The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and Hyperpersonal Interaction
WALTHER, J. B. (1996) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365096023001001 · Cited by 4,798
Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.2.121 · Cited by 3,879
Self-citationMachines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration
Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., et al. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.103174 · Cited by 835
Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416521003654160 · Cited by 733
Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.693 · Cited by 495
Self-citation
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.