- Email: [email protected]
Effect of IS variables on information acquisition modes: An experimental investigation
ELSEVIER
Information & Management 27 (1994) 287-301
Research
Effect of IS variables on information acquisition modes: An experimental investigation Narayan College of Business Administration,
S. Umanath
*
The Uniuersity of Tulsa, 118-C Business Administration 74104 USA
Hall, 600 South College Acenue,
Tulsa, OK
Abstract The flexibility possible through the use of modern information technology can be counter-productive in managerial problem solving. Information systems (IS) can aid managers by providing informed choices for managerial decisions rather than mere flexibility. Managers acquire information for problem solving in different ways. Thus, information acquisition and how IS can facilitate information acquisition is an important research issue. This paper discusses the results of two laboratory experiments that utilized a production scheduling setting to examine the interaction between information acquisition mode, information load, and display format. The first used a tabular display, and the second an equivalent graphical format. Two information acquisition modes, incidental learning and directed learning were examined. Performance was measured by assessing the knowledge acquired, using a particular information acquisition strategy. The results indicate that: when information load is small, recall performance is unaffected by variation in the information acquisition mode; an incidental acquisition strategy yields better performance than directed acquisition strategy at an increased level of information load; and that graphical presentation effectively compensates for the influence of an incidental acquisition strategy. Implications are discussed.
MIS; Problem tion strategies
Keywords:
solving; Decision
making/process;
1. Introduction Recent development in hardware and software technologies offer a wide variety of options to the manager for viewing information (e.g., graphs, charts, icons, visual images, etc.). However, the degree of flexibility that managers enjoy in the
* Corresponding
author.
037%7206/94/$07.00 SSDI
Information
Information
acquisi-
choice of information presentation modes does not necessarily result in effective problem solving or optimal decision making [19]. In fact, information systems (IS) can aid managers by facilitating informed choice of information presentation [35]. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the usefulness of different display formats appears to be contingent on the characteristics of the problem solving task [4,30]. Thus, an understanding of how information presentation and
0 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
0378-7206(94)00018-E
load; Display format;
288
N.S. Urnmath
/Information
task characteristics affect the various stages of problem solving and decision making is important. Since information acquisition is a critical stage in the problem solving and decision making processes and information presentation influences acquisition, this paper focuses on information acquisition. Managers acquire information in two fundamentally different ways as they carry out their responsibilities. First, they may acquire it for a particular purpose; i.e., to make verbal or written reports or in anticipation of future decision tasks (e.g., equipment purchase, product outsourcing). Second, managers also acquire information continually, with no specific purpose at that time, but store it for possible future use. Such information acquisition often occurs in routine perusal of job-related material (e.g., daily production schedules, and trade reports). These two modes of information acquisition differ in their way of acquiring and storing the information. We refer to the two strategies used as goal-oriented or directed, when acquisition of information is intentional, and incidental, when information is acquired independent of a preconceived usage for it. Since storage of information is a differentiating factor between the two information acquisition modes, information recall is an appropriate performance indicator. Benbasat and Dexter [4] have identified recall/recognition as one of the task settings to evaluate the effect of information presentation format on decision making. Other studies in IS have also used information recall as a performance indicator [ 12,361. There are two opposing views on the merits and demerits of each of these modes of information acquisition. Incidental learning theory suggests that natural elaboration and rehearsal aid information recall [ 11. Goal-oriented or directed learning theory argues that an incidental acquisition strategy involves partial and differential learning, while purposive learning and sharp focus on the needed information through directed acquisition strategy overcomes these difficulties, and hence will yield superior information recall [6,7]. Directed acquisition strategy, on the other hand, may suffer from the application of poor
& Managemrnt 27 (1994) 287-301
memorization sonal theories
techniques based on incorrect perof what makes for good memory
[Il. Our objective is to examine the impact of information acquisition mode on information recall. Do IS variables facilitate or impede this relationship? We argue that information load acts as a contingent factor that moderates the relationship between information acquisition mode and information recall. This paper reports the results of two laboratory experiments conducted to examine the interactive effects of information load and information acquisition mode on recall performance using two different data display formats - tabular and graphical.
2. Theory Information acquisition entails the encoding of external stimuli in human memory. This encoding is usually regarded as associative: that is, bonds or associations link pairs of elements of knowledge [2]. During memory encoding at information acquisition, factors that enhance attention to stimuli and/or encourage elaboration of stimulus elements, enhance subsequent information recall 1111. Acquisition strategies directly affect these factors, and thus the processing (encoding) at information acquisition, and subsequent recall and recognition [7]. 2.1. Information
acquisition
strategies
When the goal is to retain the information in memory, directed or goal-oriented information acquisition occurs. As a consequence, focused learning of the to-be-recalled material results. On the other hand, when information is acquired and stored in memory as a result of other problem solving or decision making activity (i.e., from an extraneous task), incidental information acquisition occurs. The acquisition strategy used at the time of encoding influences the nature of the associations. Subsequent attempts to retrieve information from long-term memory (LTM) is ex-
N.S. Umanath /Information
petted to be a function of the goal at initial information acquisition [61. Biehal and Chakravarthi [7] offer compelling arguments on the weakness of incidental acquisition strategy. When information acquisition is nondirected, the heuristics of the extraneous decision making task determine the information processing strategy and thus influence the nature of the associative links stored in memory. For instance, the heuristics of the task employed to induce incidental acquisition may lead to less effort being directed towards encoding all the information available or developing well-defined associative links; this implies less retention of information and that which is retained may be subject to greater retrieval error. Also, depending on the extraneous task used as the vehicle for incidental acquisition, some elements of the stimulus material may have differential processing: some being quickly eliminated and only partially stored in memory. In other words, incidental information acquisition will, according to this viewpoint, disrupt subsequent recall performance. On the other hand, goal-oriented or directed acquisition is purposive and enables sharp focus on the to-be-recalled stimuli. Directed information acquisition may be hampered by poor personal theories of what makes for good memory and hence lead to more effort and poor encoding. Since incidental acquisition entails elaboration and natural rehearsal of the to-be-recalled stimuli, it takes less effort and good encoding of associative networks may occur. In one recall experiment, incidental learners performed better than the directed learners; Anderson and Bower [2] found that some of the directed learners were employing poor memorization strategies while incidental learners simply elaborated on the stimulus material and were not hampered by poor theories of what makes for good memory. Biehal and Chakravarti found that recall accuracy of both strategies was comparable when the target of recall was the focus of attention (selected alternative) in the preceding extraneous task. The conflicting rationale advocated by the two theories leads to two conclusions: (1) It is impossible to hypothesize the direct effect on recall
& Management
27 (1994) 287-301
289
performance attributable to information acquisition strategy, and (2) conditions must exist where each theory holds good. ‘Task complexity’ may be a contingent factor producing such conditions. 2.2. Task
contingency
Researchers contend that information processing involved in problem solving and decision making is contingent on the demands of the task being performed. In the absence of a clear-cut specification for the dimensionality of the ‘task’ construct, researchers in the information systems and behavioral decision making areas have employed ‘task complexity’ - i.e., relative levels of aggregate variation in task characteristics - as a means to assess the impact of a task e.g., [ 13,22,30]. Several researchers have attempted to define complexity in terms of objective task qualities (for a detailed exposition see [S]). Payne [23], for instance, followed Simon’s [28] view that the number of elements in the system and the degree and nature of interactions among them constitutes task complexity, and proposed that the number of alternatives, number of attributes in each alternative, and time constraint were its determinants. Schroder, Driver and Streufert [26] proposed a somewhat similar set of variables, namely, information load (number of attributes), information diversity (number of alternatives associated with each attribute), and the degree of uncertainty (the rate of information change). We used information load to represent task complexity. Thus, the central thesis of this research is that information load is a contingent factor moderating the relationship between information acquisition mode and information recall and that this is capable of reconciling the conflict apparent in the two learning goal theories. 2.3. Information load as the contingent factor Ceteris paribus, an increase in information load tends to create cognitive strain (i.e., extra cognitive effort to perform the task). However, the desire to minimize effort may be stronger than the desire to minimize error [25]. Therefore, to minimize the joint cost of effort and error, people
290
N.S. Umanath /Information
tend to trade off performance accuracy as cognitive effort increases [23]. Hence the hypothesis: Hl: Overall, recall performance increase in information load.
declines
with an
The significance of the reduction will be a function of the relative increase in information load. Does information load reconcile the conflicting rationale advanced by the directed learning and incidental learning theories? With minimal information load, the opportunity for differential attention on the stimulus material during incidental information acquisition is minimized. Under the directed strategy, recall performance may be hampered by poor personal theories of what makes for good memory. Reduced information load will tend to mitigate this. Purposive learning and sharp focus on the to-berecalled material can be expected to facilitate efficient coding in LTM when the information load is low, leading to improved recall performance. The positive features of incidental information acquisition strategy cannot be effectively utilized when the information load is low, while under the same conditions the weakness intrinsic to the directed acquisition strategy is relatively easy to overcome. Thus, when the information load is low, neither will be superior. So it is hypothesized, H2: When the information load is minimal, recall performance will be unaffected by variation in information acquisition strategy. As information load increases, the cognitive effort needed to encode the material tends to increase. However, the processes generic to incidental acquisition strategy help in coping with the cognitive effort, so that the effort-error trade-off is reduced. Therefore, recall performance will not significantly diminish. Also, while differential processing attention is potentially harmful, it will not affect recall performance when the target of recall is the focus of attention in the preceding extraneous task. On the other hand. a directed
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
information acquisition strategy does not provide a mechanism to combat the increase in cognitive effort, leading to reduction of recall performance. In addition, possible use of poor memorization strategies can only compound the problem and reduce recall performance, because associative links formed in LTM by the encoding process under information overload may be weak. In essence, the problem intrinsic to directed acquisition strategy may be insurmountable, while the strength of the incidental acquisition strategy may be fully utilizable. Therefore, incidental acquisition strategy can be expected to have an edge over the directed strategy for higher information load. Hence the hypothesis: H3: With increased information load, incidental acquisition strategy will yield better recall performance than directed acquisition strategy. Though incidental information acquisition can combat increases in information load better than directed acquisition, there is no reason to expect improvement in recall performance under incidental strategy as the information load increases. Thus it is hypothesized, H4: Under incidental acquisition performance will be unaffected crease in information load.
strategy, recall by relative in-
On the other hand, it has been argued above that directed information acquisition is particularly poor at handling increases in information load. This leads to the hypothesis, H5: Under directed acquisition strategy, recall performance will decline with increase in information load.
