The debiasing role of group support systems: An experimental investigation of the representativeness bias

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 453-471

  Lim, Lai Huat ^a   Benbasat, Izak ^b  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION CHANNELS (INFORMATION THEORY); DATA REDUCTION; PROBABILITY;

COMPUTER MEDIATED COMMUNICATION CHANNEL; GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEMS (GSS); INFORMATION INTEGRATION PROCESS; REPRESENTATIVENESS BIAS;

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS;

EID: 0031237704     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/ijhc.1997.0137     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. ARGOTE, L., SEABRIGHT, M. A. & DYER, L. (1986). Individual versus group use of base-rate and individuating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 65-75.
2. ARGOTE, L., DEVADAS, R. & MELONE, N. (1990). The base-rate fallacy: contrasting processes and outcomes of group and individual judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 296-310.
3. ARGYLE, M. (1969). Social Interaction. London: Methuen.
4. BAR-HILLEL, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211-233.
5. BAR-HILLEL, M. (1983). The base-rate fallacy controversy. In R. W. SCHOLZ, Ed. Decision Making Under Uncertainty, pp. 39-61. North-Holland: Elsevier.
6. BENBASAT, I. & LIM, L. H. (1993). The effects of group, task, context and technology variables on the usefulness of group support systems: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Small Group Research, 24, 430-462.
7. BIRDWHISTLE, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and Contexts. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
8. BRIGHTMAN, H. J., LEWIS, D. J. & VERHOEVEN, P. (1983). Nominal and interacting groups as Bayesian information processors. Psychological Reports, 53, 101-102.
9. BURNSTEIN, E. & VINOKUR, A. (1977). Persuasive argumentation and social comparison as determinants of attitude polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 315-322.
10. CHRISTENSEN-SZALANSKI, J. J. J. & BEACH, L. R. (1982). Experience and the base-rate fallacy. Organizational and Human Performance, 29, 270-278.
11. COLE, W. G. (1988). Three graphic representations to aid Bayesian inference. Methods of Information in Medicine, 27, 125-132.
12. COLE, W. G. (1989). Understanding Bayesian reasoning via graphical displays. In K. BICE & L. CLAYTON, Eds. CHI'89 Proceedings, pp. 381-386. Austin, TX: ACM Press.
13. DAWES, R. M. (1986). Representative thinking in clinical judgment. Clinical Psychological Review, 6, 425-441.
14. DENNIS A. R. & GALLUPE, R. B. (1993). A history of group support systems empirical research: lessons learned and future directions. In L. M. JESSUP & J. S. VALACICH, Eds. Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, pp. 59-77. New York: Macmillan.
15. DENNIS, A. R., HALEY, B. J. & VANDENBERG, R. J. (1996). A meta-analysis of effectiveness, efficiency and participant satisfaction in group support systems research. In J. DEGROSS, S. JARVENPAA & A. SRINIVASAN, Eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, OH, 16-18 December 1996, pp. 278-289.
16. DESANCTIS, G. & GALLUPE, R. B. (1985). Group decision support systems: a new frontier. Data Base, 16(2), 2-10.
17. DESANCTIS, G. & GALLUPE, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33, 589-609.
18. EDDY, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities. In D. KAHNEMAN, P. SLOVIC & A. TVERSKY, Eds. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pp. 249-267. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. ELSAESSER, C. (1989). Explanation of Bayesian conditioning for decision support systems. Ph.D Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
20. ERICSSON, K. A. & SIMON, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-253.
21. GIGERENZER, G., HELL, W. & BLANK, H. (1988). Presentation and content: the use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 513-525.
22. GINOSAR, Z. & TROPE, Y. (1980). The effects of base rates and individuating information on judgments about another person. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 228-242.
23. HILL, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: are N + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517-539.
24. HOFFMAN, L. R. (1965). Group problem solving. In L. BERKOWITZ, Ed. Advances in Experimental Psychology, Vol. 2. New York, NY: Academic Press.
25. HOGARTH, R. M. (1980). Judgement and Choice: the Psychology of Decision. New York, NY: Wiley.
