Decision quality

deductive content analysis techniques. The recording unit for the analysis was the participants’ responses to the open-ended questions in the post-task questionnaire for a given topic; responses to all four questions were considered as one unit. To identify the option(s) recommended and considered, the sampling unit of analysis was at the conceptual/option level. For applying the codes, the sampling unit of analysis was the participants’ responses to all four questions for a given topic. The coding process is described in detail in Section 4.9.5 and the final coding guide is shown in Table 4.15 and Appendix N.

The goal of the content analysis was toidentifythe recommendations made by the participants andassess the quality of the recommendationsmade by the participants. The participants were asked to makechoice decisions, i.e., choose which option to recommend to their friend. In a preferential choice decision, a good choice is one in which the decision is in line with the decision-maker’s preferences. In this study, there were two main externally-imposed constraints to preferential choice: (a) participants were asked to make a specific recommendation to their friend, and (b) participants were given a scenario which contained some information about their friend’s request (i.e., their friend’s preferences). These were the criteria against which the quality of the recommendation was judged.

In this study, the recommendations contained in the responses to the open-ended questions in the post- task questionnaire were coded for their specificity and accuracy. Recommendation specificity was coded as one of five levels based on specificity of the recommendation made by the participant: a specific option, a partially described recommendation option, a type or category of option, a general approach the friend could use to make their own recommendation, or none in which no option or approach was recommended. A recommendation was coded asspecificif the participant recommended a specific and unambiguous option. A recommendation was coded asdescribedif the recommended option was described but not in enough

Table 4.15: Decision coding guide with final, consolidated codes for specificity and accuracy.

Code type Code name Description

Specificity of recommended option

Specific Participant recommended an unambiguous, specific option. Friend could

determine the exact option without any additional information.

Described Participant recommended an option that was probably specific but they did

not completely describe it.

Type Participant recommended a type or category of option.

Approach Participant suggested an approach for how their friend might make their

own decision. They did not recommend an option.

None Participant did not make a recommendation and did not suggest an approach

for how their friend might make a decision. Specificity of

recommended information source

Specific Participant recommended an information source that friend could use to use

to make their decision or contact for more information. No specific

sourcee

Participant recommended an information source but they did not completely describe it. OR Participant did not recommend an information source. Accuracy of

recommended option

Inline Participant recommended option was clearly met all criteria and was correct.

OR Participant recommended option may have met criteria but was not completely described. OR Participant recommended option was possible given the scenario but unlikely. OR Participant recommended option different than implied by the scenario but not explicitly different. OR Participant recommended deferring the decision.

Out of line Participant recommended option did not meet criteria and participant

indicated this was intentional. OR Participant declined to make a recommendation.

Wrong Participant recommended option did not meet criteria and participant did not

indicate this was intentional. OR Participant stated they made the wrong recommendation.

detail so that the exact option could be determined without any additional information. Recommendations were coded astypeif the participant recommended a type or category of option, but did not recommend or describe a specific option. Recommendations in which the participant did not recommend an option or a type of option but they described an approach for how their friend might make their own decision were coded as a

general approach. In some cases, participants declined to make a recommendation and did not recommend an approach; these were coded asnone.

Recommendation accuracywas also coded from responses. Recommendations were coded as inline, out of line, or wrong. Recommendations were coded asin linewith the requested recommendation if the recommendation (a) clearly met all criteria and was correct, (b) may have met the criteria but was not completely described, (c) was possible given the scenario but unlikely, (d) was different than implied by the scenario but not explicitly different from the scenario, or (e) was to defer the decision. Recommendations were coded as out of lineif the participant intentionally recommended an option that did not meet the

recommendation requested or if they declined to make a recommendation. Recommendations were coded as

wrongif the recommended option did not meet criteria and participant did not indicate this was intentional or if the participant stated they made the wrong recommendation.

4.7.7 Interview. At the end of the experiment, the researcher conducted a semi-structured interview