多元社會之衝突管理-判斷分析之觀點

摘要

在多元社會中，衝突之所以產生，主要是因為現實與理想之間存有差距，其中“現實”和人們對事實認定有關，“理想”則和人們對價值判斷有關。對於客觀事實人們或有「認知不清」的情形，但基本上可藉由專家協助，而有較明確一致的認定；然而對於因主觀的價值差異所導致的「認知不同」的情形，則由於缺乏共同的認定標準，所以極易引發價值衝突。國內近來較重大的環境紛爭事件，例如後勁反五輕，貢寮反核四，美濃反美濃水庫等，其爭議主要即肇因於上述之認知衝突。

在國內外針對多元公共決策問題及認知衝突管理議題之諸多相關研究中，Hammond(1965，1975，1996)以透鏡模式為基礎所發展出的社會判斷理論(Social Judgment Theory，SJT)及認知衝突派典(Cognitive Conflict Paradigm，CCP)經實證研究發現其對公共決策分析，及認知衝突管理確具有顯著成效及貢獻。

社會判斷理論是利用透鏡模式(Lens Model)中，兩個平行系統即客觀環境系統和主觀認知系統，與其間的各項參考變數，及其交互作用來闡述人們，在面對模稜兩可的環境因果網時的認知決策行為，以及在公共決策中衝突的產生原因，社會判斷理論尤其強調藉由認知回饋(Cognitive Feedback)，可使決策參與者得以作認知改變，而有助於決策者間認知衝突之化解。

認知衝突派典是Hammond所發展出的，一個模擬認知衝突管理過程的實驗研究架構。藉由認知衝突派典研究者可觀察到，被訓練成具有不同認知系統的兩個決策者，面對同一問題，從最初分別作出迥異的個人決策，到達成共同決策的過程，以及觀察到學習經驗對決策者的認知改變和化解後續問題之影響。

本研究即利用判斷分析理論中的社會判斷理論，及認知衝突派典實驗架構針對頗具爭議性的美濃水庫興建案，進行認知衝突派典的準實驗。研究結果如下：

一、「雙邊認知回饋對提升決策品質的效果優於結果回饋」
二、「單邊認知回饋對提升個人決策品質的效果優於結果回饋」。
三、「單邊認知回饋對提升共同決策品質的效果與結果回饋同樣都不顯著」。
四、「雙邊認知回饋對降低認知衝突的效果優於結果回饋」。
五、「單邊認知回饋對降低認知衝突的效果與結果回饋同樣都不顯著」
六、本研究最具建設性的研究心得是運用社會判斷理論及認知衝突派典，針對如何剖析和化解多元社會之衝突問題，建立一個概念性架構、分析模型、及衝突管理程序，可供作後續有關認知衝突議題的學術研究，及釐訂公共政策之參考。



關鍵詞：多元社會，判斷分析，透鏡模式，社會判斷理論，認知衝突派典，結果回饋，認知回饋。

Conflict Management in Pluralistic Societies:
Aspect of Judgment Analysis.

Abstract

Interpersonal Conflict in pluralistic societies has been analyzed into“Fact Conflict”(mutual interference in beliefs) and“Value Conflict” (mutual interference in preferences ), The interpersonal conflict can be caused by purely cognitive factors, that’s to say, the fact conflict and value conflict can be treated together under the general rubric of“Cognitive Conflict”.

The growing of locally environmental disputes concerning large scale publicdecision-makings, such as the cases of constructions of Fifth Naphtha Cracking Plant,Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, and Meinung Dam etc., have raised enormous socialcost in recent years. One of the main causes of above mentioned disputes is cognitiveconflict.

Among various efforts against problem of cognitive conflict, The Social JudgmentTheory, SJT, and the Cognitive Conflict Paradigm, CCP, have been confirmed to beone of the effective approaches to settle the problem of cognitive conflict.

