Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0724106-234423 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0724106-234423
論文名稱
Title
群體共識判斷中社會影響網絡之研究--資訊整合理論之應用
A Study on Social Influence Network in Consensus Group Judgment: Application of Information Integration Theory
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
204
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2006-03-06
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2006-07-24
關鍵字
Keywords
群體決策、社會判斷理論、資訊整合理論、決策與判斷、認知衝突典範、社會權重、規範/資訊影響、認知/偏好回饋
information integration theory (IIT), social weight, social judgment theory (SJT), cognitive conflict paradigm (CCP), cognitive/preference feedback, decision-making and judgment, normative/ informational influence, group decision-making
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5752 次,被下載 36
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5752 times, has been downloaded 36 times.
中文摘要
在多元社會中,「個體」是最基本之分析單位,而潛藏於群體行為下之個體認知才是問題的本質及公共事務現象面的根基。個體認知反映在群體行為上便形成群體判斷及人際影響,這個人際影響過程可簡化為群體成員間的權力關係、群體中溝通網絡及互動的形式、及群體內意見間的關係等(French, 1956),衝突是人際影響的必要條件,也是群體行為的一種關係形式及現象,也因此瞭解人際影響及導引人際合作,對於公共事務有其必要性。
群體決策或判斷係由可觀察的個體偏好及群體決策結果,推論不可觀察的人際影響,這個人際影響過程將個體判斷轉換為群體決策,其包括個體成員意見的形成、及群體成員間的妥協二個階段,即個體可能會自願地修正其偏好,而群體會將修正後的個體判斷整合成群體決策,這群體過程就好像資訊整合理論(information integration theory, IIT)中個體整合多元因子的過程 (Friedkin, 2005; Sniezek et al., 1989),而IIT 的平均認知代數模式可有效衡量人際影響。
綜觀群體決策的理論及方法仍有不足,如社會權力及社會比較理論提出群體變動的概念性解釋,但未作實證研究;社會決策基模(social decision scheme, SDS)運用決策基模預測群體決策,但對於群體決策過程的說明仍有不足;社會困境(social dilemmas)雖兼顧個體及群體分析,但並未提供社會權力衡量方法;認知衝突典範(cognitive conflict paradigm, CCP)主要探討個體判斷原則的變動,未探討個體偏好的變動,雖提到人際學習,但卻未提出衡量人際影響方法,IIT的功能衡量理論正可補充該等理論的不足。
本研究應用經實驗驗證具理論效度之IIT的概念及方法,以社會權重來說明複雜的人際影響過程,並以預算分配為案例,將人際衝突區分為認知衝突及利益衝突,其中認知衝突係以社會判斷理論(social judgment theory, SJT)導引認知的差異。本研究經由IIT準實驗程序,得到下列研究結果:
一、群體過程大多以不等權重方式整合群體成員判斷,成員的社會權重會因偏好水準的不同而有不同的權重。
二、不同群組成員,有相同原始偏好,所呈現的個體社會權重雖無統計上的顯著差異,但仍呈現個體的差異。
三、在認知衝突的案例中,群體雖達成偏好共識,但未必達成認知共識。
四、這兩類案例的群體影響主要源於規範的影響,而不是資訊的影響。
五、個體的社會權重與規範效果、妥協程度有顯著負相關,當社會權重愈高時,所受到的規範影響及妥協程度愈小。
六、認知回饋及結果回饋對群體共識決策結果無顯著影響。
七、個體的社會權重與滿意度無顯著相關,但在認知衝突案例中,社會權重與決策過程的公平性有顯著相關。
八、受測者對於這兩類案例的群體決策表現無顯著差異。
Abstract
“Individual”is the basic analytic unit in a pluralistic society. Especially, phenomenon of public affairs is essence of the problem and is based on individual cognition, hidden in group behavior. The individual cognition forms group judgment and interpersonal influence in the group. This interpersonal influence process may simplify as the power relations between group members, the communication network and the interaction form in the group, and the opinion relations within the group (French, 1956). The conflict is the essential situation of interpersonal influence and also is one kind of relational form and phenomenon for group judgment. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the interpersonal influence and conduct interpersonal mutual cooperation in the public affairs area.
