在民主多元社會中，總體現象與政策的形成，是個體認知進而選擇的結果。故以個人認知為基礎的決策與判斷分析領域，即成為公共事務管理的主要分析方法。共和主義的公民身分觀點要求公民致力於普遍共識的形成，集體決策方法有助於建立共識並克服個人的認知限制，對公共政策的形成有其必要性。
經回顧多種集體決策方法，發現至少有方案規劃法（Program Planning Method, PPM; Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971）；政策德爾菲法(Policy Delphi; Turoff, 1970)；互動管理(Interactive Management, IM; Warfield & Cárdenas, 1994)與社會判斷理論(Social Judgment Theory, SJT; Hammond, 1965, 1996; Hammond et al., 1975, 1977, 1980)等幾種可適於形成多元社會共識的集體決策方法。其中IM 的成果可以解決複雜問題，且符合多元社會公民參與的精神，是經驗證有效的集體決策方法（汪明生、張寧，2002; Warfield & Cárdenas, 1994）。但IM的成果的正確性無法自方法中獲得證明，因素間的權重也不能判別。SJT可用以分析不同層級的決策準則間的推定問題，並求取同一結果之不同原因間的權重，其理論恰可驗證IM成果的圖形。而且SJT強調認知回饋，能深入比較多重當事人的判斷原則，因此能化解認知上的衝突，有利於共識的形成。
本研究因此選擇具理論基礎的SJT驗證IM成果的效度，以集體、分層、較大規模的方式進行SJT程序的討論；並採用古典實驗設計，以比較受測者於SJT程序前後，認知改變之情形，探討SJT在公共事務案例的集體決策成果，在一致性、個人學習程度與滿意度3項指標的表現。
研究成果顯示SJT程序能以較大規模操作，並可獲得高滿意度的共識。另IM成果則具備心理認知上的理論效度，提供IM成果為參與者接受的理由。在SJT程序對受測者認知改變方面，使用SJT的受測者其一致性並未提高，但學習程度明顯朝向群體結論變動。在滿意度、學習程度與關心程度等主觀評量方面，使用SJT的受測者優於未使用SJT的受測者，但與使用IM程序的受測者間則沒有明顯的差異。
在政策意涵上，使用SJT的受測者間內隱的一致性雖然未提高，但對群體結論公開的滿意度卻高於未使用SJT的受測者。顯示使用SJT的受測者間的衝突實際上並未消失，但卻仍願支持群體共識的結果。因此消弭多元社會的衝突不在建立單一的的價值觀，而是設計一套能使當事人願意接受共識的程序。

In a plural democratic society, the macro phenomena and policies are formed by individual cognition and choices. Thus the field of decision-making and judgment analysis based on individual cognitions has become the major analytical method in the public affairs management. The citizenship view of the republicanism requires citizens to reach consensus. The group decision-making method is so helpful for reaching consensus and overcoming the limits of individual cognition that it’s necessary in forming public policies.
By reviewing various group decision-making methods, the study found that there are at least Program Planning Method (PPM; Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971), Policy Delphi (Turoff, 1970), Interactive Management(IM; Warfield & Cárdenas, 1994), and Social Judgment Theory(SJT; Hammond, 1965, 1996; Hammond et al., 1975, 1977, 1980) can be used to reach consensus in a plural society. Among them, the IM results have been proven effective for solving complicated problems and compliant with citizen participation spirit of a plural society ( Wang Min-shen & Chang Ning, 2002; Warfield & Cárdenas, 1994) . However, the accuracy of IM results can not be proven by the method and the weight between factors can not be identified, either. SJT can be used to analyze the assumption between decision criteria of different hierarchies and obtain the weights between different factors out of the same result so that SJT can examine the annotated graphics of IM. Besides, since SJT emphasizes cognitive feedback, it can facilitate reaching consensus by comparing various stakeholders’ judgment principles dissolving the cognitive conflicts.
Thus the study applied theoretical SJT to examine the validity of IM results. I discussed SJT procedure in a collective, hierarchic and large-scaled way. The study also adopted classic experimental design to compare the cognitive changes of participants before and after the SJT procedure to explore the performance of SJT results of group decision-making in public affairs cases in terms of consistency, individual learning effect and satisfaction.
The results of this study show that SJT procedure can be operated in a large-scaled way while consensus with high satisfaction will be reached. In addition, the theoretical validity of IM results on psychological cognition provides the reason why participants accepted the results. Talking about the changes of the participants’ cognition through SJT procedure, the participants using SJT have not improved their consistency, while the learning effect changes significantly towards group conclusion. In the subjective evaluations such as satisfaction, learning effect and caring degree, the participants who use SJT are better than those who don’t, but not better than those who use IM procedure.
In terms of policy significance, though the covert consistency between the participants who use SJT has not been improved, their overt satisfaction towards the group conclusion is better than those who don’t. It shows that the conflict between participants has not disappeared yet, while they accept the consensus. Therefore, the way to wipe away the conflicts in a plural society is not to build up a single exclusive value, but to design a procedure allowing the stakeholders accept consensus.