Social Judgment Theory is a descriptive and normative approach to judgment and decision making developed by Kenneth Hammond (1965,1975,1996) on the basis of Lens Model. Social Judgment Theory has been applied to the analysis of multiple cue probability learning, interpersonal conflict, interpersonal learning, and social policy decisions. It has also produced the policy decision aid. Moreover, Social Judgment Theory emphasizes that the“Judgment”is generally more effective (reaches a higher achievement level), and more efficient(reaches a given achievement level more quickly) by utilizing of cognitive feedback while making decision.

Cognitive Conflict Paradigm is to provide a scenario to uncover information concerning cognitive conflict. It’s an experimental laboratory method that involves two stages: (1)Training stage in which two subjects are trained in such a way that each learns to think differently about a common set of problems, and(2)Conflict stage in which the two subjects are brought together and attempt to arrive at a joint decisions concerning the problems. Through Cognitive Conflict Paradigm, the investigator can observe two persons offering conflicting answers, efforts to cope with
differences and arrive at a joint decision, in fact, observe the effect of the experience on their cognitive change and the efforts to solve subsequent problems.

In this study, a series of simulated decision making task about Meinung Dam construction and the Social Judgment Theory & Cognitive Conflict Paradigm have been employed and tested by way of a laboratory quasi-experiment. The research fingings of this study include:

1. Dual cognitive feedback is more effective than outcome feedback in regard to the improvement of individual decision quality.
2. Single cognitive feedback is more effective than outcome feedback in regard to the improvement of individual decision quality.
3. Single cognitive feedback is as insignificant as outcome feedback in regard to the improvement of joint decision quality.
4. Dual cognitive feedback is more effective than outcome feedback in regard to the elimination of cognitive conflict.
5. Single cognitive feedback is as insignificant as outcome feedback in regard to the elimination of cognitive conflict.
6. The most constructive result obtained in this study was that we had presented a conceptual framework, research paradigm, and conflict management procedure generated from the application of Social Judgment Theory & Cognitive Conflict Paradigm to analyze and solve the conflict problems in pluralistic societies. These framework, paradigm, and procedure should be useful to subsequent cognitive conflict researchers and practical public decision making.


Keywords：Pluralistic Societies, Judgment Analysis ,Lens Model, Social Judgment Theory, Cognitive Conflict Paradigm, Outcome Feedback, Cognitive Feedback.

目 錄
第一章 緒論
壹、研究背景．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．1
一、多元社會與分歧社會．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 1二、衝突管理．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 2三、公共事務管理整合參考架構．．．．．．．．．．． 9四、公共政策分析及決策與判斷分析．．．．．．．．．． 13
貳、研究動機．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．17
參、研究限制．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．18肆、研究目的．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．19
第二章 文獻探討
壹、決策與判斷分析理論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 21
一、 決策與判斷分析之意涵．．．．．．．．．．．．． 21
二、 決策與判斷分析理論簡介．．．．．．．．．．．．25
（一） 決策理論（DT）．．．．．．．．．．．．．．26
（二） 行為理論（BDT）．．．．．．．．．．．．． 27
（三） 心理決策理論（PDT）．．．．．．．．．．． 27
（四） 社會判斷理論（SJT）．．．．．．．．．．． 29
（五） 資訊整合理論（IIT）．．．．．．．．．．． 30
（六） 歸因理論（AT）．．．．．．．．．．．．． 31
貳、決策與判斷分析理論之比較．．．．．．．．．．．． 34
參、透鏡模式與社會判斷理論．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 48
一、透鏡模式 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 48
二、社會判斷理論．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 51
（一）基本概念．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．51
（二）認知衝突的來源．．．．．．．．．．．．．．52
（三）衡量方法．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．53
（四）社會判斷理論的五個系統模式 ．．．．．．．54
（五）社會判斷理論的應用．．．．．．．．．．． 56
（六）Policy PC ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 58
肆、認知衝突派典．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．58
第三章 研究方法
壹、實驗設計．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．66
貳、研究案例與決策標的．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．67
參、界定決策參考變數．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．75
肆、實驗之分析架構．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．79
伍、實驗步驟．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．81
陸、研究假說．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．83
第四章 研究分析與結果
壹、檢定指標與資料統計分析．．．．．．．．．．．．．85
貳、假設檢定．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．104
參、研究發現．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．110
第五章 結論與建議．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．117
參考文獻．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．139
附件一 實驗指引暨決策問卷 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．166
實驗指引．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．167
決策問卷A．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．179
決策問卷A-1（單邊認知回饋）（居民代表）．．．．．186
決策問卷A-1（單邊認知回饋）（政府代表）．．．．．193
決策問卷A-2（結果回饋）．．．．．．．．．．．．．200
決策問卷B （雙邊認知回饋）．．．．．．．．．．．209
附件二 練習階段居民代表參考資料．．．．．．．．．．．．216
附件三 練習階段政府代表參考資料 ．．．．．．．．．．．225
附件四 參與學生名單 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．236
附件五 練習階段 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．237
附件六 決策階段 ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．239