The group decision-making (or judgment) can be explored based on observable individual preference and group decision-making. That can infer unobservable interpersonal influence. This interpersonal influence process transforms the individual judgment into the group decision-making. There are two stages in interpersonal influence process, including opinion formation for individual members, and compromise among group members. Namely, the individual might revise his or her preference voluntarily. The group integrates the revised members’ judgments into group decision-making. That is, the group process resembles the process which individual integrates multi-cues like information integration theory (IIT) (Friedkin, 2005; Sniezek et al., 1989). The average cognitive algebra pattern in IIT may measure the interpersonal influence effectively.
The theories of group decision-making are still insufficient. For example, social power theory and social comparison theory explain the concept of choice shift, but not positivism. Social decision scheme (SDS) employs decision scheme to predict the group decision-making, but it is insufficient for explaining the group decision-making process. Although social dilemma explores both individual level and group level, it cannot provide the weighting method. Cognitive conflict paradigm (CCP) discusses judgment policy shift, but preference shift is still not mentioned. Although CCP focuses on interpersonal learning, it does not propose how to weight interpersonal influence. The functional measurement theory in IIT may supplement insufficiencies in these theories..
The research utilizes the concept and the method of IIT, which prodivides experimental validity for explaining the complex interpersonal influence process by using social weight. This research uses budget allocation as discussion cases. Interpersonal conflicts are divided by the cognitive conflict and the interest conflict. By using social judgment theory (SJT), this research can analyze cognitive difference in the case of cognitive conflict. Besides, using quasi-experimental procedure in IIT, the findings of this research include:
1. In the group process, group members’ judgments are integrated to group decision-making based on unequal-weight rule mostly. Members’ social weights are different and depend on the level of members’ preferences.
2. The members in different groups have the same preferences initially. Although social weights of these members are not significant difference in statistic, these members still appear the differences between individuals.
3. In cognitive conflict case, the group consensus is not consistently accompanied by cognitive consensus.
4. The group influence results from normative social influence, rather than from informational social influence.
5. It shows that there is negative correlation between social weight and normative effect. Besides, social weight and comprise degree also show negative.correlation
6. The cognitive feedback and the outcome feedback don’t affect decision-making result.
7. The relationship between social weight and the degree of satisfaction is not supported. The social weight and the fairness of decision-making process show significant correlation
8. The subjects’ decision-making performances in the study don’t show significant difference
目次 Table of Contents
第一章 緒論
1.1 公共事務管理的本質—認知面…………………………1
1.2 個體認知與群體決策……………………………………6
1.3 群體決策概念架構………………………………………10
1.4 決策與判斷分析層級及問題分析……………………..24
1.5 群體決策與認知理論…………………………………..29
1.6 研究目的…………………………………………………34
第二章 文獻探討…………………………….……………37
2.1 國外群體決策的相關研究………………………………37
2.2 群體決策相關理論………………………………………42
2.2.1 社會比較理論…………………………………………42
2.2.2 社會權力理論…………………………………………43
2.2.3 社會影響心理學………………………………………44
2.2.4 社會決策基模…………………………………………45