目錄
1. 緒論------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.1. 公共事務管理整合參考架構------------------------------------------------1
1.2. 共和主義的公民身分觀------------------------------------------------------5
1.3. 公共政策分析中的集體決策------------------------------------------------6
1.4. 研究目的------------------------------------------------------------------------9
2. 文獻回顧-----------------------------------------------------------------------------12
2.1. 政策論證-----------------------------------------------------------------------12
2.1.1. 政策論證與公共事務管理------------------------------------------12
2.1.2. 政策論證的元素------------------------------------------------------12
2.1.3. 政策論證的結構模式------------------------------------------------14
2.1.4. 政策論證的結構模式與傳統政策分析的比較------------------15
2.1.5. 政策論證的評估準則------------------------------------------------17
2.1.6. 政策論證架構的量化分析－可信度計算------------------------18
2.2. 互動管理(IM)-----------------------------------------------------------------19
2.2.1. IM的源起--------------------------------------------------------------19
2.2.2. IM的階段--------------------------------------------------------------19
2.2.3. IM的角色--------------------------------------------------------------20
2.2.4. IM的成果（結構應用）--------------------------------------------20
2.2.5. IM的方法--------------------------------------------------------------22
2.2.5.1. 想法撰述-----------------------------------------------------22
2.2.5.2. NGT---------------------------------------------------------22
2.2.5.3. 德爾菲法-----------------------------------------------------24
2.2.5.4. ISM----------------------------------------------------------26
2.2.5.5. IM的方法成果與方法間的關係-----------------------27
2.2.6. IM的成功等級--------------------------------------------------------27
2.2.7. IM的應用案例--------------------------------------------------------27
2.2.7.1. 高雄柴山地方發展問題-----------------------------------27
2.2.7.2. 加入WTO後之高雄地方發展策略---------------------30
2.2.7.3. 加入WTO後之高雄港發展策略------------------------32
2.2.8. 方法討論---------------------------------------------------------------33
2.3. SJT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------34
2.3.1. 決策與判斷分析領域------------------------------------------------34
2.3.2. SJT源起--------------------------------------------------------------36
2.3.3. 透鏡模式（Lens Model）-------------------------------------------37
2.3.4. 認知衝突的來源------------------------------------------------------40
2.3.5. SJT的五個系統模式-------------------------------------------------42
2.3.5.1. 單一系統(single system case) ----------------------------42
2.3.5.2. 環境系統已知之雙系統(double system case) ---------42
2.3.5.3. 環境系統未知之雙系統-----------------------------------43
2.3.5.4. 三系統(triple system case) --------------------------------44
2.3.5.5. n系統(n system case) --------------------------------------45
2.3.6. 認知衝突派典(Cognitive Conflict Paradigm, CCP) ------------46
2.3.6.1. CCP實驗-----------------------------------------------------46
2.3.6.2. CCP的基本資料--------------------------------------------49
2.3.6.3. CCP的量測值與動力的種類-----------------------------50
2.3.7. 認知續線理論(Cognitive Continuum Theory, CCT) -----------51
2.3.8. SJT的文獻-------------------------------------------------------------53
2.4. 其他集體決策方法-----------------------------------------------------------54
2.4.1. 公民投票---------------------------------------------------------------55
2.4.2. 政策德爾菲法( Policy Delphi) -------------------------------------55
2.4.3. PPM ------------------------------------------------------------------57
2.5. 集體決策模式比較的研究----------------------------------------------58
2.6. 集體決策模式之整合----------------------------------------------------60
3. 研究設計-----------------------------------------------------------------------------65
3.1. 實驗設計---------------------------------------------------------------------65
3.2. 受測者------------------------------------------------------------------------65
3.3. 研究案例---------------------------------------------------------------------66
3.4. 問卷設計---------------------------------------------------------------------66
3.5. 實驗組程序------------------------------------------------------------------68
3.5.1. 第一階段---------------------------------------------------------------68
3.5.2. 第二階段---------------------------------------------------------------69
3.5.3. 第三階段---------------------------------------------------------------70
3.5.4. 第四階段---------------------------------------------------------------70
3.6. 對照組程序------------------------------------------------------------------71