表 目 錄
表2-1六個決策與判斷分析理論比較表．．．．．．．．．．．．46
表4-1本研究之研究假說與檢定指標．．．．．．．．．．．．．87
表4-2 Policy PC 推估決策者的認知控制（Rs）．．．．．．．．88
表4-3 Policy PC 推估決策者的決策表現（ra ）．．．．．．．．88
表4-4 Policy PC 推估決策者的判斷原則．．．．．．．．．．．89
表4-5居民代表各決策者在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B的判斷原則相似性(G) ．．．90
表4-6政府代表各決策者在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B的判斷原則相似性(G)．．．90
表4-7居民代表在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B所作判斷值變異數檢定．．．．．．．98
表4-8政府代表在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B所作判斷值變異數檢定．．．．．．．100
表4-9居民代表在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B的決策參考變數相對權重平
均值差異檢定．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．102
表4-10政府代表在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B的決策參考變數相對權重
平均值差異檢定．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．103
表4-11研究假設A之檢定結果摘要表．．．．．．．．．．．．．114
表4-12研究假設B之檢定結果摘要表．．．．．．．．．．．．115
表4-13研究假設C之檢定結果摘要表．．．．．．．．．．．．116
附表1居民代表在問卷A判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．．．149
附表2居民代表在問卷A的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．．．149
附表3政府代表在問卷A判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．．．150
附表4政府代表在問卷A的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．．．150
附表5決策者本身在問卷A的認知一致性．．．．．．．．．．．．151
附表6兩決策者間在問卷A的實際與推估判斷值一致性．．．．．．151
附表7居民代表在問卷A-1判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．．153
附表8居民代表在問卷A-1的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．．153
附表9政府代表在問卷A-1判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．．154
附表10政府代表在問卷A-1的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．154
附表11決策者本身在問卷A-1的認知一致性．．．．．．．．．．．155
附表12兩決策者間在問卷A-1的實際與推估判斷值一致性．．．．．155
附表13居民代表在問卷A-2判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．157
附表14居民代表在問卷A-2的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．．157
附表15政府代表在問卷A-2判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．158
附表16政府代表在問卷A-2的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．158
附表17決策者本身在問卷A-2的認知一致性．．．．．．．．．．159
附表18兩決策者間在問卷A-2的實際與推估判斷值一致性．．．．．159
附表19policy PC 利用居民代表在問卷A-1的判斷原則預估居民
代表在問卷B的判斷值．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．161
附表20policy PC 利用政府代表在問卷A-1的判斷原則預估政府
代表在問卷B的判斷值．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．161
附表21居民代表在問卷B判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．．162
附表22居民代表在問卷B的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．．162
附表23政府代表在問卷B判斷值的迴歸分析．．．．．．．．．．163
附表24政府代表在問卷B的實際與推估判斷值．．．．．．．．．163
附表25決策者本身在問卷B的認知一致性．．．．．．．．．．．164
附表26兩決策者間在問卷B的實際與推估判斷值一致性．．．．．164