2.2.4.1 SDS的基本概念..…………………………………45
2.2.4.2 SDS的延伸理論……………………………………49
2.2.5 社會影影響網絡理論…………………………………55
2.2.6 社會困境………………………………………………57
2.2.7 複雜系統理論…………………………………………59
2.2.8 連續數決策案例的群體決策理論……………………61
2.3 決策與判斷領域…………………………………………62
2.3.1 決策與判斷的定義……………………………………63
2.3.2 決策與判斷理論………………………………………64
2.4 社會判斷理論 …………………………………………67
2.4.1 透鏡模式..……………………………………………67
2.4.2 認知衝突的來源………………………………………70
2.4.3 認知衝突典範…………………………………………71
2.5 資訊整合理論……………………………………………74
2.5.1IIT的概念及衡量方法…………………………………74
2.5.2 社會平均定理…………………………………………83
2.6 國內相關研究……………………………………………85
2.7小結.………………………………………………………86
第三章研究假設與實驗設計…………………………………88
3.1研究範圍…………………………………………….……88
3.2研究假設…………………………………………….……89
3.2.1 個體分析.………………………………………….…89
3.2.2 人際影響網絡.……………………………………….91
3.2.3 群體決策表現…………………………………………92
3.3實驗設計………………………………………………….93
3.3.1 實驗架構………………………………………………93
3.3.2 社會權重的衡量………………………………………94
3.3.3 決策案例………………………………………………97
3.3.4 實驗程序………………………………………………102
3.3.5 受測者………………………………………………..105
3.3.6 假設的驗驗……………………………………………105
第四章 結果分析…………………………………………….107
4.1 個體分析…………………………………………………107
4.1.1 個體成員的社會權重…………………………………107
4.1.2 認知衝突案例中個體的認知變動……………………110
4.2 群體決策結果分析.…………………………………….114
4.2.1 群體決策結果…………………………………………114
4.2.2 人際影響網絡…………………………………………117
4.2.3 回饋效果………………………………………………120
4.3 群體決策表現..…………………………………………121
第五章 討論與建議…………………………………………127
5.1 研究結果…………………………………………………127
5.2 結果討論…………………………………………………127
5.3 與公共事務管理架構的對應關係………………………132
5.4 對公共事務的管理意涵…………………………………133
5.5 研究貢獻…………………………………………………136
5.6 研究限制…………………………………………………139
5.7 後續研究建議……………………………………………140
參考文獻………………………………………………………142
附錄1 認知衝突案例問卷……………………………………156
附錄2 SJT問卷 ………………………………………………178
附錄3 利益衝突案例問卷……………………………………183
附錄4 實驗後問卷……………………………………………193
參考文獻 References
參考文獻
卜衛、周海宏、劉曉紅 (2005),社會科學成果價值評估,中國:社會科學文獻出版社。
方之光 (1996),風險與利益知覺調整之實驗研究,中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文。
王列、賴海容譯 (2001),使民主運轉起來:現代義大利公民傳統, Putnam, R. D., 原著,江西人民出版社。
毛壽龍 (2001),政治社會學,北京:中國社會科學出版社。
北京師範大學價值與文化研究中心 (2001),關於價值研究現狀的調研報告。
江明修 (2004/12/19),均衡區域發展-非營利組織的角色,http://npo.nccu.edu.tw/contecnt/section02/item08_doc/ local%20development.pdf。
江明修 (2005),社會資本,公共行政與社會資本座談會,國立台北大學公共行政暨政策學系主辦。
汪明生 (1992),環境決策與管理,高雄,復文書局。
汪明生 (2002),群體決策中社會權重、妥協與個體偏好之研究—資訊整合理論之應用,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告書,NSC90-2416-H-110-029。
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,NSC91-2416-H-110-025。
汪明生 (2005),多元社會下高雄市招商策略認知與判斷之研究-以實驗法對IIT與其它多屬性權重衡量模式之比較,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究報告書,93-2416-H-110-008。
汪明生、陳碧珍 (2003),風險資訊整合模式與風險知覺之研究--以石化業為例,管理學報,第二十卷第二期, 251-287。
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、曾盛恕、楊仁壽 (1989),公共決策中的衝突管理:以高雄市覆鼎金垃圾焚化場場址選擇為例,管理科學學報,第6卷,第2期,135-156頁。
張寧 (2004),社會判斷理論之群體決策程序對互動管理成果之驗證—兼論政策分析中群體決策方法之比較,中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
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的角度,中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文。
黃慶源 (2005),企業經理人履行企業社會責任之行為研究,中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
陳碧珍 (2001a),群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。
陳光榮 (2005,10/30),企業的社會責任與倫理,http://www.moea.gov.tw/~ecobook/season/sa333.htm
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。
林錦郎 (2005),多元社會之衝突管理—判斷分析之觀點,中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
楊雷 (2004),群體決策理論與應用—群體決策中的個體偏好集結方法研究,北京:經濟科學出版社。
楊雷、席酉民 (1996),群體決策的權力與權力指數,系統工程,1996年第2期。
管益忻 (2004, 12/31),強化執行力,打造新型儒商文化模式─關於企業文化建設的幾個看法,http://www.people.com.tw。
賴世剛、許仁成(1996),多屬性決策方法評估基礎之設計,建築與城鄉研究學報,第八期,105-115
簡禎富 (2005),決策分析與管理:全面決策品質提升之架構與方法,雙葉書廊有限公司。
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。
蕭新煌 主編(1989),變遷中台灣社會的中產階級,巨流圖書公司。
Allison, S. T. & Messick, D. M. (1990). Social decision heuristics in the use of shared resources, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 195-204.