3.6.1. 第一階段---------------------------------------------------------------71
3.6.2. 第二階段---------------------------------------------------------------71
3.6.3. 第三階段---------------------------------------------------------------72
3.6.4. 第四階段---------------------------------------------------------------72
3.7. 變項與衡量------------------------------------------------------------------73
3.7.1 正確性-------------------------------------------------------------------73
3.7.2 一致性與相似性------------------------------------------------------73
3.7.3 學習程度---------------------------------------------------------------74
3.7.4 滿意度及其他主觀評量---------------------------------------------74
3.8. 預試---------------------------------------------------------------------------75
3.9. 研究假設---------------------------------------------------------------------75
3.9.1 關於IM成果理論效度的假設--------------------------------------75
3.9.2. 關於判斷結果值一致性或判斷原則相似性的假設------------76
3.9.3. 關於學習程度的假設------------------------------------------------76
3.9.4. 關於滿意度與其他主觀評量之假設------------------------------77
4. 研究成果-----------------------------------------------------------------------------78
4.1. 操作SJT程序的結果-------------------------------------------------------78
4.1.1. 實驗組會議結果------------------------------------------------------78
4.1.2. 對照組會議結果------------------------------------------------------84
4.2. 研究假設之統計檢定-----------------------------------------------------90
4.2.1. 關於IM成果理論效度假設之檢定------------------------------90
4.2.2. 關於一致性與相似性假設之檢定--------------------------------93
4.2.3. 關於學習程度假設之檢定---------------------------------------103
4.2.4. 關於滿意度及其他主觀評量假設之檢定---------------------118
4.2.5. 小結------------------------------------------------------------------125
5. 討論與建議------------------------------------------------------------------------128
5.1. SJT程序操作的討論----------------------------------------------------128
5.2. IM成果心理認知效度之驗證-----------------------------------------127
5.3. 關於一致性或相似性的討論--------------------------------------------129
5.4. 關於學習程度的討論-----------------------------------------------------129
5.5. 關於了解程度與滿意度的討論-----------------------------------------132
5.5.1. 實驗組與對照組的了解程度與滿意度之比較-----------------132
5.5.2. 實驗組與IM組的了解程度與滿意度之比較------------------133
5.5.3. 對照組與IM組的了解程度與滿意度之比較------------------134
5.5.4. 自己與認為他人滿意度之比較-----------------------------------135
5.6. 政策意涵--------------------------------------------------------------------135
5.7. 研究限制--------------------------------------------------------------------136
5.8. 後續研究方向--------------------------------------------------------------136
參考文獻-------------------------------------------------------------------------------139
附錄1 第一次SJT問卷------------------------------------------------------------154
附錄2 訓練問卷----------------------------------------------------------------------164
附錄3 第二次SJT問卷（未附決策個案狀況）-------------------------------170
附錄4 第三次SJT問卷（未附決策個案狀況）-------------------------------171
附錄5 主觀滿意度問卷-------------------------------------------------------------172

圖目錄
圖1-1　公共事務管理整合參考架構------------------------------------------------4
圖2-1　政策論證的元素關係圖----------------------------------------------------14
圖2-2　柴山地方發展問題澄題結構圖-------------------------------------------29
圖2-3　加入WTO後高雄地方發展策略增強結構圖---------------------------32
圖2-4 加入WTO後高雄港發展策略增強結構圖-----------------------------33
圖2-5　透鏡模式示意圖-------------------------------------------------------------38
圖2-6　修正之透鏡模式示意圖----------------------------------------------------39
圖2-7　環境系統未知之雙系統透鏡模式示意圖-------------------------------44
圖2-8　三系統透鏡模式示意圖----------------------------------------------------45
圖2-9　透鏡模式與證策論證的參考整合分析架構----------------------------46
圖2-10 認知衝突實驗架構---------------------------------------------------------48
圖2-11　認知續線圖------------------------------------------------------------------53
圖2-12　決策與判斷分析之整合參考架構---------------------------------------61

表目錄
表1-1 政策問題結構類型表---------------------------------------------------------7
表2-1　IM了解程度與滿意度得分暨T檢定表---------------------------------30
表3-1 不同案例數之ㄧ貫性比較表----------------------------------------------68
表4-1 實驗組受測者個人最初判斷原則表-------------------------------------79
表4-2 實驗組個人最初判斷原則函數形式表----------------------------------80
表4-3 實驗組小組共識函數形式及權重表-------------------------------------81
表4-4 實驗組群體共識函數形式及權重表-------------------------------------81
表4-5 實驗組受測者個人最後判斷原則表-------------------------------------82
表4-6 實驗組個人最後判斷原則函數形式表----------------------------------83