3. Experiments 3.1. Experiment 1 A laboratory experiment was conducted to examine the impact of information acquisition strategy on information recall under varying information load.
N.S. Umanath /Information
WORK CENTER LOAD PROFILE
IY!YmA!!9
&!!sxeQcI
WORKCENTERA CAPACITY (hrs) LOAD (hrs)
380 400
380 380
380 440
nAv&!lb!u
380 360
380 260
360 300
JiuEam
WORKCENTER@ CAPACITY (hrs) LOAD
330 360
330 320
330 400
330 280
CAPACITYthrs) LOAD (hrs)
360 420
360 300
360 400
360 340
Fig. 1. Work center (increased information
load profile with load tretament).
three
330 300
330 330
360 320
360 360
work
centers
Research setting Capacity planning/production scheduling for a manufacturing operation developed by [311 and [32] was used as the context to stage the experiment. This experimental setting portrays load profiles (i.e., presentation of capacity and anticipated future work load) for production planning over a period of six months for one or more work centers (see Fig. 1). Production managers use this as a planning tool to assess demand patterns, work load variances, and bottleneck situations on the shop floor. Design A 2 X 2 factorial design was used. Two treatments, information acquisition strategy and information load were varied. Acquisition strategy was varied at two levels: incidental and directed acquisition modes. Information load was also varied at two levels: minimal and increased load.
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
291
The minimal information load treatment displayed the least amount of information required for the recall task; i.e., the information for a single work center. Increased information load was operationalized by surrounding this material with distracters: information for two additional work centers. Wright [37] states that information load can be increased by adding relevant pieces of information, either for other parallel situations or for the same one. A pretest treatment, immediately before the recall test, introduced the work center load profile to the subjects. The incidental acquisition strategy was induced by giving a group a decision making exercise using the work center load profile. The problem solving activity was intended to enable the subjects in this group to dwell on the information presented and learn its contents. Directed acquisition, on the other hand, was stimulated by simply providing explicit directions to another group to learn the presented material for future recall of its content in some form soon thereafter. Dependent variable The dependent variable, recall performance, can be assessed in several ways; the loading pattern of the target work center was employed as the measure. We wanted to capture the degree of departure of the response vector from the vector of correct answers as the measure of recall performance. Watson and Driver [36] used Spearman’s rank correlation for this purpose. Such a correlation measure, while capable of quantifying the linear relationship between two vectors, will not always reflect the degree of agreement between the two, because there may be more than one vector that provides the same correlation with the vector of correct answers and these response vectors need not be equivalent with respect to the degree of departure from the vector of correct answers. Umanath and Scamell [31] evaluated several other scoring schemes analytically as well as empirically, using simulated data, and concluded that the number of simple permutations required to transform the response vector to the correct answer is a sound measurement of the degree of departure/agreement of the re-
292
N.S. Umurlath /Information
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
material. Chi-square tests indicated that there was no significant difference in recognition between the two information acquisition strategy groups (p = 0.602) and between the two levels of information load (p = 0.195). This evidence provided a reasonable basis to conclude that the responses to the recall test were not artifacts of the experiment, but rather based on information recall. Since the response variable of interest to this experiment pertains to ‘human-memory’, it is conceivable that one’s short-term memory skill may contribute to the effects observed: cognitive skill accounts for inherent or learned information processing abilities. Keen and Bronsema [20] point out that this may be especially important when studying performance-oriented response variables. Therefore, cognitive skill was used as a methods variable so that its effect can be partialled out. An associative (short-term) memory measure, the picture-number test from a battery of factor-referenced cognitive tests developed by the Educational Testing Service [15], was used to capture differences in individual short-term memory capabilities. Cognitive skill is but one aspect of individual difference. Another aspect widely studied in information systems (IS) research is individual cognitive style. Despite Huber’s [lS] questioning of the adequacy of evidence in establishing the value of cognitive style considerations in the design of MIS/DSS, Benbasat and Dexter [4] observe that ample (though inconclusive) evidence exists to suggest the presence of a relationship between individual differences and IS. Numerous mea-
sponse vector from the vector of correct answers. Therefore, this method was used to compute recall performance. Experimental controls The aim of the incidental acquisition strategy was to: induce assimilation of the stimulus material, and ensure that the learning process is ‘incidental’. The problem solving process incorporated in the pretest exercise achieves these objectives. However, with the increased information load treatment, it is possible that assimilation of the to-be-recalled material per se may be accidental rather than incidental. Umanath, et al [32] had designed the pretest exercise such that the target work center for the recall test emerges as the most likely choice in the problem solution thus directing the subjects’ attention to the target information under increased information load. It is difficult to ascertain whether subjects indeed responded to the recall test based on their memory of the to-be-recalled stimuli. Nonetheless, an experimental control was devised to verify this. Since the processes underlying ‘recognition’ (discriminability) and ‘recall’ (retrieval) are similar and overlapping [3], failure in recognition can be seen as evidence against recall. Therefore, a recognition test was formulated. A set of displays, containing six different arrangements of the work centers were presented to the subjects. Their task was to pick the display to which they had been exposed. This recognition test did not immediately follow the recall test; it was administered as the last event of the experiment. Fifty-four out of the 58 subjects correctly picked their treatment
Table I Description
of research
construct Declarative Information
variables Variable
knowledge acquisition
Information Acquisition
Task complexity
Information
Individual
Cognitive Cognitive
differences
Operationalization
Role recall strategy
load
skill style
Dependent Treatment
variable variable
Treatment
variable
Control Control
variable variable
Recall performance Two (f?,e/s : Directed acquisition Incidental acquisition Two levels : Minimum load Increased load Short-term memory test Verbalizer/Visualizer questionnaire
[VVQ]
N.S. Umanath /Information
sures of cognitive style are available. Prior research in IS and related areas e.g., [lo] suggest that styles of information processing, such as verbalization and visualization, influences recall performance; VVQ, a H-items verbalizar-visualizer questionnaire [24], was therefore used as the cognitive style measure. Verbalizers are said to favor verbal/quantitative forms of external information presentation, while visualizers do not. Since the to-be-recalled stimuli in this experiment was presented in a conventional tabular form, the VVQ is expected to provide an effective control for cognitive style interference. The research variables are summarized in Table 1. Subjects Fifty-eight volunteer students from the evening MBA program at a major urban university participated in the experiment. Forty-eight were employed on a full-time basis. The average work experience of the group was five years. Procedure The subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment variations resulting from the combination of two levels of information load and two levels of information acquisition strategy. The two groups assigned to the minimum information load treatment received the work center load
Table 2 ANCOVA
results
df
Model a Information
acquisition
Information
load Strategy memory
profile that contained data on a single work center; that is, the target of the experimental task, namely, information recall. The work center load profile given to the other two groups reflected increased information load by addition of two work centers that were not part of the target in the information recall task. Similarly, two groups, one each from the minimum information load and increased information load groups, were simply directed to study the contents of the work center load profiles they received. They were also told, at that time, that they would be answering a set of questions pertaining to facts from the stimulus material based entirely on their recall of information from the material they just reviewed. The other two groups worked on the pretest problem solving exercise using the work center load profile they had received. They did not know that the following set of questions would require a response based on their recall of the material they had evaluated in the pretest problem solving task. In fact, the post-test debriefing session confirmed that most in this group believed that the problem solving exercise was indeed their principal assignment. The experiment proceeded as follows: a. a brief introduction to the experiment, b. administration of the associative (short-term) memory test, c. exposure of the experimental groups to one of the four treatment variations, d. adminis-
for recall performance
n = 58 Source
Acquisition Short-term WQ
293
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
strategy
X Info load
F
P
5 1
8.54 18.29
0.0001 0.0001
1
9.55
0.003
1 1 1
14.64 1.42 2.42
0.0004 0.24 0.13
R2
Recall performance Mean h
sd
0.580 0.694 0.678 0.596
0.144 0.093 0.058 0.162
0.45 Directed strategy Incidental strategy Minimum load Increased load
a The statistics reported here is based on Type III sum of squares. Type III analysis adjusts each effect for all other effects including interaction effects in the model. Thus, main effects can be compared even in the presence of interactions [17]. h The mean values for recall performance indicate values adjusted for the co-variates, short-term memory and VVQ. Note: The recall performance and the short-term memory score use a O-l scale. The scale for VVQ spans the range O-15. The mean and standard deviation for short-term memory are 0.708 and 0.209, respectively. The corresponding values for VVQ are 8.52 and 2.47.