Anderson, N. H. (1970). Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological Review, 77, 153-170.
Anderson, N. H. (1973). Functional measurement of social desirability. Sociometry, 36, 89-98.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Acadamic Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York: Acadamic Press.
Anderson, N. H (eds.) (1991). Contributions of information integration theory, VolumeⅡ: Social . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Anderson, N. H. (2001). Empirical direction in design and analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Anderson, N. H, & Graesser, C. C., (1976). .An information integration analysis of attitude change in group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, pp210-222.
AlexanderⅢ, E. R. (1979). The reduction of cognitive conflict: Effect of various thpes of communication. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 23, 1, 120-138.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex system. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of indendence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70.
Bacharach, S. & Lawler, E. (1980). Power and polictics in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baron, R.S., Kerr, N. L., & Miller, N. (2003). Group Processes, Group decision, Group Action. 2nd edn.. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
Balzer, W., Doherty, M., & O’Connor, R. Jr. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 410-433.
Bazernan, M. H., Mannix, E. A., & Thompson, l. L. (1988). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372
Beach, l. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what need to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381.
Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (1995). The role of uncertainty in resource dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 221-233.
Bisno, H. (1989). Management conflict. Sage Publication, Inc.
Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. New York: Cambridge University press.
Bloomfield, R., Libby, R., & Nelson, M. W. (1996). Communication of confidence as a determinant of group judgment accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68 (3), 287-300.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studis using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111-137.
Bray, R. M., Kerr, N. L., & Atkin, R. S. (1978). Effects of group size, problem diffictulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1224-1240.
Brehmer, B. (1980). In one word: Not from experierence. Acta Psychologica, 45, 223-241.
Brehmer, B., & Hammond, K. R. (1977). Cognitive factors in interpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 985-1003.
Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. New York: The Free Press..
Brown, R. (1986). Social psychology: the second edition.. New York: The Free Press..
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.
Burnstein, E., & Vinokur, A. (1975). What a person thinks upon learning he has chosen differently from others: nice evidence for the persuasive-arguments explanation of choice shifts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 412-426.
Campbell, J. D., & Fairey, P. J. (1989). Informational and normative routes to conformity: the effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 457-468.
Castellan, N. J. (1973). Comments on the “lens model” & equation and the analysis of multiple-cue judgment task. Psychometrika, 38, 87-100.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate Social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 24, 201-234). New York: Academic Press.
Coates, J. F. (1978). What Is a Public Policy Issue? .In K. R. Hammond (ed.). Judgment and decision in public policy formation, 33-69.
Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, method, and applications. San Diego: Academic Press.
Cooksey, R. W. & Freebody, P. (1985). Generalized multivariate lens model analysis for complex human inference tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 46-72.
Creighton, G. L. (1980). A tutorial: Acting as a conflict conciliator. The Environmental Professional, 2, 119-127.
Crott, H. W., Werner, J., & Hoffmann, C. (1996). A probabilistic model of opinion change considering distance between alternatives: An application to mock jury data. In E. Witte & J. H., Davis (eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (PP.35-59). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chu, P. Y. (1996). An assessment of group decision-making theories and support technologies. In the Proceeding of the First Asia Pacific DSI Conference, 413-420.
Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and Social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80 (2), 97-125.
Davis, J. H. (1980). Group decision and procedural justice. In M. Fishbein(ed.), Progress in Social Psychology (pp.157-229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum..
Davis, J. H. (1982). Social interaction as a combinatorial process in group decision. In H. Brandstaetter, J. H. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (eds.), Group Decision Making (pp.27-58). London: Academic Press..
Davis, J. H. (1992). Some Compelling Intuitions about Group Consensus Decisions, Theoretical and Empirical Research, and Interpersonal Aggregation Phenomena: Selected Examples, 1950-1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3-38.
