| Abstract: | Critics of previous laboratory experiments comparing devil's advocacy (DA) to dialectical inquiry (DI) have suggested that these experiments produced misleading results because (1) they used subjects who had low levels of task involvement and (2) the DI treatment used was confusing to subjects and required further explanation to be useful. The present study examines the effects of four inquiry methods—expert (E), DA, DI, and DI with explanatory statement (DI+)—on subjects' performance at a financial prediction task. Results show that DA, DI, and DI + were superior to E when the state of the world differed significantly from assumptions underlying the expert's plan. For subjects with high task involvement, DI and DI + were more effective than E and DA. The results support some of the criticisms of previous laboratory research and suggest that future research on these decision aids should include task involvement as a factor. |