圖 目 錄
圖1-1 決策與判斷分析層級．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．3
圖1-2 公共事務管理整合參考架構．．．．．．．．．．．．．．11
圖2-1 決策者探究問題的模式．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．23
圖2-2 第一、二代決策與判斷分析理論家．．．．．．．．．．．36
圖2-3 六種決策與判斷分析理論的相對差異．．．．．．．．．．36
圖2-4 透鏡模式示意圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．49
圖2-5 修正之透鏡模式．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．50
圖2-6 雙系統透鏡模式第二類模式示意圖．．．．．．．．．．．54
圖2-7 三系統透鏡模式示意圖．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．56
圖2-8 認知衝突實驗研究架構．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． 60
圖3-1 興建美濃水庫之決策與判斷分析架構圖．．．．．．．．．72
圖3-2 興建美濃水庫之判斷分析架構圖．．．．．．．．．．．．73
圖3-3 興建美濃水庫之價值判斷與人際判斷分析架構圖．．．．．74
圖3-4 運用社會判斷理論建立之分析架構．．．．．．．．．．．79
圖3-5 決策階段的社會判斷理論雙系統透鏡模式第二類模式．．．82
圖3-6 實驗流程．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．84
圖4-1 居民代表各決策者在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B的判斷原則相似性(G) ．．91
圖4-2 政府代表各決策者在問卷A,A-1,A-2及B的判斷原則相似性(G) ．．91
附圖1 決策者在問卷A的函數型態．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．152
附圖2 決策者在問卷A的相對權重．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．152
附圖3 決策者在問卷A-1的函數型態．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．156
附圖4 決策者在問卷A-1的相對權重．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．156
附圖5 決策者在問卷A-2的函數型態．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．160
附圖6 決策者在問卷A-2的相對權重．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．160
附圖7 決策者在問卷B的函數型態．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．165
附圖8決策者在問卷B 的相對權重．．．．．．．．．．．．．165