Davis, J. H. (1996), Group decision making and quantitative judgments: A consensus model, In E. Witte and J. H. Davis (eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups ( Vol.1, pp. 35-59). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, J. H., & Hinsz, V. B. (1982). Current research problems in group performance and group dynamics. In H. Brandstatter, J. Davis, & G. Stocker-Kreichgauer (eds.), Group decision making, London: Academic Press.
Davis, J. H., Au, W.T., Hulbert, L., Chen, X., & Zarnoth, P. (1997). Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: the example of damage award and mock civil juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 703-718.
Davis, J. H., Kameda, T., Parks, C., Stasson, M., & Zimmerman, S. (1989). Some social mechanics of group decision making: The distribution of opinion, polling sequence, and implications ofr consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1000-1014.
Davis, J. H., Stasson, M., Ono, K., & Zimmerman, S. (1988). Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 3918-926..
Davis, J. H., Zarnoth, P., Hulbert, L., Chen, X., Parks, C., & Nam, K. (1997). The committee charge, framing interpersonal agreement, and consensus models of group quantitative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 72, 137-157.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social Dilemmas. Annual Review Psychology, 31:169-193
Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 95-106.
DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 118-121.
Deutsch, N (1983). Conflict resolution: theory and practice. Political Psychology, 4.
Deutsch, N, & Gerard, H. B. (1955), A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1990). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking-effect. Report, Pschological institute, University of Tuebingen.
Dunn, W. N. (2004). Public Policy Analysis: an Introduction (3rd end.). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Edwards, W. (1954). Theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51 (4), 308-417
Einhorn, H., & Hogarth, R. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Process of judgment and hoice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53-88.
Einhorn, H. J., Hogarth, R., & Klempner, E. (1977). Quality of group judgment, Psychological Bulletin, 84, 158-172.
Emerson, R. M. (1964). Power-dependence relations: Two experiments. Sociometry, 27,282-298.
Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: a continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception and Psychophysics, 25, 249-263.
Farkas, A. J. (1991). Cognitive algebra of interpersonal unfairness. In N. H. Anderson (ed.), Contributions to information integration theory VolumeⅡ: Social. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process, Human relations, 7, 117-140.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics. 3rd edn.. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Wadsworth.
French, J. R. P., Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review,. 63, 181-194.
Friedkin, N. E. (1990). Social networks in structural equation models. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 316-328.
Friedkin, N. E. (2001). Influence networks in school board policy group: An analysis of resource allocation preferences. In Larry Hedges and Batbara Schneider (eds.). Social organization of schooling. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Friedkin, N. E. (2005). Social influence network theory: Toward a science of strategic modification of interpersonal influence systems. Retrieved from http:// www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/fridkin/ Inpress/ NAS_Symp.pdf, 2005/03/27.
Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (1990). Social influence and opinions. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 15, 193-206.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959-974.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). The impact of information on small group choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 132-140.
Godwin, W. F., & Restle, F. (1974). The road to agreement: Subgroup pressures in small group consensus process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 500-509.
Goethals, g. R., & Zanna, M. P. (1979). The role of social comparision in choice shifts. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 37, 1469-1476.
Goldstein, W. M., & Hogarth, R. M. (1997). Judgment and decision research: some historical context. In Goldstein, W. M., & Hogarth, R. M. (eds.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies (pp.3-68). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Graesser, C. C. (1991). A social averaging theorem for group decision making. In N. H. Anderson (ed.), Contributions to Information Integration Theory VolumeⅡ: Social. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Grofman, B. (1977a). Differential effects of jury size revisited. Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 4, 4-11.
Grofman, B. (1977b). Sloppy sampling : A comment on six-member juries in the Federal courts. Social Action and the Law Newsletter, 4, 4-5.
Grofman B., Owen G,. & Feld S. L. (1983). Thirteen theorems on search of the truth. Theory and Decision, 15.
Hammond, K. R. (1965). New directions in research on conflict resolution. Journal of Social Issues, 21, 44-66..
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. New York: Oxford University Press,.
