The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on prediction accuracy

Abstract

The effects of three techniques for potentially improving strategic decisions were examined within the Social Judgment Theory paradigm. The first technique (the expert approach) involved the presentation of a plan by “Expert A.” The second technique (the devil's advocate approach) involved the presentation of the plan by Expert A plus a critique of the plan by “Expert”. Finally, the dialectical inquiry approach included Expert A's plan and presentation of a “counterplan” (a contradiction of the plan) by Expert B. Two measures were used to determine prediction accuracy in three “states of the world”. Using the mean absolute prediction error over a series of decisions, subjects in the devil's advocate condition predicted significantly better than subjects in the dialectical inquiry or expert conditions in the state of the world where the counterplan represented the correct world view. When the achievement index was examined, subjects in the devil's advocate condition predicted significantly better than subjects in the expert condition in the counterplan best world state. Under no circumstances was the devil's advocate technique significantly inferior to the dialectical inquiry or expert techniques. These results suggest it may be advisable for decision makers to use the devil's advocate technique when making predictions of future world states in uncertain environments.