參考文獻

一、 中文部分
1.毛壽龍(2000)。公共選擇理論－政治經濟學。北京：中國人民大學出版社。
2.毛壽龍(2000)。政治社會學。北京：中國社會科學出版社。
3.丘昌泰(2000)。公共管理：理論與實務手冊。台北：元照。
4.江岷欽、劉坤億(1999)。企業型政府理念、實務、省思。台北：智勝文化出版社。
5.汪銘生（1989）。多元公共認知決策之研究：（一）社會判斷理論的準實驗。國科會專題研究報告書。
6.汪銘生（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。台北：國立政治大學企業管理研究所出版。
7.汪銘生（1992）。環境決策與管理。高雄：復文書局。
8.汪明生、朱斌妤、王萬清、王維賢、邱文彥、葛應欽（1999）。衝突管理。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
9.汪明生、陳碧珍、黃慶源、王翔煒、蘇明敏（2000）。多元社會下地方發展之公民文化與公共事務教育。北京：海峽兩岸第二屆公共事務與跨世紀發展研討會論文集。國家行政學院學術委員會辦公室，中華公共事務管理學會合辦。
10.汪明生、林錦郎、楊永和、黃啟誠（2001）。多元社會下的公民文化與地方發展。高雄：第十一屆環境管理與都會發展研討會論文集。國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所，中華公共事務管理學會合辦。
11.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，1-68。
12.汪明生（2004）。高高屏地區永續發展策略與行動計畫之研究-多元社會的觀點。國科會專題研究計畫書。
13.汪明生（2004a）。多元社會下高雄巿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。國科會專題研究計畫書。
14.汪明生（2005）。公共事務管理實用方法。台北：五南圖書出版公司。
15.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。高雄:國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
16.李杰隆（2000）。公共財遊憩效益評估模式之比較研究－以南部藍色公路為例。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
17.余遜達、陳旭東（1999）。公共事務的治理之道-集體行動制度的演進。上海：三聯書店。
18.林裕文（2000）。結合事實與價值環境決策模式－於美濃水庫興建決策之應用。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
19.林錦郎（1994）。高雄都會區產業變遷之研究。高雄：國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
20.林錦郎（2001）。社會判斷理論與認知衝突典範。公共事務評論，第二卷第一期，209-227，2001年4月。
21.洪東煒(2004)。綠色財政改革與管理之研究－以高雄市為例。高雄：國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
22.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。
23.耿濟川(2004)。中共國際軍事交對台安全之衝擊-就軍事角度衡量。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
24.孫玳（1999）。國軍部隊社區關係管理系統建構之探討－以陸軍仁武營區為例。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。
25.郭仁孚(2001)。從馬克斯到列寧的意識型態概念。東吳政治學報，第十二期，141-167。
26.郭昱瑩（2002）。公共政策：決策輔助模型個案分析。台北：智勝文化。
27.陳佳玲（2000）。社區公共環境議題與民眾涉入關係之研究－以台中市大坑地區為例。台中:東海大學景觀研究所碩士論文。
28.陳碧珍（2001）。「決策與判斷分析」領域簡介。公共事務評論，第二卷第一期，171-182，2001年4月。
29.陳碧珍(2005)。集體共識判斷中社會影響網路之研究-資訊整合理論之應用。高雄：國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文計畫書。
30.許嘉猷（1994）。階級結構與階級意識比較研究論文集。中研院歐美研究所。
31.曾盛恕（1989）。公共決策與管理衝突：以高雄市覆鼎金垃圾焚化場場址選擇為例。高雄:國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
32.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。高雄:國立中山大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
33.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。
34.張寧(2004)。社會判斷理論之集體決策程序對互動管理成果之驗證-兼論政策分析中集體決策方法之比較。高雄：國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所博士論文。
35.黃俊英（1990）。台灣省政府集中辦公及促進內外聯繫問題之研究。台灣省政府研考會編印。
36.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。高雄：國立中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文。
37.黃國良、陳志忠（2001）。非營利組織贊助者募款認知之研究：田野調查與多評準決策理論之應用。公共事務評論，第二卷第一期，31-54，2001年4月。
38.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。
39.詹火生（2002）。意識型態對公共政策的影響－台灣老人經濟安全政策為例。國政研究報告，台北：國家政策研究基金會。
40.楊芳玲、汪銘生、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。
41.樊浩（1994）。中國倫理精神的歷史建構。文史哲出版社。
42.鄭俊朋（1997）。石化產業之判斷分析－以中油林園石化廠為例。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文
43.鄭偉申(2003)。銀行業企業金融部門形成智慧資本關鍵成功因素之研究-AHP與SJT法之比較分析。高雄:國立第一科技大學金融營運研究所碩士論文。
44.薛慶先(2002)。高雄捷運興建營運期間風險評估之研究-Delphi、AHP & SJT法之運用。高雄:國立第一科技大學金融營運研究所碩士論文。
45.鍾京佑(2003)。全球治理與公民社會：台灣非政府組織參與國際社會的觀點。政治科學論叢，第十八期，24-27，29-30，33。
46.蘇明敏（1997）。大高雄地區石化產業社區關係管理系統建構之研究。高雄:國立中山大學公共事務管理研究所碩士論文。


