The comparative effectiveness of dialectical inquiry and Devil's advocacy: The impact of task biases on previous research findings
研究了辩证探究和魔鬼代言人两种策略在战略决策中的比较效果，发现先前研究结果的不一致可能源于任务偏差和呈现顺序效应，对后续研究设计有警示作用。
Abstract Considerable debate has recently emerged concerning the comparative effectiveness of two methods of inquiry recommended for use in strategic decision making: dialectical inquiry (DI) and devil's advocacy (DA). Much of the comparative research surrounding this debate has made use of the Multiple Cue Probability Learning Paradigm (MCPLP). The equivocal nature of previous research findings using this paradigm and others, along with results from the present research indicating potential order of presentation effects, raises serious questions concerning previous operationalizations of these two methods.