Hammond, K. R., McClelland, G. H., & Mumpower, J. (1980). Human Judgment and Decision Making. Praeger.
Hammond, K. R., & Grassia, J. (1985). The cognitive side of conflict: From theory resolution of policy dispute. In S. Oskamp (ed.), Applied social psychology annual, 6,233-254. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hammond, K. R., Todd, F., Wilkins, M. M., & Mitchell, T. O. (1966). Cognitive conflict between persons: Application of the lens model paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 343-360.
Harary, F. (1959). A criterion for unanimity in French’s theory of social power. In D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, Mi: Institute for social Research.
Harmon, J., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1990). Social judgment analysis and small group decision making: Cognitive feedback effects on individual and collective performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 34-54.
Hastie, R. (1986). Experimental evidence on group accuracy. In B. Grofman and G. Owea (eds.), Decision research (vol.2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hawkins, C. (1962). Interaction rates of jurors aligned in factions. American Sociological Review, 27, 689-691.
Heath, C., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Interaction with others increases decision confidence but not decision quality: Evidence against information views of interactive decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 305-326.
Henry, R. A. (1993). Group judgment accuracy: Reliability and validity of postdiscussion confidence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 11-27.
Hertel, G., Aarts H., & Zeelenberg, M. (1999). What do you think is “fair”? Effect s of ingroup norms and intergroup context on fairness judgments in dyadic exchange conflicts. Presentation at the 12th Conference of the International Association of Conflict Management, San Sebastian, Spain
Hinsz, V. B. (1989). Modeling group decision processes for responses having an underlying continuum: A continuous response decision scheme model. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Groups, Networks, and Organizations, Nags Head, NC.
Hinsz, V. B. (1990). Cognitive and consensus process in group recognition memory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 705-718.
Hinsz, V. B. (1999). Group Decision Making with Responses of a Quantitative Nature: The Theory of Social Decision Schemes for Quantities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80 (1), 28-49.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & David, A. V. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 21(1), 43-64.
Hirokowa, R. Y., & Poole, M.S. (1996). Communication and group decision making (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:sage.
Holzworth, J. (1983). Intervention in a cognitive conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 216-231.
Hsiao, N. (1998). Conflict Analysis of Public Policy Stakeholders--Combining Judgment Analysis and System Dynamics Modeling. Paper Presented in theInternational System Dynamics Conference.
Hursch, C., Hammond, K, R., & Hursch, J. (1964). Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability studies, Psychological Review, 71, 42-60.
Ingelhart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. 2nd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Kaplan, M. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of concept identification and assigned decision rule on the judge work jour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
Kaplan, M. E. & Miller, C. E. (1987). Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 306-313.
Kerr, N. L. (1992a). Group decision making at a multialternative task : Extremity, interaction distance, pluralities and issue importance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52,64-95.
Kerr, N. L. (1992b). Issue importance and group decision making. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson(eds.), Group Process and productivity (pp. 68-88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Meek, D., & Rissman, A. K. (1975). Group position as a function of members’ attitudes: choice shift effects from perspective of social decision scheme theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,34,282-294.
Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Krammer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review,103, 687-719.
Kerr, N. L., Stasser, G., & Davis, J. H. (1979). Model testing, model fitting, and social decision schemes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23,399-410.
Lamm, H., & Myers, D. G.. (1978). Group-induced polarization of attitudes and behavior. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Larson Jr., J. R., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Franz, T. M. (1998). Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Thousand Oaks, 24 (5), 482-495.
Latané, B (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-356.
Laughlin, P. R. (1980). Social combination process of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In M. Fishbein (ed.), Progress in social psychology ( vol.1, pp127-155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Laughlin, P. R. & Earley, P.C. (1982). Social combination models, persuasive arguments theory, social comparisons theory, and choice shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 273-280.
Laughlin, P. B., Kerr, N. L., Davis, J. H., Halff, H. M., & Marciniak, K. A.(1975). Group size, member ability, and social decision schemes on an intellective task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 522-535.
Lehrer, K., & Wagoner C. (1981). Rational consensus in science and society. Dordrecht, Netherlands, and Boston: Riedel.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lewis, H. S., & Butler, T. W. (1993). An interactive framework for multiperson, multiobjective decisions. Decision Sciences, 24, 1-22.