表4-7 對照組受測者個人最初判斷原則表-------------------------------------85
表4-8 對照組個人最初判斷原則函數形式表----------------------------------86
表4-9 對照組小組共識函數形式及權重表-------------------------------------87
表4-10 對照組群體共識函數形式及權重表------------------------------------87
表4-11 對照組受測者個人最後判斷原則表------------------------------------88
表4-12 對照組個人最初判斷原則函數形式表---------------------------------89
表4-13 受測者之複迴歸統計摘要表---------------------------------------------90
表4-14 決策參考數顯著情形表---------------------------------------------------92
表4-15 實驗組組內ㄧ致性表------------------------------------------------------94
表4-16 對照組組內ㄧ致性表------------------------------------------------------95
表4-17 實驗組與對照組之相似性之T檢定表---------------------------------97
表4-18 實驗組個人最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間之相似性表--------------------------------------------------------------------------------98
表4-19 對照組個人最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間之相似性表--------------------------------------------------------------------------------99
表4-20 與小組共識判斷原則間之相似性之T檢定表-----------------------100
表4-21 個人最後判斷原則與群體共識判斷原則間之相似性表----------101
表4-22 實驗組與對照組個人最後判斷原則與群體共識判斷原則間相似性之T檢定表---------------------------------------------------------------102
表4-23 小組代表與小組共識判斷原則相似性表----------------------------102
表4-24 實驗組與對照組小組代表與小組共識判斷原則之T檢定表----103
表4-25 實驗組之受測者個人最初判斷結果值與最後判斷結果值之T檢定表---------------------------------------------------------------------------104
表4-26 對照組之受測者個人最初判斷結果值與最後判斷結果值之T檢定表-----------------------------------------------------------------------------105
表4-27 實驗組個人最初判斷結果值與最後判斷結果值差總和表-------107
表4-28 實驗組與對照組個人最初與最後判斷結果值差之T檢定表----108
表4-29 實驗組個人最初及最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間之相似性表---------------------------------------------------------------------------109
表4-30 對照組個人最初及最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間之相似性表---------------------------------------------------------------------------110
表4-31 實驗組個人最初及最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間相似性之T檢定表-------------------------------------------------------------------111
表4-32 對照組個人最初及最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間相似性之T檢定表-------------------------------------------------------------------111
表4-33 實驗組個人最初及最後判斷原則與群體共識判斷原則間之相似性表---------------------------------------------------------------------------112
表4-34 對照組個人最初及最後判斷原則與群體共識判斷原則間之相似性表---------------------------------------------------------------------------113
表4-35 實驗組個人最初及最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間相似性之T檢定表-------------------------------------------------------------------114
表4-36 對照組個人最初及最後判斷原則與小組共識判斷原則間相似性之T檢定表-------------------------------------------------------------------114
表4-37 個人最初與小組共識判斷原則間相似性和個人最後與小組共識判斷原則間相似性之差表------------------------------------------------115
表4-38 個人最初與小組共識判斷原則間相似性和個人最後與小組共識判斷原則間相似性之差之T檢定表------------------------------------116
表4-39 個人最初與群體共識判斷原則間相似性和個人最後與群體共識判斷原則間相似性之差表------------------------------------------------117
表4-40 個人最初與群體共識判斷原則間相似性和個人最後與群體共識判斷原則間相似性之差之T檢定表------------------------------------118
表4-41 實驗組與對照組了解程度與滿意度得分暨T檢定表--------------119
表4-42 實驗組與IM組了解程度與滿意度得分暨T檢定表--------------120
表4-43 對照組與IM組了解程度與滿意度得分暨T檢定表--------------122
表4-44 實驗組受測者自己與認為其他受測者之主觀評量之得分與T檢定表---------------------------------------------------------------------------124
表4-45 對照組受測者自己與認為其他受測者之主觀評量之得分與T檢定表---------------------------------------------------------------------------124
表4-46 IM組受測者自己與認為其他受測者之主觀評量之得分與T檢定表---------------------------------------------------------------------------125
表4-47 各項假設檢定結果表----------------------------------------------------125

毛壽龍（2001），政治社會學，北京：中國社會科學出版社。
王水杉（2001），柴山開發保育公眾參與決策中專業角色與觀點之研究，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
丘昌泰（1999），強化地方政府的策略規劃功能，研考雙月刊，23卷3期，頁26-34。
丘昌泰（2000），公共管理：理論與實務手冊，台北：元照。
丘昌泰（2003），解讀公民投票的迷思，全國律師，2003年11月。
江明修（1997），公共行政學：理論與社會實踐，台北：五南。
吳定、張潤書、陳德禹、賴維堯（1998），行政學，修訂四版，台北：空中大學。
吳瓊恩、張秋杏、張世杰（1993）譯，公共行政的行動理論，台北：五南。原著：Michael M. Harmon (1981), Action Theory for Public Administration, N.Y.：Logman.
呂添資（2003），兩岸現狀與WTO架構下之高雄港競爭與發展策略─探討海關關務現代化，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
李元德 (1986 )，Group Decision Making: A Trend of Managerial Decision, 國立台北商專學報，第27期，頁260-278。
李石舜（2003），兩岸加入WTO後促進高雄發展與競爭策略-觀光旅遊方面，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
李明輝（1993），考績制度運作與組織成員對考績接受認知之探討－公營企業個案實證研究，中山大學企管所碩士論文。
李美華（1998）譯，社會科學研究方法，台北：時英。原著：Earl Babbie (1998), The Practice of Social Research (8th ed.).
