta, K. M.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of task information (TI) provided by an interface agent during the idea evaluation and integration step of the problem formulation stage of the problem solving process. The effectiveness assessment was based on solving diagnostic decision problems in the domain of complex industrial machinery. Ten domain experts participated in this study. Decision support was provided by a case-based reasoning system. Findings suggest that TI provided by the interface agent had no effect on the decision maker's performance, nor on the associated cognitive effort. However, a verbal protocol analysis revealed that the ten subjects used the interface agent to verify their decision processes. The results and their implications are discussed with respect to current findings in the area of decision support systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Montazemi, A. R. & Gupta, K. M., 1997. "On the effectiveness of cognitive feedback from an interface agent," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 643-658, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:25:y:1997:i:6:p:643-658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(97)00028-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Balzer, William K. & Sulsky, Lorne M. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E., 1992. "Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-54, October.
    2. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    3. Tindale, R. Scott, 1989. "Group vs individual information processing: The effects of outcome feedback on decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 454-473, December.
    4. David W. Cravens, 1970. "An Exploratory Analysis of Individual Information Processing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(10), pages 656-670, June.
    5. Richard O. Mason & Ian I. Mitroff, 1973. "A Program for Research on Management Information Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 475-487, January.
    6. Montazemi, A. R. & Chan, L., 1990. "An analysis of the structure of expert knowledge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 275-292, April.
    7. Jasbir S. Dhaliwal & Izak Benbasat, 1996. "The Use and Effects of Knowledge-Based System Explanations: Theoretical Foundations and a Framework for Empirical Evaluation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 342-362, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sengupta, K., 1995. "Cognitive feedback in environments characterized by irrelevant information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 125-143, April.
    2. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Lehmann, Hans & Gallupe, Brent, 2005. "Information systems for multinational enterprises--some factors at work in their design and implementation," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 163-186, June.
    4. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    5. O'Keefe, Robert M., 2016. "Experimental behavioural research in operational research: What we know and what we might come to know," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 899-907.
    6. Binswanger, J., 2008. "A Simple Bounded-Rationality Life Cycle Model," Discussion Paper 2008-13, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Nuthall, Peter L., 2012. "The intuitive world of farmers – The case of grazing management systems and experts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 65-73.
    8. Binswanger, Johannes, 2012. "Life cycle saving: Insights from the perspective of bounded rationality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 605-623.
    9. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    10. Steven B. Redd, 2002. "The Influence of Advisers on Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 335-364, June.
    11. Kida, Thomas & Smith, James F., 1995. "The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 585-610.
    12. Mauldin, Elaine G. & Ruchala, Linda V., 1999. "Towards a meta-theory of accounting information systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 317-331, May.
    13. Petersen, Knut & Patzke, Henning, 1986. "Individuelles Informationsverhalten als Gegenstand des "Behavioral Accounting": Eine Meta-Analyse der empirischen Forschung," Manuskripte aus den Instituten für Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Universität Kiel 177, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre.
    14. Ujwal Kayande & Arnaud De Bruyn & Gary L. Lilien & Arvind Rangaswamy & Gerrit H. van Bruggen, 2009. "How Incorporating Feedback Mechanisms in a DSS Affects DSS Evaluations," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 527-546, December.
    15. Julian N. Marewski & Katja Mehlhorn, 2011. "Using the ACT-R architecture to specify 39 quantitative process models of decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(6), pages 439-519, August.
    16. Jeffrey E. Harris & Mariana Gerstenblüth & Patricia Triunfo, 2018. "Smokers’ Rational Lexicographic Preferences for Cigarette Package Warnings: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Eye Tracking," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0218, Department of Economics - dECON.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:733-739 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Kayande, U. & de Bruyn, A. & Lilien, G.L. & Rangaswamy, A. & van Bruggen, G.H., 2006. "How Feedback Can Improve Managerial Evaluations of Model-based Marketing Decision Support Systems," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-039-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. Brown, Paul M., 1998. "Experimental evidence on the importance of competing for profits on forecasting accuracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 259-269, January.
    20. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    21. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:eee:jomega:v:25:y:1997:i:6:p:643-658. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.