The comparative effectiveness of dialectical inquiry and Devil's advocacy: The impact of task biases on previous research findings

David M. Schweiger and Phyllis A. Finger

Strategic Management Journal, 1984, vol. 5, issue 4, 335-350

Abstract: Considerable debate has recently emerged concerning the comparative effectiveness of two methods of inquiry recommended for use in strategic decision making: dialectical inquiry (DI) and devil's advocacy (DA). Much of the comparative research surrounding this debate has made use of the Multiple Cue Probability Learning Paradigm (MCPLP). The equivocal nature of previous research findings using this paradigm and others, along with results from the present research indicating potential order of presentation effects, raises serious questions concerning previous operationalizations of these two methods.

Date: 1984
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050404

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:stratm:v:5:y:1984:i:4:p:335-350

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0143-2095

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Strategic Management Journal from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().