汪明生（1989），多元公共認知決策之研究：社會判斷理論的準實驗，國科會專題研究報告書。
汪明生（1992），環境決策與管理，高雄：復文書局。
汪明生（2003），認知衝突典範之準實驗－以美濃水庫為例，行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告書，NSC-91-2416-H-110-025。
汪明生（2004），公共事務管理實用方法，未發表書籍。
汪明生、邱忠民（1999），地方發展下公共事務管理教育角色之研究，海峽兩岸首屆公共事務與跨世紀發展研討會，大連：大連理工學院。
汪明生、邱忠民、何柏正（2001），企業性地區轉型與發展時代下的公共事務管理教育，臺大管理論叢，第11卷第2期，頁1-34。
汪明生、張寧 (2002)，互動管理：形成地方發展共識集體決策方法，第二屆公共政策與管理國際研討會，北京：清華大學。
汪明生、曾盛恕、楊仁壽（1989），公共決策中的管理衝突：以高雄市覆鼎垃圾焚化場場址選擇為例，管理科學學報，第6卷第2期，頁135-156。
汪明生、黃宗誠（2003），公共事務管理整合參考架構與兩岸大學MPA課程之結構分析，公共事務評論，第4卷第1期，頁1-68。
汪明生、黃國良（1991），高雄市製造業勞動條件之研究－社會判斷理論之應用，管理評論，八十年十月，頁1-22。
汪明生、黃國良（1992），環境問題之中介管理，台灣土地金融季刊，29卷1期，頁71-90。
汪明生、楊仁壽（1991），以實驗法對三種多屬性權重衡量模式的比較，管理科學學報，第8卷第1期，頁93-107。
林玉華 (1992 )，傑尼斯 (Irving Janis) 的團體思想決策理論，公共政策學報，第14期，頁203-224。
林振春（1991），名義團體技巧與團體輔導，輔導月刊，頁27-32。
林國泉（2001），柴山開發保育公眾參與決策中民間團體角色與觀點之研究，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
林錦郎（2001），社會判斷理論與認知衝突典範，公共事務評論，第2卷第1期，頁209-227。
林鍾沂（1991），公共事務的設計與執行，台北：幼獅。
高明瑞、蔡敦浩（1989），自然資源保育中的國家公園管理問題，國科會專題研究報告書。
張世賢、陳恆鈞（1997），公共政策－政府與市場的觀點，台北：商鼎文化。
張晉源（1991），台灣地區勞資爭議處理對策之研究：社會判斷理論之應用，中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
張憲國（2000），台灣海岸景觀與海岸保全的相容發展與展望，海下技術季刊，第10卷第1期，頁9-15。
符儒友（1999），政策論證：戰國策言有象比論述，中國行政評論，第9卷第1期，頁35-74。
連春長（1995），政策論證－以立法院公報核四廠興建議題為例，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
郭昱瑩（2002），公共政策：決策輔助模型個案分析，台北：智勝文化。
陳俊宏 (1999 )， 鄰避（NIMBY）症候群，專家政治與民主審議，東吳政治學報，第10期，頁97-132。
陳碧珍（2001a），集體決策中的社會決策基模與社會平均定理，公共事務評論，第2卷第1期，頁183-207。
陳碧珍（2001b），「決策與判斷分析」領域簡介，公共事務評論，第2卷第1期，頁171-182。
陳德禹（1996），行政管理，三民書局。
陳錫霖（2003），兩岸現狀與WTO架構下之高雄港競爭與發展策略-發展高雄自由貿易港區，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
陳耀明（2001），NGT在公眾參與之應用-以柴山土地議題為例，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
彭如婉（1997），公民共和主義的公民教育觀，公民訓育學報，第6輯，頁307-318。
黃如圩（2003），兩岸現狀與WTO架構之下之高雄港競爭與發展策略-探討傳統海運業之轉型，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
黃東益、蕭乃沂、陳敦源（2003），網際網路時代公民直接參與的機會與挑戰－台北市「市長電子信箱」的個案研究，東吳政治學報，第17期，頁121-151。
黃俊英（1992），行銷研究：管理與技術，台北：華泰書局。
黃俊英、楊碩英、汪明生（1990），台灣省政府集中辦公及促進內外聯繫問題之研究，研考報導季刊，第12期，頁45-52。
黃國良（1994），中介策略與地方建設環境紛爭處理之研究─認知衝突與利益衝突之角度，國立中山大學企業管理所博士論文。
楊正元（2003），兩岸加入WTO後促進高雄發展與競爭策略－高雄多功能經貿園區開發方面，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
楊芳玲，汪明生，高明瑞，吳英明（1992），環境中介的基礎研究：認知衝突的準實驗，國科會專題研究報告書。
詹中原（1995）,中共宏觀調控政策與國家公務員制度改革-社會判斷理論(Social Judgment Theory)的政策檢證，中國行政。
詹中原（2000），河川污染整治與民眾參與，二十一世紀海峽兩岸環境保護與可持續發展研討會，福州。
劉立倫（1999），分散式專家的階層決策體系下決策績效改善：群體透鏡模式觀點之研究，中山管理評論，第7期，875-906頁。
劉和義（1993），壽山潛在植被在環境管理決策上應有之地位，第四屆環境決策與管理研討會，中山大學。
蔡丁義（2003），兩岸現狀與WTO架構下之高雄港競爭與發展策略―促進港埠營運策略之探討，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
盧正義（2001），地方政府回應利益團體議題之運作機制－以柴山自然公園為例，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
蕭乃沂（2002），衝突分析的先導研究：結合判斷分析與系統動力學的方法，中國行政評論，第11卷第2期，頁77-114。
賴世剛、許仁成（1996），多屬性決策方法評估基礎之設計，國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報，第8期，頁105-115。
顏明忠（2003），兩岸加入WTO後高雄地方發展策略--兩岸經貿交流衍生犯罪問題之防制，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
龔天發（2003），兩岸加入WTO後促進高雄發展與競爭策略 住宅產業方面，中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。

Alexander Ⅲ, Elmore R. (1979), The Reduction of Cognitive Conflict: Effect of Various Types of Communication, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vo1.23, No.1, pp.120-138.