二、 英文部分
1.Alexender, E. R.III(1979). The Reduction of Cognitive Conflict : Effect of Various Types of Communication, Journal of Conflict Resolution,Vol.23, No.1, 120-138.
2.Al-Tabtabai,H.(1998).Decision making under uncertainty in construction projects using social judgment theory. Kuwait Journal of Science and Engineering ,Vol.25, 343-361
3.Amy, D.J.(1987). The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New York:
Columbia University Press.
4.Anderson, N.H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
5.Anderson, N.H. (1996). A Functional Theory of Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
6.Arkes H.R. & Hammond K.R. (1986). Judgment and Decision Making : An Interdisciplinary Reader, Cambridge University Press.
7.Balzer, W.K., Sulsky, L.M., Hammer, L.B., & Sumner, K.E. (1992). Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(1), 35-54.
8.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, 465-474.
9.Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Sheard, K., Stanworth, M., & Webster, A.(1987). Introductory Sociology. Second Edition. The Macmillan Press LTD.
10.Bisno, H.(1989). Management Conflict. Sage Publication, Inc.
11.Brady, D. & Rappoport, L. (1973). Policy-Capturing in the Field : The Nuclear Safeguards Problem. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 9, 253-266
12.Brehmer, B., & Hammon, K. R.(1977). Cognitive factors in interpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 985-1003.
13.Brehmer, B. (1988). The development of social judgment theory. In B. Brehmer & C.R.B. Joyce (Eds.), Human judgment: The SJT view. Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier, 13-40.
14.Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.Carkenord, D.M., & Stephens, M.G.(1994).Understanding student judgments of teaching effectiveness : A policy capturing approach. Journal of Psychology,Vol.128, 675-682.
16.Castellan, N.J. (1973). Comments on the”lens model” & equation and the analysis of multiple-cve judgment tasks. Psychometrika, Vol.38, 87-100.
17.Coates, J.F. (1978). What is a Public Policy Issue? , in K.R.Hammond(Ed.), Judgment and Decision in Public Policy Formation, 33-69.
18.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.
19.Cooksey, R. W., & Freebody, P. (1985). Generalized Multivariant Lens Model Analysis for Complex Human Inference Tasks. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.35, 46-72.
20.Cooksey, R.W. (1996). Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Applications. San Diego: Academic Press，1-54.
21.Cosier, R. A., & Rose, G. L. (1977). Cognitive Conflict and Goal Conflict Effects on Task Performances. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 19,378-391.
22.Creighton, J. L. (1980). A Tutorial : Acting as a Conflict Conciliator. The nvironmental Professional, Vol.2, 119-127.
23.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, 317-360.North-Holland:Elsevier Science Publishers.
24.Dhir, K. S., & Markman, H. J. (1984). Application of Social Judgment Theory to Understanding and Treation Marital Conflict. Journal of Marriage and The Family, 597-610.
25.Dowding, D.（2002）. Interpretation of risk and social judgment theory, In: Clinical decision Making and Judgment in nursing . Thompson, c., & Dowding, D.（Eds）, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 81-94.
26.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, 41-64
27.Dunn, W.N. (1994). Public Policy Analysis- An Introduction. Scond Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International, Inc.
28.Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.
29.Finkelstein, M.A., & Brannick,M.T.(1997). Making decisions about sexual intercourse: Capturing college students policies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol.19, 101-120.
30.Fischhoff, Slovic, B. P., Lichtenstein, S.(1980). Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In Wallsten, T. S., Cognitive process in choice and decision behavior. New York: Lawrebce Erlbaum Associates. Publisher, 117-142.
31.George,V., ＆ Wilding,p.（1993）.Ideologies and Welfare. London：Harvest Wheatsheaf.
32.Graesser, C. C.(1991). A Social Averaging Theorem for Group Decision Making. In N.H.Anderson(Ed.), Contributions to Information Integration Theory. Volume Π: Social. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
33.Hammond, K.R. (1965). New Directions in Research on Conflict Resolution. Journal of Social Issues, Vol.21, 44-66.
