Cited by 33Complex Systems and Decision MakingMulti-Criteria Decision MakingDecision Support System Applications

Representational effects on the solving of an unstructured decision problem

Smith, G.F.·1989·IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics

Abstract

The use of graphic problem representations in problem structuring or formulation is considered, as well as the potential effects of incomplete representations on problem solving. Empirical results suggest that humans cannot reliably identify key problem elements and that the availability of incomplete graphic depictions can constrain the scope of problem-solving activity, harming overall performance. The nature of these process effects is investigated, with implications being drawn for decision-aiding practice. The analysis of how the adverse performance effects occur is shown to have significant implications for decision analysis, decision-support systems and other decision-aiding technologies.>

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/21.44024

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Smith found that an incomplete problem representation actually impaired performance because subjects tended to rely on it as a comprehensive and veridical representation of the problem, thereby failing to consider important factors deliberately omitted.

    “The findings revealed that the incomplete representation actually impaired performance because subjects tended to rely on it as a comprehensive and veridical representation of the problem, thereby failing to consider the important factors which had been deliberately omitted from the representation.”

    From Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations (1992) · cites this paper as [100]

  • Converging empirical evidence argues that people have a definite preference for carrying out tasks by relying on lower levels of cognitive control, even when the interface is not designed to support this type of behavior.

    “Second, converging empirical evidence argues that people have a definite preference for carrying out tasks by relying on lower levels of cognitive control, even when the interface is not designed to support this type of behavior [19, 22, 39, 57, 99, 100].”

    From Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations (1992) · cites this paper as [100]

  • People will accept worse solutions from an external aid than they could have conceived of, unaided.

    “Empirical studies have demonstrated that people will accept worse solutions from an external aid than they could have conceived of, unaided. 60”

    From Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities (2010) · cites this paper as [60]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 33

Authors
Smith, G. F.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, G.F.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics
Published
1989
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
1083-1090
ISSN
0018-9472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078882248
Cited by
33
References
22
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
Keywords
problem structuring, problem-solving performance, decision aiding, decision support system, decision analysis

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