26. HUBER, G. P. (1984a). The nature and design of post-industrial organizations. Management Science, 30, 928-951.
27. HUBER, G. P. (1984b). Issues in the design of group decision support systems. MIS Quarterly, 8, 195-204.
28. KAHNEMAN, D. & TVERSKY, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
29. KEPPEL, G. (1982). Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
30. LIM, L. H. & BENBASAT, I. (1993). A theoretical perspective of negotiation support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9, 27-44.
31. LIM, L. H. & BENBASAT, I. (1997). A framework for addressing group judgment biases with group technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 7-24.
32. MAIER, N. R. F. (1967). Assets & liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function. Psychological Review, 74, 239-249.
33. MCGUIRE, T. W. & MELONE, N. P. (1992). Conservatism in integrating information: implications for international management. In Y. IJIRI & I. NAKANO, Eds. Business behavior and information, pp. 134-179. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
34. MELONE, P. N. & MCGUIRE, T. W. (1996). Conservatism revisited: base rates, prior probabilities and averaging strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 36-37.
35. MURPHY, G. L. & MEDIN, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.
36. NUNAMAKER, J. F. Jr., DENNIS, A. R., VALACICH, J. S., VOGEL, D. R. & GEORGE, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34, 40-61.
37. PAYNE, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366-387.
38. POLLATSEK, A., WELL, A. D., KONOLD, C., HARDIMAN, P. & COBB, G. (1987). Understanding conditional probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 255-269.
39. POOLE, M. S., SIEBOLD, D. R. & MCPHEE, R. D. (1985). Group decision-making as a structurational process. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 74-102.
40. RICE, R. E. (1992). Task analyzability, use of new media and effectiveness: a multi-site exploration of media richness. Organization Science, 3, 475-500.
41. ROY, M. C. (1991). Ineffective internal representations and the impact of information presentation in base-rate problems. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
42. ROY, M. C. & LERCH, F. J. (1996). Overcoming ineffective representations in base rate problems. Information Systems Research, 7, 233-247.
43. SCOTT, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: the case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.
44. SENGUPTA, K. & TE'ENI, D. (1993). Cognitive feedback in GDSS: improving control and convergence. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 87-113.
45. SHAW, M. E. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491-504.
46. SHORT, J., WILLIAMS, E. & CHRISTIE, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.
47. STASSON, M. F., ONO, K., ZIMMERMAN, S. K. & DAVIS, J. H. (1988). Group consensus processes on cognitive bias tasks: a social decision scheme approach. Japanese Psychological Research, 30, 68-77.
48. TRIPATHI, K. N. (1991). Effect of contingency and timing of reward on intrinsic motivation. The Journal of General Psychology, 118, 97-105.
49. TVERSKY, A. & KAHNEMAN, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
50. TVERSKY, A. & KAHNEMAN, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In FISHBEIN, M. Ed. Progress in Social Psychology, 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. TVERSKY, A. & KAHNEMAN, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. KAHNEMAN, P. SLOVIC & A. TVERSKY, Eds. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. pp. 153-160. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52. VINOKUR, A. (1971). Review and theoretical analysis of the effects of group processes upon individual and group decisions involving risk. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 231-250.
53. WEICK, K. E. (1965). Laboratory experimentation with organizations. In J. G. MARCH, Ed. Handbook of Organizations, pp. 194-260. Chicago: Rand McNally.
54. WELLS, G. L. & HARVEY, J. H. (1978). Naive attributors' attributions and predictions: what is informative and when is an effect an effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 483-490.
55. WRIGHT, W. (1983). An empirical test of a Bayesian decision support procedure in a financial context. In C. A. ROSS & B. E. S WANSON, Eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Houston, TX, 15-17 December, pp. 241-249.