34.Hammond, K.R., Todd, F.J., Wilkins, M., & Mitchell, T.O. (1966).Cognitive conflict between persons : Application of the “lens model” paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol.2, 343-360.
35.Hammond, K.R., & Summers, D. A. (1972). Cognitive Control. Psychological Review,Vol.79, No.1, 58-67.
36.Hammond, K.R., Summers, D. A., & Deane, D.H. (1973a). Negative Effects of Outcome Feedback in Multiple-Cue Probability Learning . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.9, 30-34.
37.Hammond, K. R., & Brehmer, B. (1973b). Quasi-rationality and distrust: Implications for international conflict. In Rappoport, L. & Summers, D.(Eds.), Human judgment and social interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
38.Hammond, K. R. (1973). The Cognitive Conflict Paradigm. In L. Rappoport and Summers, D.A. (Eds.),Human Judgment and Social Interaction. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 188-205.
39.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 and Decision Processes. New York, Academic Press,271-306.
40.Hammond, K.R. (1976). Externalizing the Parameters of Quasirational Thought. Zeleny, M. (Ed.), Multicriteria Decision-Making. New York, 75-96.
41.Hammond, K.R. (1978). Toward Increasing Competence of Thought in Public Policy Formation, Judgment and Decision in Public Policy Formation. K.R. Hammond(Eds.), AAAS, Westview Press,11-31.
42.Hammond, K.R., McClelland, G.H.& Mumpower, J. (1980). Humana Judgment and Decision Making. Praeger.
43.Hammond, K. R. (1980a). The integration of research in judgment and decision theory. (Tech. Rep. No. 226): Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center for Research on Judgment and Policy.
44.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.
45. Hammoind, K.R.,& Adelman, L.（1986）. Science, Value and Human Judgment. In Arkes, H,R., and Hammond, K.R.（Eds.）, Judgment and Decision Making, 137.
46.Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy : Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. New York Oxford University Press.
47.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, vol.46, 34-54.
48.Hastie, R., & Rasinski, K.A. (1988). The concept of accuracy in social judgment, In D. Bar-Tal and A.W.Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 193-208.
49.Heider. F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
50.Helenius, M.(1973) Socially induced cognitive conflict: A study of disagreement over child rearing policies. In Rapport, L. & Summers, D.(Eds.), Human judgment and social interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
51. Hoffman, P. L., Earle, T. C., & Slovic, P. (1981). Multidimensional Learning and some new Conceptions of Feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.27, 75-102.
52.Holzworth, J. (1983). Intervention in a Cognitive Conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol.32, 216-231.
53.Humphreys, P., & Berkeley, D. (1985). Handling uncertainty:Levels of analysis of decision problems. In G. Wright (Ed.), Behavioral decision making. New York: Plenum Press, 257-282.
54.Hursch, C., Hammond, K. R., & Hursch, J.(1964). Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability studies.Psychological Review, Vol.71, 42-60.
55.Ingehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
56.Keeney, R.L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives:Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
57.Klayman, J. (1988). On the How and Why (not) of Learning from Outcomes, In Brehmer, B., & Joyce, C.R.B. (Eds.), Human Judgment: The SJT View. New York: North-Holland, 115-162.
58.Klir, G. (1989). Is there more to uncertainty than some probability theorists might have us believe? International Journal of General Systems, 15, 347-378.
59.Koele, P., & Hoogstraten, J.(1999).Determinants of dentists’ decisions to initiate dental implant treatment: A judgment analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry,Vol.81, 476-480.
60.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, 178-200.
61.Laudan, L. (1981). A problem-solving approach to scientific progress. In I. Hacking (Ed.), Scientific revolutions. Oxford University Press, 144-155.
62.McCartt, A. (1983). The Application of Social Judgment Analysis to Library Faculty Tenure Decisions. College and Research Libraries, Vol.44, 345-357.
63.Moore, C. W.(1982). Natural Resource Conflict Management. ROMCOE, Center for Environmental Problem Solving, Boulder, Colorado.