294 Table 3 Subsample
N.S. Umanath / Information & Management 27 (1994) 287-301
analysis
of information Level
acquisition
strategy
X
Contrast
information
load interaction
Information
acquisition
effect on recall performance
Directed learning
Incidental learning n = 32
n=26-
Mean (sd) Information
Directed vs Incidental acquisition
strategy
F
Mean (sd)
P
F F
P
p
load Minimum n = 30
0.673 (0.0X4) Minimum
vs Increased
Increased n = 28
0.678 (0.028) 17.49
0.0004
0.493 (0.135)
0.01 0.69
0.92
0.41
0.706 (0.131)
20.11
0.0002
tration of the recall test, e. administration of a self-report questionnaire (demographic data), f. administration of a style of information processing questionnaire - Verbalizer/Visualizer scale (VVQ) and g. administration of the recognition test.
The relationships hypothesized were tested using an analysis (ANCOVA) model of the form:
Results The initial sample had sixty-eight subjects. Two had incomplete data and so could not be used. Eight others were later excluded because they were either acute verbalizers (score of 3 or less in the VVQ) or acute visualizers (score of 13 or above).
whereyj, is the recall performance; p is the base or mean intercept; a i is the effect of ith information acquisition strategy (i = 1,2); 7, is the effect of jth level of information load (j = 1,2); PO is the coefficient of the covariate, short-term memory; p, is the coefficient of the covariate, WQ; lJijk is the short-term memory score. the
1.0 R e c * 1
Yijk = /.L+ a i + Tj + ( a T)il + PoUijk
T
0.8
1
,678
t
--- Incidental
a n
acquisition
strategy
0.2
c
-
+
0.0
1
I
I
I
Directed
I 1
I
minjmum
Fig. 2. Information
acquisition
strategy
acquisition
I
strategy
I
increased
Information
in this research of covariance
Load
x information
________>
load interaction
effect on recall performance.
N.S. Umanath /Information
strategy to absorb a relative increase in information load without sacrificing performance (H4) was supported by the results (F = 0.69, p = 0.41). It was also clear that a higher information load lowered performance under directed acquisition (F = 17.49, p = 0.0004). Thus H5 was ratified. A summary of the results appears in Table 4. Another interesting result was the unconditional superiority of incidental acquisition over directed acquisition, as evidenced by the significant main effect for information acquisition strategy. Since this effect was not predicted by theory, our only conclusion was that other hidden contingencies must be present in the experimental context. An examination of the problem representation led us to speculate that presentation format may be one hidden contingent factor. Research in human information processing has shown that mental representations are derived from the most readily available external representations [29]. In the behavioral decision theory literature, Bettman and Kakkar [5] report similar results; i.e., people
covariate; Vijk is the WQ score, the covariate; and E ijk is the error term. The results of the data analysis are shown in Table 2. As hypothesized in Hl, increase in information load significantly lowered recall performance (F = 9.55, p = 0.003). The significant effect due to the interaction between acquisition strategy and information load (F = 14.64, p = 0.0004) indicates that one or more of the other hypotheses are supported. The results of the follow-up subsample analysis examining this interaction are shown in Table 3. Fig. 2 captures this interaction effect in a pictorial form. When the information load was minimal, there was no difference in recall performance between the directed acquisition and incidental acquisition strategies (F = 0.01, p = 0.92). This ratifies H2. However, at an increased level of information load, the incidental acquisition strategy did yield a superior recall performance than the directed acquisition strategy (F = 20.11, p = 0.0002) as was hypothesized by H3. The ability of the incidental acquisition
Table 4 Summary
of findings
for hypothesized
Effect
on recall performance
Description
Information
acquisition
Information
load
Information acquisition
effects
strategy
load x Information strategy
* This statistically
significant
295
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
of result
Suwort
Incidental acquisition strategy yielded a higher recall performance than a directed acquisition strategy Recall performance was lower at increased level of information load than at minimal information load
0.0001
When the information load was minimal, there was no difference in recall performance between incidental and directed acquisition strategies At an increased level of information load, recall performance was lower when information acquisition wss directed rather than incidental Recall performance at an incresed level of information load was as good as it was at minimal information load, when incidental acquisition strategy was used Recall performance at an incresed level of information load was lower than it was at minimal information load, when directed acquisition strategy was used main effect was not theoretically
predicted.
(a)
For more information,
*
0.003
Hl
0.92
H2
0.0002
H3
0.41
H4
0.0004 see the Results
H5 section.
296
N.S. Umanath /Information
tend to process information in a way consistent with its representation. The work center load profiles used here presented only a tabular representation of the stimulus material. A graphical presentation of the same data might elicit a different response. The extent of elaboration and rehearsal enabled by the incidental acquisition strategy may not be required for other forms of presentation. Since the recall task in this experiment required trend detection, a graphical presentation appeared to be a fitting candidate to meet this condition. Acquisition strategy apart, there is theoretical rationale [33,34] and empirical evidence to support the position that graphical displays yield superior performance for pattern recognition tasks. Therefore, the unexpected main effect found for information acquisition strategy can be reconciled if there is evidence to support the statement that presentation format is a contingent factor. 3.2. Experiment 2 The objective of this follow-up experiment was to see if the performance superiority of incidental over directed acquisition strategy was sustained or nullified when the presentation of the stimulus material was changed from tabular to graphical form. Graphical displays favor pattern detection tasks. An incidental acquisition strategy does not particularly aid graphical presentations for trend detection tasks, since the elaboration and rehearsal strengths of this process is less critical for the task. On the other hand, a graphical presentation may be somewhat supportive of directed acquisition, because graphs may allow sharper encoding of trends in long-term memory. Thus, recall performance may be expected to converge for the two strategies. Hence: H6: With a graphical presentation, recall performance will be unaffected by variations in information acquisition strategy. The aggregating expected to soften
property of graphs the cognitive strain
can be due to
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
increased information load. Thus, with graphs, as information load increases, cognitive effort may increase at a slower rate than when using a tabular presentation. The effort-error trade-off principle would then suggest lower rate of performance deterioration with increase in information load. A marginal increase in information load affecting recall performance with a tabular stimulus material may then be expected to have no effect when the stimulus material is in a graphical form. This leads to the hypothesis, H7: With a graphical presentation, recall performance will be unaffected by relative increase in information load. Since both the advantage of incidental acquisition and the disadvantage due to increased information load are expected to diminish with a graphical presentation, the following set of hypotheses for the interaction effect may be stated. The expectation that acquisition strategy variations may have no impact on recall performance when the information load is minimal (H2) can be expected to be strongly supported with a graphical presentation. Hence the hypothesis H8: When the information load is minimal, recall performance using graphical presentation will be unaffected by variations in information acquisition strategy. Since softening of cognitive strain at higher information load when using a graphical presentation is likely in both the incidental and directed acquisition conditions, H3 can be expected to hold good for graphical presentations. Thus it is hypothesized that: H9: With increased information load, incidental acquisition will yield better recall performance than directed acquisition, even when the target of recall is a graphical presentation. The softening effect of graphical presentation can be expected to retard performance degeneration due to increases in information load. H4 is restated as,
N.S. Umanath /Information Table 5 ANCOVA
results
for recall performance
n = 49 Source Model
a
Information
acquisition
Information
load
Acquisition Short-term
strategy memory
VVQ
strategy
X Info load
using graphical
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
297
stimuli
df
F
P
R2
5
1.86
0.12
0.18
1
2.17
0.15
1
0.09
0.76
1 1 1
5.33 0.73 0.61
0.03 0.40 0.44
Recall performance
Directed strategy Incidental strategy Minimum load Increased load
Mean ’
sd
0.584 0.639 0.617 0.606
0.137 0.118 0.091 0.158
a The statistics reported here is based on Type III sum of squares. Type III analysis adjusts each effect for all other effects including interaction effects in the model. Thus, main effects can be compared even in the presence of interactions [17]. ’ The mean values for recall performance indicate values adjusted for the co-variates, short-term memory and VVQ. Note: The recall performance and the short-term memory score use a O-l scale. The scale for VVQ spans the range O-15. The mean and standard deviation for short-term memory are 0.711 and 0.248 respectively. The corresponding values for VVQ are 9.00 and 1.16.
WORK CENTER LOAD PROFILE
HlO: Under incidental acquisition strategy, recall performance using graphical presentation will be unaffected by relative increase in information load. Finally, one can expect that the apparent reduction in effectiveness of directed acquisition with increase in information load will be partially, if not completely, nullified by the effect of graphical presentation. So, it is hypothesized that: Hll: Under directed acquisition strategy, recall performance will be unaffected by relative increase in information load when using a graphical presentation. Procedure This was a systematic replication ’ of the previous experiment. All the variables, controls, and procedures were completely duplicated except that: (1) the work center load profiles (stimulus material) were graphical counterparts of those of the first experiment; and (2) none of the subjects
1
Srdman [27] says: Direct replication implies exact repetition of procedures, whereas Systematic replication entails slight modification(s) to independent variable(s) so that each successive investigation yields additional information.
MAI
n.hE
Auam
WX-C
SmDmm
UzlmQl
Fig. 3. Graphical form of work center load profile with three work centers (increased information load tretament).