Lorge, I., & Solomon, H. (1955). Two models of group behavior in the solution of Eurekatype problems. Psychometrika, 20, 139-148.
Magradze, G. (2004, 4/5). Minority’s influence and the role mentality in social conflict in establishing the institutions of democracy, http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/95.97/magradze.pdf
Mannix, E. A. (1993). Organizations as resource dilemmas: The effects of power balance on coalition formation in small group. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 55, 1-22.
Marquart, D. I. (1955). Group problem-solving. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
McAlister, L., Bazerman, M. H., & Fader, P. (1986). Power and goal setting in channel negotiations. Journal of marketing Research, 23, 238-263.
McDowell, J. (1996). Mind and world, with a new introduction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, HJ: prentice-Hall.
McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4 (No.1), 95-105.
McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental process: a framework for analyzing processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287-330.
Messick, D. M (1984). Solving social dilemmas: individual and collective approaches. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 14, 72-87.
Messick, D. M., Moore, D. A, & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Ultimatum Bargaining with a Group: Underestimating the Importance of the Decision Rule. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69 (2), 87-101.
Meyer, D. E., Osman, A., & Smith, J. E. K. (1984). Discrete verus continuous models of response preparation: a reaction-time analysis. In Kornblum S. & Requin J. (eds.), Preparatory states and processes (69-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Meyer, D. E., Osman, A., & Smith, J. E. K. (1985). Temporal properties of human information processing: test of discrete versus continuous models. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 445-518.
Miller, J. O. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: in search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 273-296.
Miller, J. O. (1983). Can response preparation begin before stimulus recognition finishes? Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 161-182.
Miller J. O. (1988). Discrete and continuous models of human information processing: Theoretical distinctions and empirical results (invited paper). Acta Pychologica, 67, 191-257.
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, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, C. E., Jockson, P., Mueller, J., & Schering, C. (1987). Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 325-332.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Miranda, M. L., J. N., Miller, & T. L. Jacobs (2000). Talking trash about landfills: Using quantitative scoring schemes in landfill sitting process. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19 (1), 3-22.
Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: the role of inputs, process, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 85 (2), 310-335.
Moscovic, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135.
Mullen, B., & Johnson, C. (1990). Distinctiveness based illusory correlations: A meta-analytic integration. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(1): 91-102.
Murninghan, J. K. (1978). Models of coalition behavior: Game theoretic, social psychological, and political perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 84,1130-1153.
Murninghan, J. K., & Bass, D. (1990). Intraorganizational coalitions, In R. Lewicki, B. s., & Bazerman, M. (eds), Research on negotiation in orgaizations, 3, Connecticut: JAI Press, forthcoming.
Myers, D. G., & Lamm, H. (1976). The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 602-627.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
Negel, S. S. (1991). Public Policy. University Press of America.
Noble, S., & Shanteau, J. (1999). Book review: Information integration theory: A unified cognitive theory. Journal of Mathematical psychology, 43, 449-454.
Norman, K. L.(1976). A solution for weights and scale values in functional measurement. Psychological Review, 83, 1, 80-84.
Ohtsubo, Y., Miller, C. A., Hayashi, N. & Masuchi, A. (2004). Effects of group decision rules on decisions involving continuous alternatives: The unanimity rule and extreme decisions in mock civil juries. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,320-331.
Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgments. Scientific American, 219, 84-90.
Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1994). Improving the accuracy of group judgment: A process intervention combining group facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 58, 246-270.
Penrod, S. D., & Hastie, R. (1980). A computer simulation of jury decision making. Psychological Review, 87,133-159.
Pitz, G. F., & Sachs, N. J. (1984). Judgment and decision: Theory and application. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 139-164
Rohrbaugh, C. C., & Shanteau, J. (1999). Context, process, and experience: Research on applied judgment and decision making. In F. Durso (ed.), Handbook of Applied Cognition (115-139). NY: John Wiley.
Rothstein, H. G. (1986). The effects of time pressure on judgment on multiple cue probability learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 37, 83-92.
