Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 467

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences

Watson, Richard T., DeSanctis, Gerardine, Poole, Marshall Scott·1988·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

A cumulative body of experimental research is emerging that examines the ability of computer technology to support the processes and outcomes of small group meetings. For the most part the group decision support system effort has been concerned with demonstrating the usefulness of the technology in planning and decisionmaking situations where the quality of the meeting’s outcomes can be objectively assessed. In many decision situations, however, there is no objective measure of decision quality available. Rather, the group must reconcile differences in opinion, personal preference, or judgment and achieve consensus about a particularmode of action. As a contribution to the accumulating research on GDSS, the current study examines the effects of a GDSS in resolving conflicts of personal preference. In a task requiring resolution of competing personal preferences, 82 groups—the largest sample size in the GDSS literature to date—were randomly assigned to one of three experiment conditions: (1) a computer-based support system (GDSS); (2) a manual, paper and pencil, support system; or (3) no support whatsoever. Groups were either of size 3 or 4 persons. Use of the GDSS was expected to facilitate democratic participation in group discussion, move group members toward agreement with one another, and result in a high level of satisfaction with the group decision process. While several of the intended effects of the technology were observed, the groups experienced some unintended consequences as a result of using the GDSS. In general, the GDSS technology appeared to offer some advantage over no support, but little advantage over the pencil and paper method of supporting group discussion.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/249214

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 467

Metadata

Authors
Watson, R. T., DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S.
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
1988-09-01
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
463-478
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W2159771480
Cited by
467
References
0
FWCI
41.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/249214
The paper
Watson, R. T., DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/249214

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.