CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Team Dynamics and PerformanceDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis

Schwenk, Charles R·1990·Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
DOI 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90051-a
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90051-a

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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 [43]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Emshoff, 1978, Defining corporate strategy: A case study using strategic assumptions analysis, Wharton Applied Research Center, working paper no. 8-78

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Schwenk, C. R.
Affiliations
Indiana University (US)
Corresponding author
Schwenk, Charles R
Venue
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-10
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
161-176
ISSN
0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0749-5978(90)90051-a
OpenAlex
W2014502715
Cited by
213
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • 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
Keywords
devil's advocacy, dialectical inquiry, decision-making, cognitive conflict, conflict management, ill-structured problems, group decision making

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