N.S. Umanath /Information
298 Table 6 Subsample stimuli
analysis
of information Level
acquisition
strategy
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
x information
Contrast
load interaction
Information
acquisition
effect
performance
Incidental learning n = 24
Mean kd)
F
Mean (sd)
P
for graphical Directed vs Incidental acquisition
strategy
Directed learning n = 25
Information
on recall
F
F
P
0.05
0.83
6.67
0.02
P
load Minimum n = 22
0.622 (0.071 l Minimum
0.611 (0.113)
vs Increased
Increased n = 27
2.65
0.12
0.534 (0.170)
2.79
0.11
0.680 (0.116)
from Experiment 1 participated in this one. Since bar charts are the common graphical form of presentation for such data [16], they were used for the graphical presentations here: see Fig. 3. A different group of forty-nine students participated in this second experiment. Thirty-one were
employed on a full-time basis. Their average work experience was 6.5 years. Participation of these students in the experiment was entirely voluntary. The subjects randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups went through the same sequence of steps as before.
Table 7 Summary
for graphical
of findings
for hypothesized
Effect
on recall performance
Results
Information
acquisition
Information
load
Information acquisition
effects
strategy
load x Information strategy
with graphical
stimulus
material
stimuli in use
Incidental acquisition strategy did not yield a recall performance higher than a directed acquisition strategy Marginal increase in information load did not harm recall performance When the information load was minimal, there was no difference in recall performance between incidental and directed acquisition strategies At an increased level of information load, recall performance was lower when information acquisition was directed rather than incidental Recall performance at an incresed level of information load was as good as it was at minimal information load, when incidental acquisition strategy was used Recall performance at an incresed level of information load did not deteriorate significantly even in a directed acquisition condition
Support
(PI
0.15
H6
0.76
H7
0.83
H8
0.02
H9
0.11
HlO
0.12
Hll
N.S. Umanath /Information
Results The ANCOVA results are shown in Table 5. Observe that the model R2 (0.18) is not only low, but also statistically insignificant (p = 0.12). On the other hand, the model R2 in the first experiment with a tabular presentation was 0.45 (p = 0.0001). Hypothesis H6 was ratified by the results. The difference in recall performance between the directed learners and the incidental learners was insignificant (F = 2.17, p = 0.15). Also, marginal increase in information load did not affect recall performance (H7) when the stimulus material was presented in a graphical form (F = 0.09, p = 0.76). The results of the interaction hypotheses, H8, H9 and HlO are reported in Table 6. H8 was supported because recall performance was unaffected by information acquisition strategy at minimal information load (F = 0.05, p = 0.83). At the increased level of information load, performance was better with incidental learning than with directed learning, thus ratifying H9 (F = 6.67, p = 0.02). HlO was supported because when information acquisition was incidental marginal changes in information load did not affect recall performance (F = 2.79, p = 0.11). Hypothesis Hll, predicting no loss of recall performance due to marginal increase in information load under directed learning for a graphical stimulus, was also supported (F = 2.65, p = 0.12). A summary of results is given in Table 7.
& Management
27 (1994) 287-301
299
acquisition better than directed strategy. Further, a marginal increase in information load did result in deterioration of performance when directed acquisition was used. The results also indicated an unconditional superiority (main effect) of incidental acquisition over directed acquisition beyond the contingency effect due to information load for a tabular data display, and demonstrated that display format is a contingency factor that moderates the information acquisition process. Past research has repeatedly found that graphical forms of information display yields better performance than their tabular counterparts in several different task settings. Findings of this research, on the other hand, demonstrate the resilience of graphical format against exogenous interference (e.g., information load, acquisition strategy). More specifically, the unconditional superiority of incidental acquisition strategy over directed acquisition found with a tabular display disappears when a graphical format is used. Tables are a major form of IS output. Our findings suggest that end-users are better off doing elaborative review of such reports rather than brute-force learning to assimilate the material, especially when the amount of data increases. Where possible, graphical forms of reports should be considered. However, when the information load is not a matter of concern, tables would suffice. Caution must be exercised before generalizing the findings of this research to contexts beyond information retrieval tasks.
4. Summary Acknowledgments This research studied how information systems (IS) variables affect information acquisition. Two information acquisition modes - incidental and directed information acquisition strategies - were examined. Here, IS variable, information load, was identified as the missing link capable of reconciling the apparent conflict between the two learning goal theories. It was empirically demonstrated that only when information load is not a factor, both information acquisition strategies are equally effective. At an increased information load, incidental strategy facilitated information
The comments of Iris Vessey, Richard Scamell, and the editor, Professor E. H. Sibley are greatly appreciated.
References 111 J.R. Anderson, Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, 1985. [2] J.R. Anderson and G.H. Bower, “Configural properties in sentence memory”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 11, 1972, 595405.
300
N.S. Urnanath / Information & Management 27 (1994) 287-301
[3] H.P. Bahrick, “A two-phase model for prompted recall”. Psychological Review Vol. 77, 1970, 2155222. [4] I. Benbasat and A.S. Dexter, “An experimental evaluation of graphical and color-enhanced information presentation”, Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 11, 1985. 1348-1364. [5] J.R. Bettman and P. Kakkar, “Effects of information presentation format on consumer information acquisition strategies”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3, 1977, 233-240. [6] G. Biehal and D. Chakravarthi, “Information presentation format and learning goals as determinants of consumer’s memory retrieval and choice processes”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, 1982, 431-441. [7] G. Biehal and D. Chakravarthi, “Information accessibility as a moderator of consumer choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, 1984, l-14. [S] D.J. Campbell, “Task complexity: A review and analysis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. I, 1988. 40-52. [9] M.T.H. Chi, R. Glasser and E. Rees, “Expertise in problem solving”, In Advances in Psychology of Human Intelligence, R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982, 7-75. [IO] T.L. Childers, M.J. Houston and SE. Heckler, “Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12. 1988, 125-134. [Ill F.I.M. Craik and R.S. Lockhart. “Levels of processing: a framework for memory research”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior Vol. 11, 1972, 671-684. [12] G. DeSanctis and S.L. Jarvenpaa, “An investigation of the ‘tables versus graphs’ controversy in a learning environment”, In Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Inf. Syst., 1985. 134-144. [13] G.W. Dickson, G. DeSanctis and D.J. McBride, “Understanding the effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: A cumulative experimental approach”, Communications of the ACM Vol. 29, No. 1, 1986, 40-47. [14] H.J. Einhorn and R.M. Hogarth, “Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgement and choice”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 32, 1981. 52-88. [15] R.B. Ekstrom, J.W. French, H.H. Harman and D. Diran, Manual for the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, 1976. [16] D.W. Fogarty and T.R. Hoffman, Production and Inventory Management. South-Western Publishing, Palo Alto. CA, 1983. [I71 R.J. Freund. R.C. Littell and P.C. Spector, SAS System for Linear Models. SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC, 1986. [18] G.P. Huber, “Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ado about nothing”, Management Science. Vol. 29, No. 5, 1983, 567-582. [19] S.L. Jarvenpaa, “The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies”, Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1989, 285-303.
[20] P.G.W. Keen and G.S. Bronsema, “Cognitive style research: a perspective for integration”, In Proc 2nd Int. Conf. on Inf. Syst., 1981, 21-52. [2l] A. Newell and H.A. Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972. [22] J.W. Payne, “Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis”, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1976, 366-387. [23] J.W. Payne, “Contingent Decision Behavior”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 92, No. 2, 1982, 382-402. “Verbalizer-visualizer: a cognitive style [24] A. Richardson, dimension”, Journal of Mental Imagery, Vol. I, 1977, 109-126. [25] J. Russo and B. Dosher, “Strategies for Multiattribute Binary Choice”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 9, 1983, 676-696. [26] H.M. Schroder, M.J. Driver and S. Streufert, Human Information Processing, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 1967. [27] M. Sidman, Tactics of Scientific Research. Basic Books, New York, NY, 1960. [28] H.A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial (2nd Edition), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981. [29] H.A. Simon and J.R. Hayes, “The understanding process: problem isomorphs”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 8, 1976, 165-190. 1301 P. Todd and I. Benbasat, “An experimental investigation of the impact of computer based decision aids on decision making”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1991,87-115. [31] N.S. Umanath and R.W. Scamell, “An experimental evaluation of the impact of data display format on recall performance”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1988, 562-570. [32] N.S. Umanath, R.W. Scamell and S.R. Das, “An examination of two screen/report design variables in an information recall context”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1990, 216-240. [33] I. Vessey, “Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature”, Decision Sciences Vol 22, No. 2, 1991, 219-241. presentation on [34] I. Vessey, “The effect of information decision making: a cost-benefit analysis”, Information and Management, Forthcoming, 1994. “Cognitive fit: an empirical [35] I. Vessey and D. Galletta, study of information acquisition”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1991,63-84. [36] C.J. Watson and R.W. Driver, “The influence of computer graphics on the recall of information”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1983, 45-53. decision maker: time Pres[37] P. Wright, “The harassed sures, distractions, and the use of evidence”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, 1974, 555-561.
N.S. Umanath /Information Narayan S. Umanath is Associate Professor of Management Information Systems at the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Entering academia after fourteen of technical/managerial experience in software development, Umanath received his Ph.D. in business administration from the University of Houston in 1987, and worked at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA till Spring 1993. His undergraduate and
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
301
graduate educations are in mechanical engineering and industrial engineering respectively. His present research interests include organizational issues pertaining to information systerns (IS), diffusion of information technology in multinational enterprises, data modeling and data visualization. Umanath has published in Management Science, Decision Sciences, Communications of the ACM, Journal of MIS, and Information Resources Management Journal.