Anderson, B. F., Deane, D. H., Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., & Shanteau, J. C. (1981), Concepts in Judgment and Decision Research, New York: Praeger Publishers.
Anderson, N. H. (1981), Foundations of Information Integration Theory, New York: Academic press.
Anderson, N. H. (1982), Methods of Information Integration Theory, New York: Academic press.
Anderson, N.H.（1996）, A Functional Theory of Cognition, Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
Arrow, K.J. (1963), Social Choice and Individual value (2nd ed.), New Haven, Conn.: Yale University.
Barber, Benjamin (1984), Strong Democracy Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beatty, J.R., McCune, J. T., & Beatty, R.W. (1988), A Policy-capturing Approach to the Study of United States and Japanese Managers’ Compensation Decisions, Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 465-474.
Brady, D. & Rappoport, L. (1973), Policy-Capturing in the Field: The Nuclear Safeguards Problem, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 9, pp.253-266.
Brehmer, Berndt (1988), The Development of Social Judgment Theory, in B. Brehmer & C. R. B. Joyce (Eds.), Human Judgment: The SJT View, New York: North-Holland.
Brunswik, E. (1943), Organismic Achievement and Environmental Probability, Psychology Review, 50, 255-272.
Brunswik, E. (1955), Representative Design and Probabilistic Theory in a Functional Psychology, Psychological Review, Vol. 62, pp. 193-217.
Carkenord, D.M., & Stephens, M.G. (1994), Understanding Student Judgments of Teaching Effectiveness: A Policy Capturing Approach, Journal of Psychology, Vol.128, pp. 675-682.
Castellan, N. J. (1973), Comments on the “Lens Model” & Equation and the Analysis of Multiple-cue Judgment task, Psychometrika, Vol.38, pp.87-100.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996), Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Applications, San Diego: Academic Press.
Cookey, R.W., Freebody, P., & Davidson, G.R., (1984), Teachers’ Predictions of Children’s Early Reading Achievement: An Application of Social Judgment Theory, Manuscript Submitted for Publication.
Cooksey, R. W. & Freebody, P. (1985), Generalized Multivariate Lens Model Analysis for Complex Human Inference Tasks, Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.35, pp.46-72.
Cullis, John & Philip, Jones (1992), Public Finance and Public Choice, London: McGraw-hill.
Dalgleish, L.I. (1988), Decision Making in Child Abuse Cases: Applications of Social Judgment Theory and Signal Detection Theory, in B. Brehmer & C. R. B. Joyce (Eds.), Human Judgment: The SJT View, pp.317-360, North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963), An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to Use of Experts, Management Science, 9, 458-467.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H. & Gustafson, D. (1975), Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi, Chicago: Scott Foresman.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H.（1971）, A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, pp.466-492.
Delp, P., Thesen, A., Motiwalla, J., & Seshadri, N. (1977), System Tools for Project Planning, Indiana University.
Dhir, K. S. & Markman, H. J. (1984), Application of Social Judgment Theory to Understanding and Treation Marital Conflict, Journal of Marriage and The Family, pp.597-610.
Dulebohn, J., & Martocchio, J.J. (1998), Employees’ Perceptions of the Distributive Justice of Pay Raise Decisions: A policy Capturing Approach. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 41-64.
Duncun, Douglas M. (1992), Economic Development Strategic Planning, Rockville, Md.
Dunn, William N. (1994), Public Policy Analysis-An Introduction（Second Edition）, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International, Inc.
Edwards, W. (1954), The Theory of Decision Making, Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380-417.
Edwards, W. (1961), Behavioral Decision Theory, Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 473-498.
Finkelstein, M.A., & Brannick, M.T. (1997), Making Decisions about Sexual Intercourse: Capturing College Students Policies, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol.19, pp. 101-120.
Glass, James J. (1993), Promoting the Community’s Future, in C. Newell（Ed.）, The Effective Local Government Manager, Washington D. C.：ICMA.
Gordon, Gerald L. (1993), Strategic Planning for Local Government, Washington D.C.: ICMA.
