The effects of screening and task partitioning upon evaluations of decision options

Abstract

Seven experiments examined how information used to screen options is used subsequently in evaluating the survivors before a choice of the best survivor is made and showed the following. (1) In general, information receiver early in the task had a smaller impact upon pre‐choice evaluations of options than information received later, whether or not screening had taken place. (2) However, early information had virtually no impact upon pre‐choice evaluations when various events partitioned the task into two distinct parts. This was called the ‘task‐partitioning effect’. This effect was, however, labile and could be eliminated by repeating the early information at the time that the pre‐choice evaluations were made. (3) In contrast, when the partitioning event consisted specifically of screening out unattractive options, early information had virtually no impact on evaluations and its repetition did not increase its use. This was called the ‘screening effect’. This effect was observed even when someone other than the subject carried out the screening.

Recruiting Through the Stages: A Meta‐Analytic Test of Predictors of Applicant Attraction at Different Stages of the Recruiting Process

“…At this stage, applicants may have little information other than relying on early contact with organizational recruiters to use as signals of working conditions at the organization (Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991). However, van Zee, Paluchowski, and Beach (1992) found that information that is used to make the early screen‐out decision is not used again in making the final choice decision (see also Potter & Beach, 1994), and Rynes et al (1991) found that signals may have little discernible impact once more information is known. Thus, information known early in the process (such as recruiter behaviors) may be used to make initial screening decisions.…”

Termination of information evaluation in auditing

“…In its simplest formulation, image theory asserts that decision makers have principles, goals, and plans. A decision maker essentially tests whether a candidate is compatible with those principles, goals and plans (Mitchell et al, 1986;Beach et al, 1988;Beach and Mitchell, 1990;Van Zee et al, 1992). To test for compatibility, the decision maker collects evidence about the prospective candidate.…”

The Practitioner Proposes a Treatment Change and the Patient Declines: What to do next?

“…The counting rule has been examined in studies of behavioral decision making [41][42][43][44][45][46] and clinical decision making. [47][48][49] The rule is efficient, additive, and noncompensatory.…”