Information & Management 27 (1994) 287-301
Research
Effect of IS variables on information acquisition modes: An experimental investigation Narayan College of Business Administration,
S. Umanath
*
The Uniuersity of Tulsa, 118-C Business Administration 74104 USA
Hall, 600 South College Acenue,
Tulsa, OK
Abstract The flexibility possible through the use of modern information technology can be counter-productive in managerial problem solving. Information systems (IS) can aid managers by providing informed choices for managerial decisions rather than mere flexibility. Managers acquire information for problem solving in different ways. Thus, information acquisition and how IS can facilitate information acquisition is an important research issue. This paper discusses the results of two laboratory experiments that utilized a production scheduling setting to examine the interaction between information acquisition mode, information load, and display format. The first used a tabular display, and the second an equivalent graphical format. Two information acquisition modes, incidental learning and directed learning were examined. Performance was measured by assessing the knowledge acquired, using a particular information acquisition strategy. The results indicate that: when information load is small, recall performance is unaffected by variation in the information acquisition mode; an incidental acquisition strategy yields better performance than directed acquisition strategy at an increased level of information load; and that graphical presentation effectively compensates for the influence of an incidental acquisition strategy. Implications are discussed.
MIS; Problem tion strategies
Keywords:
solving; Decision
making/process;
1. Introduction Recent development in hardware and software technologies offer a wide variety of options to the manager for viewing information (e.g., graphs, charts, icons, visual images, etc.). However, the degree of flexibility that managers enjoy in the
* Corresponding
author.
037%7206/94/$07.00 SSDI
Information
Information
acquisi-
choice of information presentation modes does not necessarily result in effective problem solving or optimal decision making [19]. In fact, information systems (IS) can aid managers by facilitating informed choice of information presentation [35]. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the usefulness of different display formats appears to be contingent on the characteristics of the problem solving task [4,30]. Thus, an understanding of how information presentation and
0 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
0378-7206(94)00018-E
load; Display format;
288
N.S. Urnmath
/Information
task characteristics affect the various stages of problem solving and decision making is important. Since information acquisition is a critical stage in the problem solving and decision making processes and information presentation influences acquisition, this paper focuses on information acquisition. Managers acquire information in two fundamentally different ways as they carry out their responsibilities. First, they may acquire it for a particular purpose; i.e., to make verbal or written reports or in anticipation of future decision tasks (e.g., equipment purchase, product outsourcing). Second, managers also acquire information continually, with no specific purpose at that time, but store it for possible future use. Such information acquisition often occurs in routine perusal of job-related material (e.g., daily production schedules, and trade reports). These two modes of information acquisition differ in their way of acquiring and storing the information. We refer to the two strategies used as goal-oriented or directed, when acquisition of information is intentional, and incidental, when information is acquired independent of a preconceived usage for it. Since storage of information is a differentiating factor between the two information acquisition modes, information recall is an appropriate performance indicator. Benbasat and Dexter [4] have identified recall/recognition as one of the task settings to evaluate the effect of information presentation format on decision making. Other studies in IS have also used information recall as a performance indicator [ 12,361. There are two opposing views on the merits and demerits of each of these modes of information acquisition. Incidental learning theory suggests that natural elaboration and rehearsal aid information recall [ 11. Goal-oriented or directed learning theory argues that an incidental acquisition strategy involves partial and differential learning, while purposive learning and sharp focus on the needed information through directed acquisition strategy overcomes these difficulties, and hence will yield superior information recall [6,7]. Directed acquisition strategy, on the other hand, may suffer from the application of poor
& Managemrnt 27 (1994) 287-301
memorization sonal theories
techniques based on incorrect perof what makes for good memory
[Il. Our objective is to examine the impact of information acquisition mode on information recall. Do IS variables facilitate or impede this relationship? We argue that information load acts as a contingent factor that moderates the relationship between information acquisition mode and information recall. This paper reports the results of two laboratory experiments conducted to examine the interactive effects of information load and information acquisition mode on recall performance using two different data display formats - tabular and graphical.
2. Theory Information acquisition entails the encoding of external stimuli in human memory. This encoding is usually regarded as associative: that is, bonds or associations link pairs of elements of knowledge [2]. During memory encoding at information acquisition, factors that enhance attention to stimuli and/or encourage elaboration of stimulus elements, enhance subsequent information recall 1111. Acquisition strategies directly affect these factors, and thus the processing (encoding) at information acquisition, and subsequent recall and recognition [7]. 2.1. Information
acquisition
strategies
When the goal is to retain the information in memory, directed or goal-oriented information acquisition occurs. As a consequence, focused learning of the to-be-recalled material results. On the other hand, when information is acquired and stored in memory as a result of other problem solving or decision making activity (i.e., from an extraneous task), incidental information acquisition occurs. The acquisition strategy used at the time of encoding influences the nature of the associations. Subsequent attempts to retrieve information from long-term memory (LTM) is ex-
N.S. Umanath /Information
petted to be a function of the goal at initial information acquisition [61. Biehal and Chakravarthi [7] offer compelling arguments on the weakness of incidental acquisition strategy. When information acquisition is nondirected, the heuristics of the extraneous decision making task determine the information processing strategy and thus influence the nature of the associative links stored in memory. For instance, the heuristics of the task employed to induce incidental acquisition may lead to less effort being directed towards encoding all the information available or developing well-defined associative links; this implies less retention of information and that which is retained may be subject to greater retrieval error. Also, depending on the extraneous task used as the vehicle for incidental acquisition, some elements of the stimulus material may have differential processing: some being quickly eliminated and only partially stored in memory. In other words, incidental information acquisition will, according to this viewpoint, disrupt subsequent recall performance. On the other hand, goal-oriented or directed acquisition is purposive and enables sharp focus on the to-be-recalled stimuli. Directed information acquisition may be hampered by poor personal theories of what makes for good memory and hence lead to more effort and poor encoding. Since incidental acquisition entails elaboration and natural rehearsal of the to-be-recalled stimuli, it takes less effort and good encoding of associative networks may occur. In one recall experiment, incidental learners performed better than the directed learners; Anderson and Bower [2] found that some of the directed learners were employing poor memorization strategies while incidental learners simply elaborated on the stimulus material and were not hampered by poor theories of what makes for good memory. Biehal and Chakravarti found that recall accuracy of both strategies was comparable when the target of recall was the focus of attention (selected alternative) in the preceding extraneous task. The conflicting rationale advocated by the two theories leads to two conclusions: (1) It is impossible to hypothesize the direct effect on recall
& Management
27 (1994) 287-301
289
performance attributable to information acquisition strategy, and (2) conditions must exist where each theory holds good. ‘Task complexity’ may be a contingent factor producing such conditions. 2.2. Task
contingency
Researchers contend that information processing involved in problem solving and decision making is contingent on the demands of the task being performed. In the absence of a clear-cut specification for the dimensionality of the ‘task’ construct, researchers in the information systems and behavioral decision making areas have employed ‘task complexity’ - i.e., relative levels of aggregate variation in task characteristics - as a means to assess the impact of a task e.g., [ 13,22,30]. Several researchers have attempted to define complexity in terms of objective task qualities (for a detailed exposition see [S]). Payne [23], for instance, followed Simon’s [28] view that the number of elements in the system and the degree and nature of interactions among them constitutes task complexity, and proposed that the number of alternatives, number of attributes in each alternative, and time constraint were its determinants. Schroder, Driver and Streufert [26] proposed a somewhat similar set of variables, namely, information load (number of attributes), information diversity (number of alternatives associated with each attribute), and the degree of uncertainty (the rate of information change). We used information load to represent task complexity. Thus, the central thesis of this research is that information load is a contingent factor moderating the relationship between information acquisition mode and information recall and that this is capable of reconciling the conflict apparent in the two learning goal theories. 2.3. Information load as the contingent factor Ceteris paribus, an increase in information load tends to create cognitive strain (i.e., extra cognitive effort to perform the task). However, the desire to minimize effort may be stronger than the desire to minimize error [25]. Therefore, to minimize the joint cost of effort and error, people
290
N.S. Umanath /Information
tend to trade off performance accuracy as cognitive effort increases [23]. Hence the hypothesis: Hl: Overall, recall performance increase in information load.
declines
with an
The significance of the reduction will be a function of the relative increase in information load. Does information load reconcile the conflicting rationale advanced by the directed learning and incidental learning theories? With minimal information load, the opportunity for differential attention on the stimulus material during incidental information acquisition is minimized. Under the directed strategy, recall performance may be hampered by poor personal theories of what makes for good memory. Reduced information load will tend to mitigate this. Purposive learning and sharp focus on the to-berecalled material can be expected to facilitate efficient coding in LTM when the information load is low, leading to improved recall performance. The positive features of incidental information acquisition strategy cannot be effectively utilized when the information load is low, while under the same conditions the weakness intrinsic to the directed acquisition strategy is relatively easy to overcome. Thus, when the information load is low, neither will be superior. So it is hypothesized, H2: When the information load is minimal, recall performance will be unaffected by variation in information acquisition strategy. As information load increases, the cognitive effort needed to encode the material tends to increase. However, the processes generic to incidental acquisition strategy help in coping with the cognitive effort, so that the effort-error trade-off is reduced. Therefore, recall performance will not significantly diminish. Also, while differential processing attention is potentially harmful, it will not affect recall performance when the target of recall is the focus of attention in the preceding extraneous task. On the other hand. a directed
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
information acquisition strategy does not provide a mechanism to combat the increase in cognitive effort, leading to reduction of recall performance. In addition, possible use of poor memorization strategies can only compound the problem and reduce recall performance, because associative links formed in LTM by the encoding process under information overload may be weak. In essence, the problem intrinsic to directed acquisition strategy may be insurmountable, while the strength of the incidental acquisition strategy may be fully utilizable. Therefore, incidental acquisition strategy can be expected to have an edge over the directed strategy for higher information load. Hence the hypothesis: H3: With increased information load, incidental acquisition strategy will yield better recall performance than directed acquisition strategy. Though incidental information acquisition can combat increases in information load better than directed acquisition, there is no reason to expect improvement in recall performance under incidental strategy as the information load increases. Thus it is hypothesized, H4: Under incidental acquisition performance will be unaffected crease in information load.
strategy, recall by relative in-
On the other hand, it has been argued above that directed information acquisition is particularly poor at handling increases in information load. This leads to the hypothesis, H5: Under directed acquisition strategy, recall performance will decline with increase in information load.
