Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 488

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EXPERIENTIAL EFFECTS OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY, DEVIL'S ADVOCACY AND CONSENSUS APPROACHES TO STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING.

SCHWEIGER, D. M., SANDBERG, W. R., RECHNER, P. L.·1989·Academy of Management Journal
DOI 10.2307/256567
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This longitudinal laboratory study of fast-advancing middle managers involved in strategic planning compared the effectiveness of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to ...

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 · 10.2307/256567

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 488

Metadata

Authors
SCHWEIGER, D. M., SANDBERG, W. R., & RECHNER, P. L.
Venue
Academy of Management Journal
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
1989-12-01
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
745-772
ISSN
  • 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 1948-0989
DOI
10.2307/256567
OpenAlex
W1973888644
Cited by
488
References
3
FWCI
6.53
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: EXPERIENTIAL EFFECTS OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY, DEVIL'S ADVOCACY AND CONSENSUS APPROACHES TO STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/256567
The paper
SCHWEIGER, D. M., SANDBERG, W. R., & RECHNER, P. L. (1989). EXPERIENTIAL EFFECTS OF DIALECTICAL INQUIRY, DEVIL'S ADVOCACY AND CONSENSUS APPROACHES TO STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/256567

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.