Graesser, C. C. (1991), A Social Averaging Theorem for Group Decision Making, in N. H. Anderson (Ed.), Contributions to Information Integration Theory Volume Ⅱ: Social, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. K., Delbecq, A., & Walster, G. W. (1973), A Comparative Study of Differences in Subjective Likelihood Estimates Made by Individuals, Interacting Groups, Delphi Group, and Nominal Groups, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 280-291.
Hammond, K.R. (1965), New Directions in Research on Conflict Resolution, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 21, pp. 44-66.
Hammond, K. R. (1978), Toward Increasing Competence of Thoughts, in Hammond, K. R. (Ed.), Judgment and Decision in Public Policy Formation, AAAS, Colorado: Westview Press.
Hammond, K. R. (1996), Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable, New York：Oxford University Press.
Hammond, K. R., & Brehmer, B. (1973), Quasi-rationality and distrust: Implication for international conflict, in L. Rappoport & D. A. Summers (Eds.), Human Judgment and Social Interaction, New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Hammond, K. R., McCelland, G. H., ＆ Mumpower, J. (1980), Human Judgment and Decision Making: Theories, Methods, and Procedures, New York：Praeger.
Hammond, K. R., Rohrbaugh, J., Mumpower, J., ＆ Adelman, L. (1977), Social Judgment Theory: Applications in Policy Formation, in M.F. Kaplan ＆ Steven Schwartz (Eds.), Human Judgment and Decision Process in Applied Settings, N.Y.: Academic Press.
Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B. & Steinmann, D. O.（1975), Social Judgment Theory, in M. f. Kaplan and S. Schwartz (eds.), Human judgment Decision Process, New York: Academic Press.
Hammond, K. R. & Summers, D. A. (1972), Cognitive Control, Psychological Review, Vol.79, pp.30-34.
Harmon, Joel ＆ Rohrbaugh, John (1990), Social Judgment Analysis and Small Group Decision Making: Cognitive Feedback Effects on Individual and Collective Performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vo1.46, pp.34-54.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, New York: Wiley.
Holzworth, J. (1983), Intervention in a Cognitive Conflict, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,Vol.32, pp.216-231.
Hughes, Owen E. (1994), Public Management and Administration：An Introduction, N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press.
Hursch, C., Hammond, K. R., & Hursch, J. (1964), Some Methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability studies, Psychological Review, Vol.71, pp.42-60.
Hwang, Ching-Lai＆ Lin, Ming-Jeng (1987), Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Ingehart, R. (1990), Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton：Princeton University Press.
Jones, E. E. ＆ Davis, K. E. (1965), From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception, in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vo1. 2, New York: Academic Press.
Kahneman, D. ＆ Tversky, A. (1972), Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness, Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
Kaplan, M. F., & Skogstad, A. L., & Girshick, M.A. (1950), The Prediction of Social and Technological Events, Public Opinion Quarterly, 14, 93-110.
Keeney, R. L., ＆ Raiffa, H. (1976), Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, New York: Wiley.
Kelley, H. H. (1967), Attribution Theory in Social Psychology. in D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, Vo1. 15, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Koele, P., & Hoogstraten, J. (1999), Determinants of dentists’ decisions to initiate dental implant treatment: A judgment analysis, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 81, pp. 476-480.
LaDuca, A., Engel, J.D., & Chovan, J.D. (1998), An Exploratory Study of Physicians’ Clinical Judgment: An Application of Social Judgment Theory, Evaluation and the Health Professions, Vol. 11, pp. 178-200.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Application, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Majone, G. (1989), Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
McCartt, A. (1983), The Application of Social Judgment Analysis to Library Faculty Tenure Decisions, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 44, pp. 345-357.
Melean, M. L. & Voytek, K. P.（1992）, Understanding Your Economy：Using Analysis to Guide Local Strategic Planning, Chicago：American Planning Association.
Miller, C. E. (1989), The Social Psychological Effects of Group Decision Rules, in P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.), pp.327-355, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Mohammed, S. & Ringseis, E. (2001), Cognitive Diversity and Consensus in Group Decision Making: The Role of Inputs, Processes, and Outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vo1.85, No.2, pp.310-335.
Mumpower, J., Veirs, V., & Hammond, K. R. (1979), Scientific Information, Social Values,and Policy Formation: The Application of Simulation Models and Judgment Analysis to the Denver Regional Air Pollution Problem , IEEE, Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-9, No.9, pp.464-476.
Murphy, P., & Maynard, M.L (1996), Using Judgment Analysis to Improve Consultant/Client Understanding: An Advertising Application, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol.24, pp.21-32.
Nutt, P. & Backoff, R. (1992), Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organization: A Handbook for Leader, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Oldfield, Adrian (1990), Citizenship and Community: Civic Republicanism and the modern World, London: Routledge.
Patton, B. R., Giffin, K., & Patton, E. N. (1989), Decision-Making: Group Interaction, (3rd ed.), N. Y.: Addision-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
POLICY PC (1991), Judgment Analysis Software- Reference Manual （3rd ed.）， New York: Executive Decision Services.
