CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesForecasting Techniques and Applications

Effects of the expert, devil's advocate, and dialectical inquiry methods on prediction performance

Schwenk, Charles R., Cosier, Richard A.·1980·Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
DOI 10.1016/0030-5073(80)90076-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0030-5073(80)90076-8

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The devil's advocacy is a method to program conflict in group decision making especially for ill-defined problems, in which one or some team members take the role of the devil's advocate.

    “The devil's advocacy is a method to program conflict in a group decision making especially for ill-defined problems [28, 43, 44] in which one or some team members take the role of the devil's advocate.”

    From Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure (2021) · cites this paper as [44]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schwenk, C. R., & Cosier, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Indiana University (US)
Venue
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1980-12
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
409-424
ISSN
0030-5073 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0030-5073(80)90076-8
OpenAlex
W1982040965
Cited by
132
References
15
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
Keywords
dialectical inquiry, devil's advocate, expert opinion, decision making under uncertainty, predictive performance, counterfactual reasoning, decision aids

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review