3. Experiments 3.1. Experiment 1 A laboratory experiment was conducted to examine the impact of information acquisition strategy on information recall under varying information load.
N.S. Umanath /Information
WORK CENTER LOAD PROFILE
IY!YmA!!9
&!!sxeQcI
WORKCENTERA CAPACITY (hrs) LOAD (hrs)
380 400
380 380
380 440
nAv&!lb!u
380 360
380 260
360 300
JiuEam
WORKCENTER@ CAPACITY (hrs) LOAD
330 360
330 320
330 400
330 280
CAPACITYthrs) LOAD (hrs)
360 420
360 300
360 400
360 340
Fig. 1. Work center (increased information
load profile with load tretament).
three
330 300
330 330
360 320
360 360
work
centers
Research setting Capacity planning/production scheduling for a manufacturing operation developed by [311 and [32] was used as the context to stage the experiment. This experimental setting portrays load profiles (i.e., presentation of capacity and anticipated future work load) for production planning over a period of six months for one or more work centers (see Fig. 1). Production managers use this as a planning tool to assess demand patterns, work load variances, and bottleneck situations on the shop floor. Design A 2 X 2 factorial design was used. Two treatments, information acquisition strategy and information load were varied. Acquisition strategy was varied at two levels: incidental and directed acquisition modes. Information load was also varied at two levels: minimal and increased load.
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
291
The minimal information load treatment displayed the least amount of information required for the recall task; i.e., the information for a single work center. Increased information load was operationalized by surrounding this material with distracters: information for two additional work centers. Wright [37] states that information load can be increased by adding relevant pieces of information, either for other parallel situations or for the same one. A pretest treatment, immediately before the recall test, introduced the work center load profile to the subjects. The incidental acquisition strategy was induced by giving a group a decision making exercise using the work center load profile. The problem solving activity was intended to enable the subjects in this group to dwell on the information presented and learn its contents. Directed acquisition, on the other hand, was stimulated by simply providing explicit directions to another group to learn the presented material for future recall of its content in some form soon thereafter. Dependent variable The dependent variable, recall performance, can be assessed in several ways; the loading pattern of the target work center was employed as the measure. We wanted to capture the degree of departure of the response vector from the vector of correct answers as the measure of recall performance. Watson and Driver [36] used Spearman’s rank correlation for this purpose. Such a correlation measure, while capable of quantifying the linear relationship between two vectors, will not always reflect the degree of agreement between the two, because there may be more than one vector that provides the same correlation with the vector of correct answers and these response vectors need not be equivalent with respect to the degree of departure from the vector of correct answers. Umanath and Scamell [31] evaluated several other scoring schemes analytically as well as empirically, using simulated data, and concluded that the number of simple permutations required to transform the response vector to the correct answer is a sound measurement of the degree of departure/agreement of the re-
292
N.S. Umurlath /Information
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
material. Chi-square tests indicated that there was no significant difference in recognition between the two information acquisition strategy groups (p = 0.602) and between the two levels of information load (p = 0.195). This evidence provided a reasonable basis to conclude that the responses to the recall test were not artifacts of the experiment, but rather based on information recall. Since the response variable of interest to this experiment pertains to ‘human-memory’, it is conceivable that one’s short-term memory skill may contribute to the effects observed: cognitive skill accounts for inherent or learned information processing abilities. Keen and Bronsema [20] point out that this may be especially important when studying performance-oriented response variables. Therefore, cognitive skill was used as a methods variable so that its effect can be partialled out. An associative (short-term) memory measure, the picture-number test from a battery of factor-referenced cognitive tests developed by the Educational Testing Service [15], was used to capture differences in individual short-term memory capabilities. Cognitive skill is but one aspect of individual difference. Another aspect widely studied in information systems (IS) research is individual cognitive style. Despite Huber’s [lS] questioning of the adequacy of evidence in establishing the value of cognitive style considerations in the design of MIS/DSS, Benbasat and Dexter [4] observe that ample (though inconclusive) evidence exists to suggest the presence of a relationship between individual differences and IS. Numerous mea-
sponse vector from the vector of correct answers. Therefore, this method was used to compute recall performance. Experimental controls The aim of the incidental acquisition strategy was to: induce assimilation of the stimulus material, and ensure that the learning process is ‘incidental’. The problem solving process incorporated in the pretest exercise achieves these objectives. However, with the increased information load treatment, it is possible that assimilation of the to-be-recalled material per se may be accidental rather than incidental. Umanath, et al [32] had designed the pretest exercise such that the target work center for the recall test emerges as the most likely choice in the problem solution thus directing the subjects’ attention to the target information under increased information load. It is difficult to ascertain whether subjects indeed responded to the recall test based on their memory of the to-be-recalled stimuli. Nonetheless, an experimental control was devised to verify this. Since the processes underlying ‘recognition’ (discriminability) and ‘recall’ (retrieval) are similar and overlapping [3], failure in recognition can be seen as evidence against recall. Therefore, a recognition test was formulated. A set of displays, containing six different arrangements of the work centers were presented to the subjects. Their task was to pick the display to which they had been exposed. This recognition test did not immediately follow the recall test; it was administered as the last event of the experiment. Fifty-four out of the 58 subjects correctly picked their treatment
Table I Description
of research
construct Declarative Information
variables Variable
knowledge acquisition
Information Acquisition
Task complexity
Information
Individual
Cognitive Cognitive
differences
Operationalization
Role recall strategy
load
skill style
Dependent Treatment
variable variable
Treatment
variable
Control Control
variable variable
Recall performance Two (f?,e/s : Directed acquisition Incidental acquisition Two levels : Minimum load Increased load Short-term memory test Verbalizer/Visualizer questionnaire
[VVQ]
N.S. Umanath /Information
sures of cognitive style are available. Prior research in IS and related areas e.g., [lo] suggest that styles of information processing, such as verbalization and visualization, influences recall performance; VVQ, a H-items verbalizar-visualizer questionnaire [24], was therefore used as the cognitive style measure. Verbalizers are said to favor verbal/quantitative forms of external information presentation, while visualizers do not. Since the to-be-recalled stimuli in this experiment was presented in a conventional tabular form, the VVQ is expected to provide an effective control for cognitive style interference. The research variables are summarized in Table 1. Subjects Fifty-eight volunteer students from the evening MBA program at a major urban university participated in the experiment. Forty-eight were employed on a full-time basis. The average work experience of the group was five years. Procedure The subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment variations resulting from the combination of two levels of information load and two levels of information acquisition strategy. The two groups assigned to the minimum information load treatment received the work center load
Table 2 ANCOVA
results
df
Model a Information
acquisition
Information
load Strategy memory
profile that contained data on a single work center; that is, the target of the experimental task, namely, information recall. The work center load profile given to the other two groups reflected increased information load by addition of two work centers that were not part of the target in the information recall task. Similarly, two groups, one each from the minimum information load and increased information load groups, were simply directed to study the contents of the work center load profiles they received. They were also told, at that time, that they would be answering a set of questions pertaining to facts from the stimulus material based entirely on their recall of information from the material they just reviewed. The other two groups worked on the pretest problem solving exercise using the work center load profile they had received. They did not know that the following set of questions would require a response based on their recall of the material they had evaluated in the pretest problem solving task. In fact, the post-test debriefing session confirmed that most in this group believed that the problem solving exercise was indeed their principal assignment. The experiment proceeded as follows: a. a brief introduction to the experiment, b. administration of the associative (short-term) memory test, c. exposure of the experimental groups to one of the four treatment variations, d. adminis-
for recall performance
n = 58 Source
Acquisition Short-term WQ
293
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
strategy
X Info load
F
P
5 1
8.54 18.29
0.0001 0.0001
1
9.55
0.003
1 1 1
14.64 1.42 2.42
0.0004 0.24 0.13
R2
Recall performance Mean h
sd
0.580 0.694 0.678 0.596
0.144 0.093 0.058 0.162
0.45 Directed strategy Incidental strategy Minimum load Increased load
a The statistics reported here is based on Type III sum of squares. Type III analysis adjusts each effect for all other effects including interaction effects in the model. Thus, main effects can be compared even in the presence of interactions [17]. h The mean values for recall performance indicate values adjusted for the co-variates, short-term memory and VVQ. Note: The recall performance and the short-term memory score use a O-l scale. The scale for VVQ spans the range O-15. The mean and standard deviation for short-term memory are 0.708 and 0.209, respectively. The corresponding values for VVQ are 8.52 and 2.47.