64.Miranda, M.L., Miller, J.N., & Jacobs, T.L. (2000). Talking Trash about Landfills: Using Quantitative Scoring Schemes in Landfill Siting Process. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(1), Winter 2000, 3-22.
65.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, 464-476.
66.Murphy, P., & Maynard, M.L.(1996).Using judgment analysis to improve consultant/client understanding: An advertising application. Journal of Applied Communication Research,Vol.24, 21-32.
67.Quade, E.S. (1975). Analysis for Public Decision. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., 1975.
68.Rapoport, A. (1961). Fights, games, and debates. Ann Arbor, Mich : Universityof Michigan Press.
69.Rapoport, A. (1964). Strategy and conscience. New York : Harper & Row.
70.Rappoport, L., & Summers, D. A. (1973). Human Judgment and Social Interaction. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 7.
71.Rohrbaugh, J. (1976). Cognitive Maps: Describin the Policy Ecology of a Community. Great Plains Rocky Mountain Geographical Journal, Vol.6, No.1, 64-73.
72.Rohrbough, J., & Wehr, P. (1978). Judgment Analysis in Policy Formation : a New Method for Improving Public Participation. Center for Research on Judgment and Policy Report No. 201, University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral Science.
73.Rothstein, H. G. (1986). The Effects of Time Pressure on Judgment on Multiple Cue Probability Learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.37, 83-92.
74.Sarbin, T.R. (1986). Prediction and clinical inference: Forty years later. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50,362-369.
75.Simon, H.A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63,129-138.(5)
76.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, 95-100.
77.Smithson, M. (1985). Toward a social theory of ignorance. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 15, 151-172.
78.Smithson, M. (1989). ignorance and uncertainty: Emerging paradigms. New York: Springer-Verlag.
79.Soederbaum, P. (1987). Environmental management: A nontraditional approach. Journal of Economic Issue, 21,139-165.
80.Sorum, P.C., Stewart, T.R., Mullet, E.,Gonzalez-Vallejo, C., Shim, J., Chasseigne, G., Sastre, M.T.M., & Grenier, B. (2002), Does choosing a Treatment Depend on Making a Diagnosis? US and French Physicians’ Decision Making about Acute Otitis Media. Medical Decision Making, Sep.- Oct. 2002, 394-402.
81.Stewart, T. R., & Leschine, T. M. (1986). Judgment and Analysis in Oil Spill Risk Assessment , Risk Analysis, Vol.6, No.3.
82.Taylor, L.A., III, Hall, P.D., Cosier, R.A., & Goodwin, V.L. (1996). Outcome feedback effects on risk propensity in an MCPLP task. Journal of Management, 22(2), 299-311.
83.Teigen, K.H. (1988). The language of uncertainty, Acta Psychologica, 68, 27-38.
84.Todd, F. J., Hammond, K. R., & Wilkins, M. (1966). Differential effects of ambiguous and exact feedback on two-person conflict and compromise.Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.10, 88-97.
85.Tolman, E. C., & Brunswik, E. (1953). The Organism and the Causal Texture of the Environment. Psychological Review Vol.42,43-77.
86.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185,1124-1131.
87.von Furstenberg,G.(Ed.).(1990). Acting under uncertainty: Multidisciplinary conceptions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
88.Von Winterfeldt,D.,& Edwards, W.(1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
89.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.
90.Wallsten, T.S. (1990). Measuring vague uncertainties and understanding their use in decision making. In G.M. von Furstenberg (Ed.), Acting under uncertainty:Multidisciplinary conceptions. Boston:Kluwer Academic Publishers,377-398.
91.Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
92.Wang, M. S. (1987). Addition of A Cognitive Dimension to the Analytical Hierarchy Process-A Land Use Decision-Making Example. Dissertation, the School of public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bollmington.
93.Wang, M.S.,Fang, J.K., & Bowen, W.M.(2000). An Integrated Schema for Environmental Management in Developing Countries. Environmental Management. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc., Vol.25, No.5, 463-476.
94.Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiattribute Utility Measurement , in Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill Press, 409-445.