Raiffa, Howard (1968), Decision Analysis, MA: Addison-Wesiey.
Rappoport, L. & Summers, D.A. (1973), Human Judgment and Social Interaction, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993), Citizen Participation in Decision Making: A Three-step Procedure, Police Sciences, 26, pp. 189-214.
Ringland, Gill (2002), Scenarios in Public Policy, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Robbins, S. P. (2000), Organizational Behavior (9th ed.), Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.
Rohrbaugh, J. (1976), Cognitive Maps: Describing the Policy Ecology of a Community, Great Plains Rocky Mountain Geographical Journal, Vol.6, No.1, pp.64-73.
Rohrbaugh, J. (1979), Improving the Quality of Group Judgment：Social Judgment Analysis and the Delphi Technique, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.24, pp.73-92。
Rohrbaugh, J. (1981),Improving the Quality of Group Judgment：Social Judgment Analysis and the Nominal Group Technique , Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.28, pp.272-288。
Rohrbaugh, J. & Wehr, P. (1978), Judgment Analysis in Policy Formation: A New Method for Improving Public Participation, Public Opinion Quarterly, Elsevier North-Holland.
Rothstein, H. G. (1986), The Effects of Time Pressure on Judgment on Multiple Cue Probability Learning, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vo1.37, pp.83-92。
Sackman, H. (1975), Delphi critique, MA: Lexington Books.
Selin, S. & D. Chavez (1995), Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management, Environmental Management, 19, 2, pp.189-19.
Shanteau, J. & Phelps, R. H. (1977), Judgment and Swing: Approaches and Issue in Applied Judgment Analysis, in M. F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human Judgment and Decision Processes in Applied Settings, New York:Academic Press.
Skaner, Y., Strender, L. & Bring, J. (1998), How Do Groups Use Clinical Information in Their Judgment of Heart Failure? A Clinical Judgment Analysis Study, Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, Vol.16, pp.95-100.
Sniezek, J. A. & Henry, R.A. (1989), Accuracy and Confidence in Group Judgment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 1-28.
Sorkin, D. L., Ferries, N. B., & Hudan, J. (1984), Strategies for Cities and Countries：A Strategic Planning Guide, NW：Public Technology.
Stasser, G., & Davis, J. H. (1981), Group Decision Making and Social influence: A Social Sequence Model, Psychological Review, 88, 523-551.
Stewart, T. R. (1987), The Delphi Technique and Judgmental Forecasting, Climatic Change, Vo1.11，pp.97-113。
Stewart, T. R. (1988), Judgment Analysis: Procedures, in B. Brehmer & C. R. B. Joyce (Eds.), Human Judgment: The SJT View, New York: North-Holland.
Stewart, T. R., & Leschine, T. M. (1986), Judgment and Analysis in Oil Spill Risk Assessment, Risk Analysis, Vol.6, No.3.
Stewart, T. R., Roebber, P. J., ＆ Bosart, L. F. (1997), The Importance of the Task in Analyzing Expert Judgment, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol.69, No.3, pp.205-219.
Tindale, R. S., Sheffey, S., & Scott, L. A. (1993), Framing and Group Decision-Making: Do Cognitive Changes Parallel Preference Change?, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vo1.55, pp.470-485.
Tolman, E. & Brunswik, E. (1935), The Organism and the Causal Texture of the Environment, Psychological Review, 42, 43-77.
Tolman, E. C. (1932), Purposive behavior in animals and man, New York: Century.
Tolman, E. C. (1948), Cognitive Maps in Rats and Man, Psychological Review, 55, 189-208.
Toulmin, Stephen (1958), The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Turban, E. & Aronson, J. E. (1999), Decision Support System and Intelligent System (5th ed.), Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.
Turoff, M. (1970), The Design of a Policy Delphi, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2, 149-171.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1971), Belief in the Law of Small Numbers, Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105-110.
Tversky, A. ＆ Kahneman, D. (1973), Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability, Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-233.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Waller, M.A. & Novack, R.A. (1995), Using Policy Capturing to Identify the Effects of External Consistency on Logistics Managers’ Performance, Transportation Journal, Vol.34, 45-53.
Wang, M. & Yang, J. (1998), A Multi-criterion Experimental Comparison of Three Multi-attribute Weight Measurement Methods, Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, 7: 340-350.
Wang, M. S., Fang, J. K. & Bowen, W. M. (2000), An Integrated Schema for Environmental Management in Developing Countries, Environmental Management, Vol.25, No.5, pp.463-476, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc.
Warfield, J. N. (1989), Social Systems, C.A.: Intersystems Publications.
Warfield, J. N. ＆ Cárdenas, A. Roxana (1994), A Handbook of Interactive Management (Second Edition), Iowa State University Press.
Wood, K. F. & Guterbock, T. M. (1998), Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey Report of Results, Virginia: Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia.
Zeleny, M. (1982), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.