Kenneth H. Price’s research while affiliated with The University of Texas at Arlington and other places

Software design is a knowledge intensive task that constitutes a critical part of the software development process. Using a controlled experiment involving software practitioners, this research examines two potentially useful mechanisms for improving the software design process. Specifically, this study examines the impact of structural distribution of cognition through design patterns and social distribution of cognition through collaborating pairs on design outcomes. The results indicate that the use of design patterns as external cognitive artifacts improves design quality, reduces time taken to solve a design problem, and leads to higher participant satisfaction. Collaborating pairs of software designers were compared to participants working alone but whose efforts were conjointly considered as the best and second-best members of nominal pairs. It was found that paired designers produced higher quality designs compared with the second-best members of nominal pairs, did not differ from the best member of a nominal pair, but took more time to complete a design task than either member of a nominal pair. The results also indicate that the availability of design patterns raises the performance level of the second-best member of a nominal pair, in terms of quality, and reduces task completion time when compared with a pair not using design patterns. Finally, paired designers were found to experience higher levels of task satisfaction when compared with individuals. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

This article summarizes our recent study, "Haphazard Sampling: Selection Biases Induced by Control Listing Properties and the Estimation Consequences of These Biases" (Hall et al. 2012). Haphazard sampling is a nonstatistical technique used by auditors to simulate random sampling when testing the error status of accounting populations. Our study compared the properties of haphazard samples selected from control listings with the properties of random samples. We hypothesized that haphazard samples differ from random samples because the haphazard selection process is influenced by: (1) auditor behaviors intended to minimize sample selection effort and to ensure a diversified sample composition, and (2) variations in the appearance of control listing entries. Results from three experiments confirmed multiple differences between haphazard samples and random samples, and suggest that haphazard sampling may not be a reliable substitute for random sampling. In the absence of effective remediation procedures, continued use of haphazard sampling may expose auditors to additional audit, legal, and regulatory risk.

Haphazard sampling is a nonstatistical technique used by auditors to simulate a variety of random sampling techniques when testing the error status of accounting populations. In this study, we compare the properties of haphazard samples selected from control listings with the properties of simple random samples. We hypothesize that control listing entries exhibit salience values that result from the effort required to locate entries and the visual properties of entries. We further hypothesize these salience values influence sample selections and result in sample properties that are different from those of simple random samples. To test these hypotheses, we examine the properties of haphazard samples selected by three participant groups. In each group, sample properties differ from those of simple random sampling and include a lack of independence across sample selections and biased sample inclusion probabilities. We also develop models showing how biased sample inclusion probabilities influence error projections and discuss the estimation consequences of these biases. Data Availability: For information about data availability, please contact the first author.

Audit standards sanction haphazard selection as a technique that may be used to obtain a representative sample. In practice this method of sample selection is commonly used owing to its simplicity and low cost. In this study we hypothesize that haphazard selection is inherently biased due to innate effort minimization behavior, visual perception artifacts, and memory effects. We also hypothesize that a lack of outcome feedback regarding sample quality precludes elimination of these biases via audit experience. Analyses of samples selected by 75 students and 53 audit seniors support these predictions that the cumulative effect of individual selection biases can be large. Coupled with results from prior studies these findings suggest that, at conventional sampling fractions, haphazard selection does not reliably yield representative samples. We conclude that audit standards should be amended to preclude use of haphazard selection.

Research on commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) suggests that employees maintain distinct beliefs about, and direct behaviors towards, multiple targets in the workplace (e.g., the organization as a whole, their supervisor, and fellow workgroup members). The present studies were designed to test for “target similarity effects,” in which the relationships between commitment, procedural fairness, and OCB were expected to be stronger when they referred to the same target than when they referred to different targets. As predicted, we found that: (1) the positive relationship between commitment and OCB, and (2) the mediating effect of commitment on the positive relationship between procedural fairness and OCB, was particularly likely to emerge when the constructs were in reference to the same target. Support for these target similarity effects was found among layoff survivors (Study 1) and student project teams (Study 2). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are limitations of the studies and suggestions for future research. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Extreme programming is currently gaining popularity as an alternate software development methodology. Pair programming, a core practice of this methodology, involves two programmers working collaboratively to develop software. This study examined the efficacy of pair programming by comparing the performance effectiveness and affective responses of collaborating pairs with those of individual programmers treated as nominal pairs. In a controlled laboratory experiment involving student subjects, proxies for entry level programmers working on entry level tasks, two factors were manipulated: programming setting (collaborative pair versus individuals) and programming task complexity (high versus low). Participants who worked in the individual condition were randomly combined into nominal pairs. The performance and affective responses of the collaborating pairs were then compared with those of the best performers and the second best performers of each nominal pair. Results indicated that programming pairs performed at the level above the second best performers and at the level of the best performers in each nominal pair. This relationship was found to be consistent across both levels of task complexity. Consequently, there was no evidence of an “assembly bonus effect,” where the performance of a collaborating pair exceeds the performance of its best member working alone. While this finding may appear counterintuitive due to the general perception of two heads being better than one, it is consistent with the findings in small group research. When affective responses were considered, programming pairs reported higher levels of satisfaction than those of the best and second-best performing members in nominal pairs. They also showed higher levels of confidence in their performance compared to those of the second-best members. But the confidence levels of pairs were no different from those of the best performing members in nominal pairs. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are presented.

This article examines the complementary effects of relational dissimilarity and group faultlines through a multi-level analysis of diversity. Results indicate that ethnic dissimilarity and team faultlines were generally negatively associated with any intentions to work with team or group members on future endeavors. Further article topics include diversity of the individual and team level, and the integration of relational dissimilarity and team diversity research and literature for contextual purposes.

Social loafing was observed as a naturally occurring process in project teams of students working together for 3-4 months. The authors assessed the contributions that member composition (i.e., relational dissimilarity and knowledge, skills, and abilities; KSAs), perceptions of the team's interaction processes (i.e., dispensability and the fairness of the decision-making procedures), and the team's evaluation structure (i.e., identifiability) make toward understanding loafing behavior. Identifiability moderated the impact of dispensability on loafing but not the impact of fairness on loafing. Perceptions of fairness were negatively related to the extent that participants loafed within their team. Specific aspects of relational dissimilarity were positively associated with perceptions of dispensability and negatively associated with perceptions of fairness, whereas KSAs were negatively associated with perceptions of dispensability.

Recent multifoci research reports that multiple sources of justice exist in organizations. In expanding this framework, we address how judgments of overall procedural fairness and behavioral intentions are influenced by different experiences of voice-based participation across a multi-stage decision-making process. The results of two experiments were consistent with a fairness theory framework. Overall, decision procedures were judged to be the fairest and the intention to volunteer was highest when participants were allowed voice in their team and when their team was allowed voice by organizational authorities. When voice was denied by both the team and the organization or was denied by either party, fairness ratings, and participant intentions were depressed and did not significantly differ from each other. This pattern of results suggests that individuals are influenced by transactions across decision-making stages and that such interdependence should be considered when attempting to understand the meaningfulness of voice-based participation.

The article discusses a study that aims to develop and test a framework to explain fairness judgments in the work place in a multiple-stage decision process, and focuses on teams that are charged with making recommendations. The article explains the concepts involved in multi-stage decision making procedures, such as team decision-making and individual voice, organizational decision-making procedures and team voice, and the interactive effects of team and organizational decision-making procedures. The article states that voice is important because it provides an opportunity to influence a decision, and concludes that actual influence is not necessary as long as one believes that one's voice is being heard.