294 Table 3 Subsample
N.S. Umanath / Information & Management 27 (1994) 287-301
analysis
of information Level
acquisition
strategy
X
Contrast
information
load interaction
Information
acquisition
effect on recall performance
Directed learning
Incidental learning n = 32
n=26-
Mean (sd) Information
Directed vs Incidental acquisition
strategy
F
Mean (sd)
P
F F
P
p
load Minimum n = 30
0.673 (0.0X4) Minimum
vs Increased
Increased n = 28
0.678 (0.028) 17.49
0.0004
0.493 (0.135)
0.01 0.69
0.92
0.41
0.706 (0.131)
20.11
0.0002
tration of the recall test, e. administration of a self-report questionnaire (demographic data), f. administration of a style of information processing questionnaire - Verbalizer/Visualizer scale (VVQ) and g. administration of the recognition test.
The relationships hypothesized were tested using an analysis (ANCOVA) model of the form:
Results The initial sample had sixty-eight subjects. Two had incomplete data and so could not be used. Eight others were later excluded because they were either acute verbalizers (score of 3 or less in the VVQ) or acute visualizers (score of 13 or above).
whereyj, is the recall performance; p is the base or mean intercept; a i is the effect of ith information acquisition strategy (i = 1,2); 7, is the effect of jth level of information load (j = 1,2); PO is the coefficient of the covariate, short-term memory; p, is the coefficient of the covariate, WQ; lJijk is the short-term memory score. the
1.0 R e c * 1
Yijk = /.L+ a i + Tj + ( a T)il + PoUijk
T
0.8
1
,678
t
--- Incidental
a n
acquisition
strategy
0.2
c
-
+
0.0
1
I
I
I
Directed
I 1
I
minjmum
Fig. 2. Information
acquisition
strategy
acquisition
I
strategy
I
increased
Information
in this research of covariance
Load
x information
________>
load interaction
effect on recall performance.
N.S. Umanath /Information
strategy to absorb a relative increase in information load without sacrificing performance (H4) was supported by the results (F = 0.69, p = 0.41). It was also clear that a higher information load lowered performance under directed acquisition (F = 17.49, p = 0.0004). Thus H5 was ratified. A summary of the results appears in Table 4. Another interesting result was the unconditional superiority of incidental acquisition over directed acquisition, as evidenced by the significant main effect for information acquisition strategy. Since this effect was not predicted by theory, our only conclusion was that other hidden contingencies must be present in the experimental context. An examination of the problem representation led us to speculate that presentation format may be one hidden contingent factor. Research in human information processing has shown that mental representations are derived from the most readily available external representations [29]. In the behavioral decision theory literature, Bettman and Kakkar [5] report similar results; i.e., people
covariate; Vijk is the WQ score, the covariate; and E ijk is the error term. The results of the data analysis are shown in Table 2. As hypothesized in Hl, increase in information load significantly lowered recall performance (F = 9.55, p = 0.003). The significant effect due to the interaction between acquisition strategy and information load (F = 14.64, p = 0.0004) indicates that one or more of the other hypotheses are supported. The results of the follow-up subsample analysis examining this interaction are shown in Table 3. Fig. 2 captures this interaction effect in a pictorial form. When the information load was minimal, there was no difference in recall performance between the directed acquisition and incidental acquisition strategies (F = 0.01, p = 0.92). This ratifies H2. However, at an increased level of information load, the incidental acquisition strategy did yield a superior recall performance than the directed acquisition strategy (F = 20.11, p = 0.0002) as was hypothesized by H3. The ability of the incidental acquisition
Table 4 Summary
of findings
for hypothesized
Effect
on recall performance
Description
Information
acquisition
Information
load
Information acquisition
effects
strategy
load x Information strategy
* This statistically
significant
295
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
of result
Suwort
Incidental acquisition strategy yielded a higher recall performance than a directed acquisition strategy Recall performance was lower at increased level of information load than at minimal information load
0.0001
When the information load was minimal, there was no difference in recall performance between incidental and directed acquisition strategies At an increased level of information load, recall performance was lower when information acquisition wss directed rather than incidental Recall performance at an incresed level of information load was as good as it was at minimal information load, when incidental acquisition strategy was used Recall performance at an incresed level of information load was lower than it was at minimal information load, when directed acquisition strategy was used main effect was not theoretically
predicted.
(a)
For more information,
*
0.003
Hl
0.92
H2
0.0002
H3
0.41
H4
0.0004 see the Results
H5 section.
296
N.S. Umanath /Information
tend to process information in a way consistent with its representation. The work center load profiles used here presented only a tabular representation of the stimulus material. A graphical presentation of the same data might elicit a different response. The extent of elaboration and rehearsal enabled by the incidental acquisition strategy may not be required for other forms of presentation. Since the recall task in this experiment required trend detection, a graphical presentation appeared to be a fitting candidate to meet this condition. Acquisition strategy apart, there is theoretical rationale [33,34] and empirical evidence to support the position that graphical displays yield superior performance for pattern recognition tasks. Therefore, the unexpected main effect found for information acquisition strategy can be reconciled if there is evidence to support the statement that presentation format is a contingent factor. 3.2. Experiment 2 The objective of this follow-up experiment was to see if the performance superiority of incidental over directed acquisition strategy was sustained or nullified when the presentation of the stimulus material was changed from tabular to graphical form. Graphical displays favor pattern detection tasks. An incidental acquisition strategy does not particularly aid graphical presentations for trend detection tasks, since the elaboration and rehearsal strengths of this process is less critical for the task. On the other hand, a graphical presentation may be somewhat supportive of directed acquisition, because graphs may allow sharper encoding of trends in long-term memory. Thus, recall performance may be expected to converge for the two strategies. Hence: H6: With a graphical presentation, recall performance will be unaffected by variations in information acquisition strategy. The aggregating expected to soften
property of graphs the cognitive strain
can be due to
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
increased information load. Thus, with graphs, as information load increases, cognitive effort may increase at a slower rate than when using a tabular presentation. The effort-error trade-off principle would then suggest lower rate of performance deterioration with increase in information load. A marginal increase in information load affecting recall performance with a tabular stimulus material may then be expected to have no effect when the stimulus material is in a graphical form. This leads to the hypothesis, H7: With a graphical presentation, recall performance will be unaffected by relative increase in information load. Since both the advantage of incidental acquisition and the disadvantage due to increased information load are expected to diminish with a graphical presentation, the following set of hypotheses for the interaction effect may be stated. The expectation that acquisition strategy variations may have no impact on recall performance when the information load is minimal (H2) can be expected to be strongly supported with a graphical presentation. Hence the hypothesis H8: When the information load is minimal, recall performance using graphical presentation will be unaffected by variations in information acquisition strategy. Since softening of cognitive strain at higher information load when using a graphical presentation is likely in both the incidental and directed acquisition conditions, H3 can be expected to hold good for graphical presentations. Thus it is hypothesized that: H9: With increased information load, incidental acquisition will yield better recall performance than directed acquisition, even when the target of recall is a graphical presentation. The softening effect of graphical presentation can be expected to retard performance degeneration due to increases in information load. H4 is restated as,
N.S. Umanath /Information Table 5 ANCOVA
results
for recall performance
n = 49 Source Model
a
Information
acquisition
Information
load
Acquisition Short-term
strategy memory
VVQ
strategy
X Info load
using graphical
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
297
stimuli
df
F
P
R2
5
1.86
0.12
0.18
1
2.17
0.15
1
0.09
0.76
1 1 1
5.33 0.73 0.61
0.03 0.40 0.44
Recall performance
Directed strategy Incidental strategy Minimum load Increased load
Mean ’
sd
0.584 0.639 0.617 0.606
0.137 0.118 0.091 0.158
a The statistics reported here is based on Type III sum of squares. Type III analysis adjusts each effect for all other effects including interaction effects in the model. Thus, main effects can be compared even in the presence of interactions [17]. ’ The mean values for recall performance indicate values adjusted for the co-variates, short-term memory and VVQ. Note: The recall performance and the short-term memory score use a O-l scale. The scale for VVQ spans the range O-15. The mean and standard deviation for short-term memory are 0.711 and 0.248 respectively. The corresponding values for VVQ are 9.00 and 1.16.
WORK CENTER LOAD PROFILE
HlO: Under incidental acquisition strategy, recall performance using graphical presentation will be unaffected by relative increase in information load. Finally, one can expect that the apparent reduction in effectiveness of directed acquisition with increase in information load will be partially, if not completely, nullified by the effect of graphical presentation. So, it is hypothesized that: Hll: Under directed acquisition strategy, recall performance will be unaffected by relative increase in information load when using a graphical presentation. Procedure This was a systematic replication ’ of the previous experiment. All the variables, controls, and procedures were completely duplicated except that: (1) the work center load profiles (stimulus material) were graphical counterparts of those of the first experiment; and (2) none of the subjects
1
Srdman [27] says: Direct replication implies exact repetition of procedures, whereas Systematic replication entails slight modification(s) to independent variable(s) so that each successive investigation yields additional information.
MAI
n.hE
Auam
WX-C
SmDmm
UzlmQl
Fig. 3. Graphical form of work center load profile with three work centers (increased information load tretament).