Saks, M. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sales, B. D., & Lavin, M. (2000). Identifying conflicts of interest and resolving ethical dilemmas. Sales, B. D. & Folkman, S. (eds.), Ethics in research with human participants. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Sander, G. S., & Baron, R. S. (1977). Is social comparison irrelevant for producing choice shift? Journal of Experimental social Psychology, 13, 303-314.
Schöneman, P. H., Cafferty, T., & Rotton, J. (1973). A note on additive functional measurement. Psychological Review, 80, 85-87.
Schuller, T, Baron, S., Field, J. (2000). Social capital: A review and critique. In S. Bareon, J. Field, & T. Schuller (eds.), Social Capital: critical Perspectives. New York: Oxford.University Press.
Shaw, M. E. (1932). Comparision of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of comples problems. American Journal of psychology, 44,491-504.
Shiflett, S (1979). Toward a general model of small group productivity. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 67-79.
Silverberg, A. (2003). Psychological laws. Erkenntnic, 58, 275-302. (Kluwer academic publishers. Printed in the Netherlands)
Simon, H. A. (1983). Reason in human Affairs. Palo Alto, CA: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Standford Junior University.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 649-744.
Slovic, P., Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1990).Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In r. M. hogarth (ed.), Insights in decision making: A contribute to Hill J. Einhorn (pp.5-27). Chicago: Uni. Chicago Press.
Smoke, W. H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1962). On the reliability of Group Judgments and Decisions. In J.H. Griswell, H. Solomon, & P. Suppes (eds.), Mathematical Methods in Small Groups Process, Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.
Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1989). Accuracy and confidence in group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43, 1-28.
Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1990). Revision, weighting, and commitment in consensus group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 45, 66-84.
Stasser, G. , & Davis, J. H. (1981). Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model. Psychological Review, 88, 523-551.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. D. (1992). The discovery of hidden profiles by decision making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
Stasser G. , & Titus, W. (1987). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making : Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Davis, L. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision-making groups, In P.B. Paulus (ed.). Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawence Erlbaum.
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academci Press.
Steiner, I. D., & Rajaratnam, N. (1961). A model for the comparision of individual and group performance scores. Behavioral Science, 6, 142-147.
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64, 153-181.
Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individuals and group decisions involving risk. Master’s thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Stoner, J. A. F. (1968). Risk and cautious shifts in group decisions: the influence of widely held values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442-459
Taylor, D. W. (1954). Problem solving by groups, In Proceedings: Fourteenth International Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Taylor, D. W., & Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty questions: Efficiency in problem-solving as a function of size of group. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 360-368.
Thibaut, J., & Strickland, L. (1956). Psychological set and social conformity. Journal of Personality, 25, 115-129.
Tindale, R. S. (1989).Group vs individual information processing: The effects of outcome feedback on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 44, 454-473.
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 Process, 55, 470-485.
Tolman, E., & Brunswik, E. (1935). The organism and the causal texture of the environment. Psychological Review, 42, 43-77.
Von Wintwefeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge university Press.
Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1962). Group influence on individual risk taking. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 77-86.
Wells, G. L., & Murry, D. M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G. L. Wells & e. F. Loftus (eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. Cambtidge: Cambridge University Press.
Whyte, G., & Sebenius, J. K. (1997). The effect of multiple anchors on anchoring in individual and group judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 69 (1), 75-85.
Wilder, D. A., & Allen, V. L. (1977). Social support , extremesocial support and conformity. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 8, 33-41.
Witte, E. & Davis, J. H. (1996). Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yoshihisa, K. (1999). What does dynamical systems theory tell us about small groups? American Journal of Psychology, Winter.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inference. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
Zarnoth, P. & Sniezek, J. A. (1997). The social influence of confidence in group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 345-366.
Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company
Zalinski, J., & Anderson, N. H. (1991). Parameter estimation for averaging theory. In N. H. Anderson (ed.), Contributions of Information Integration TheoryVolume I: Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:校內一年後公開,校外永不公開 campus withheld
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus:永不公開 not available

您的 IP(校外) 位址是 3.215.77.96
論文開放下載的時間是 校外不公開

Your IP address is 3.215.77.96
This thesis will be available to you on Indicate off-campus access is not available.

紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code