Development of decision rationale in complex group decision making

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Development of decision rationale in complex group decision making

Full text

Pdf (1.43 MB)

Source

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents

Boston, MA, USA

SESSION: Cognitive modeling and assessment table of contents

Pages 1341-1350

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-1-60558-246-7

Authors

Helena M. Mentis	The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Paula M. Bach	The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Blaine Hoffman	The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Mary Beth Rosson	The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
John M. Carroll	The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 45, Downloads (12 Months): 218, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1518701.1518904 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This study explores the characteristics of rationale development in a complex group decision making task and considers design implications for better supporting rationale development in group decision making. Twelve three-person, multi-role teams performed three instances of a collaborative decision making task with physical maps. We used rhetorical structure theory to analyze the structure of their decision making discourse. We found that groups begin their reasoning processing by stating and relating information and finish their reasoning through a point-counterpoint discussion. We also found that established groups reduced their need to analyze information during the last moments of a decision. Implications for the design of group decision support systems to encourage rationale development are presented.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Carley, K. (1986). Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instructional Science, 14(3-4), pp. 381--438.
	2	Gregorio Convertino , Helena M. Mentis , Mary Beth Rosson , John M. Carroll , Aleksandra Slavkovic , Craig H. Ganoe, Articulating common ground in cooperative work: content and process, Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2008, Florence, Italy [doi>10.1145/1357054.1357310]
	3	Jeff Conklin , Michael L. Begeman, gIBIS: a hypertext tool for team design deliberation, Proceedings of the ACM conference on Hypertext, p.247-251, November 1987, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States [doi>10.1145/317426.317444]
	4	Alan R. Dennis, Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can lead a group to information, but you can't make it think, MIS Quarterly, v.20 n.4, p.433-457, Dec. 1996 [doi>10.2307/249563]
	5	Robin P. Fawcett , Bethan L. Davies, Monologue as a Turn in Dialogue: Towards an Integration of Exchange Structure and Rhetorical Structure Theory, Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation: Aspects of Automated Natural Language Generation, p.151-166, April 05-07, 1992
	6	Fisher, B.A.&Ellis, D. (1990). Anatomy of communication in decision-making groups: Improving effectiveness. In D. Ellis&B.A. Fisher (Eds.), Small Group Decision Making, 3d ed., (pp.170--200). New York: McGraw-Hill.
	7	Gigone, D.&Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), pp. 959--974.
	8	Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. and Chiclana, F. (2002). A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 32 (3), pp. 394--402.
	9	Nikos Karacapilidis , Dimitris Papadias, Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system, Information Systems, v.26 n.4, p.259-277, June 2001 [doi>10.1016/S0306-4379(01)00020-5]
	10	Landis, J.R.&Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, pp. 159--174.
	11	Jintae Lee, SIBYL: a tool for managing group design rationale, Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.79-92, October 07-10, 1990, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/99332.99344]
	12	Mann, W. C.&Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8 (3), pp. 243--281.
	13	Mann, W.C., Matthiessen, C.,&Thompson, S.A. (1992). Rhetorical Structure Theory and text analysis. In W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text (pp. 39--78). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
	14	Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E.,&Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), pp. 273--283.
	15	Brian E. Mennecke, Using group support systems to discover hidden profiles: an examination of the influence of group size and meeting structures on information sharing and decision quality, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.47 n.3, p.387-405, Sept. 1997 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1997.0136]
	16	Monk, A. (2003). Common ground in electronically mediated communication: Clark's theory of language use, in J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Toward a multidisciplinary science of HCI. MIT Press.
	17	Nahavandi, A.,&Aranda, E. (1994). Restructuring teams for the reengineered organization. Academy of Management Executive, 8(4), pp. 58--68.
	18	Nisbett, R.E.&Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, pp. 231--259.
	19	Wendy A. Schafer , Craig H. Ganoe , John M. Carroll, Supporting Community Emergency Management Planning through a Geocollaboration Software Architecture, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.16 n.4-5, p.501-537, October 2007 [doi>10.1007/s10606-007-9050-7]
	20	Shafir, E., Simonson, I.,&Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1-2), pp. 11--36.
	21	Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: a 'Thought Experiment'. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, pp. 156--181.
	22	Amanda Stent, Rhetorical structure in dialog, Proceedings of the first international conference on Natural language generation, June 12-16, 2000, Mitzpe Ramon, Israel [doi>10.3115/1118253.1118288]
	23	Taboada, M. (2004). Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive study. In C. L. Moder and A. Martinovic-Zic (Eds.), Discourse across Languages and Cultures (pp. 75--97). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
	24	Taboada, M&Mann, W. C. (2006a). Applications of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), pp. 567--588.
	25	Taboada, M.&Mann, W.C. (2006b). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 8(3), pp. 423--459.