N.S. Umanath /Information
298 Table 6 Subsample stimuli
analysis
of information Level
acquisition
strategy
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
x information
Contrast
load interaction
Information
acquisition
effect
performance
Incidental learning n = 24
Mean kd)
F
Mean (sd)
P
for graphical Directed vs Incidental acquisition
strategy
Directed learning n = 25
Information
on recall
F
F
P
0.05
0.83
6.67
0.02
P
load Minimum n = 22
0.622 (0.071 l Minimum
0.611 (0.113)
vs Increased
Increased n = 27
2.65
0.12
0.534 (0.170)
2.79
0.11
0.680 (0.116)
from Experiment 1 participated in this one. Since bar charts are the common graphical form of presentation for such data [16], they were used for the graphical presentations here: see Fig. 3. A different group of forty-nine students participated in this second experiment. Thirty-one were
employed on a full-time basis. Their average work experience was 6.5 years. Participation of these students in the experiment was entirely voluntary. The subjects randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups went through the same sequence of steps as before.
Table 7 Summary
for graphical
of findings
for hypothesized
Effect
on recall performance
Results
Information
acquisition
Information
load
Information acquisition
effects
strategy
load x Information strategy
with graphical
stimulus
material
stimuli in use
Incidental acquisition strategy did not yield a recall performance higher than a directed acquisition strategy Marginal increase in information load did not harm recall performance When the information load was minimal, there was no difference in recall performance between incidental and directed acquisition strategies At an increased level of information load, recall performance was lower when information acquisition was directed rather than incidental Recall performance at an incresed level of information load was as good as it was at minimal information load, when incidental acquisition strategy was used Recall performance at an incresed level of information load did not deteriorate significantly even in a directed acquisition condition
Support
(PI
0.15
H6
0.76
H7
0.83
H8
0.02
H9
0.11
HlO
0.12
Hll
N.S. Umanath /Information
Results The ANCOVA results are shown in Table 5. Observe that the model R2 (0.18) is not only low, but also statistically insignificant (p = 0.12). On the other hand, the model R2 in the first experiment with a tabular presentation was 0.45 (p = 0.0001). Hypothesis H6 was ratified by the results. The difference in recall performance between the directed learners and the incidental learners was insignificant (F = 2.17, p = 0.15). Also, marginal increase in information load did not affect recall performance (H7) when the stimulus material was presented in a graphical form (F = 0.09, p = 0.76). The results of the interaction hypotheses, H8, H9 and HlO are reported in Table 6. H8 was supported because recall performance was unaffected by information acquisition strategy at minimal information load (F = 0.05, p = 0.83). At the increased level of information load, performance was better with incidental learning than with directed learning, thus ratifying H9 (F = 6.67, p = 0.02). HlO was supported because when information acquisition was incidental marginal changes in information load did not affect recall performance (F = 2.79, p = 0.11). Hypothesis Hll, predicting no loss of recall performance due to marginal increase in information load under directed learning for a graphical stimulus, was also supported (F = 2.65, p = 0.12). A summary of results is given in Table 7.
& Management
27 (1994) 287-301
299
acquisition better than directed strategy. Further, a marginal increase in information load did result in deterioration of performance when directed acquisition was used. The results also indicated an unconditional superiority (main effect) of incidental acquisition over directed acquisition beyond the contingency effect due to information load for a tabular data display, and demonstrated that display format is a contingency factor that moderates the information acquisition process. Past research has repeatedly found that graphical forms of information display yields better performance than their tabular counterparts in several different task settings. Findings of this research, on the other hand, demonstrate the resilience of graphical format against exogenous interference (e.g., information load, acquisition strategy). More specifically, the unconditional superiority of incidental acquisition strategy over directed acquisition found with a tabular display disappears when a graphical format is used. Tables are a major form of IS output. Our findings suggest that end-users are better off doing elaborative review of such reports rather than brute-force learning to assimilate the material, especially when the amount of data increases. Where possible, graphical forms of reports should be considered. However, when the information load is not a matter of concern, tables would suffice. Caution must be exercised before generalizing the findings of this research to contexts beyond information retrieval tasks.
4. Summary Acknowledgments This research studied how information systems (IS) variables affect information acquisition. Two information acquisition modes - incidental and directed information acquisition strategies - were examined. Here, IS variable, information load, was identified as the missing link capable of reconciling the apparent conflict between the two learning goal theories. It was empirically demonstrated that only when information load is not a factor, both information acquisition strategies are equally effective. At an increased information load, incidental strategy facilitated information
The comments of Iris Vessey, Richard Scamell, and the editor, Professor E. H. Sibley are greatly appreciated.
References 111 J.R. Anderson, Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY, 1985. [2] J.R. Anderson and G.H. Bower, “Configural properties in sentence memory”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 11, 1972, 595405.
300
N.S. Urnanath / Information & Management 27 (1994) 287-301
[3] H.P. Bahrick, “A two-phase model for prompted recall”. Psychological Review Vol. 77, 1970, 2155222. [4] I. Benbasat and A.S. Dexter, “An experimental evaluation of graphical and color-enhanced information presentation”, Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 11, 1985. 1348-1364. [5] J.R. Bettman and P. Kakkar, “Effects of information presentation format on consumer information acquisition strategies”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3, 1977, 233-240. [6] G. Biehal and D. Chakravarthi, “Information presentation format and learning goals as determinants of consumer’s memory retrieval and choice processes”. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8, 1982, 431-441. [7] G. Biehal and D. Chakravarthi, “Information accessibility as a moderator of consumer choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, 1984, l-14. [S] D.J. Campbell, “Task complexity: A review and analysis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. I, 1988. 40-52. [9] M.T.H. Chi, R. Glasser and E. Rees, “Expertise in problem solving”, In Advances in Psychology of Human Intelligence, R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982, 7-75. [IO] T.L. Childers, M.J. Houston and SE. Heckler, “Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12. 1988, 125-134. [Ill F.I.M. Craik and R.S. Lockhart. “Levels of processing: a framework for memory research”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior Vol. 11, 1972, 671-684. [12] G. DeSanctis and S.L. Jarvenpaa, “An investigation of the ‘tables versus graphs’ controversy in a learning environment”, In Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Inf. Syst., 1985. 134-144. [13] G.W. Dickson, G. DeSanctis and D.J. McBride, “Understanding the effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: A cumulative experimental approach”, Communications of the ACM Vol. 29, No. 1, 1986, 40-47. [14] H.J. Einhorn and R.M. Hogarth, “Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgement and choice”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 32, 1981. 52-88. [15] R.B. Ekstrom, J.W. French, H.H. Harman and D. Diran, Manual for the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, 1976. [16] D.W. Fogarty and T.R. Hoffman, Production and Inventory Management. South-Western Publishing, Palo Alto. CA, 1983. [I71 R.J. Freund. R.C. Littell and P.C. Spector, SAS System for Linear Models. SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC, 1986. [18] G.P. Huber, “Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ado about nothing”, Management Science. Vol. 29, No. 5, 1983, 567-582. [19] S.L. Jarvenpaa, “The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies”, Management Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1989, 285-303.
[20] P.G.W. Keen and G.S. Bronsema, “Cognitive style research: a perspective for integration”, In Proc 2nd Int. Conf. on Inf. Syst., 1981, 21-52. [2l] A. Newell and H.A. Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972. [22] J.W. Payne, “Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis”, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1976, 366-387. [23] J.W. Payne, “Contingent Decision Behavior”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 92, No. 2, 1982, 382-402. “Verbalizer-visualizer: a cognitive style [24] A. Richardson, dimension”, Journal of Mental Imagery, Vol. I, 1977, 109-126. [25] J. Russo and B. Dosher, “Strategies for Multiattribute Binary Choice”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, Vol. 9, 1983, 676-696. [26] H.M. Schroder, M.J. Driver and S. Streufert, Human Information Processing, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 1967. [27] M. Sidman, Tactics of Scientific Research. Basic Books, New York, NY, 1960. [28] H.A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial (2nd Edition), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981. [29] H.A. Simon and J.R. Hayes, “The understanding process: problem isomorphs”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 8, 1976, 165-190. 1301 P. Todd and I. Benbasat, “An experimental investigation of the impact of computer based decision aids on decision making”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1991,87-115. [31] N.S. Umanath and R.W. Scamell, “An experimental evaluation of the impact of data display format on recall performance”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1988, 562-570. [32] N.S. Umanath, R.W. Scamell and S.R. Das, “An examination of two screen/report design variables in an information recall context”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1990, 216-240. [33] I. Vessey, “Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature”, Decision Sciences Vol 22, No. 2, 1991, 219-241. presentation on [34] I. Vessey, “The effect of information decision making: a cost-benefit analysis”, Information and Management, Forthcoming, 1994. “Cognitive fit: an empirical [35] I. Vessey and D. Galletta, study of information acquisition”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1991,63-84. [36] C.J. Watson and R.W. Driver, “The influence of computer graphics on the recall of information”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1983, 45-53. decision maker: time Pres[37] P. Wright, “The harassed sures, distractions, and the use of evidence”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, 1974, 555-561.
N.S. Umanath /Information Narayan S. Umanath is Associate Professor of Management Information Systems at the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Entering academia after fourteen of technical/managerial experience in software development, Umanath received his Ph.D. in business administration from the University of Houston in 1987, and worked at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA till Spring 1993. His undergraduate and
& Management 27 (1994) 287-301
301
graduate educations are in mechanical engineering and industrial engineering respectively. His present research interests include organizational issues pertaining to information systerns (IS), diffusion of information technology in multinational enterprises, data modeling and data visualization. Umanath has published in Management Science, Decision Sciences, Communications of the ACM, Journal of MIS, and Information Resources Management Journal.