Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2020, Vol. 28 Issue (1) : 41-54     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00041
Special Section of Public Psychological Services: Research and Practice |
The evaluation methods of group decision-making and their applications among college students and community residents
CHI Liping1,XIN Ziqiang2(),SUN Dongqing2
1 School of Child Development and Education, China Women’s University, Beijing 100101, China;
2 School of Sociology and Psychology, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China
Download: PDF(863 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  

The construction of social psychological service system means applying psychological theories, methods and techniques to social governance. Social governance usually is a process of multi-subject co-governance, in which all stakeholders make a group decision based on negotiation. However, it is difficult to systematically evaluate the quality of group decision-making. Therefore, a "process-result model" of group decision-making was proposed, in which the quality of group decision-making is evaluated on the levels of “process” and “result”. Concretely, there are two types of processes of “information processing” and “interpersonal interaction”, and two types of results including “objective decision results” and “subjective feeling”. Based on the model, a video evaluation method and a self-assessment questionnaire to measure the quality of group decision-making were developed and applied among college students and urban community residents. It was found that the self-assessment questionnaire of group decision-making was a valid instrument. Moreover, the results from the video evaluation method and the self-assessment questionnaire could confirm each other, which suggests that these two methods can be generalized into more settings of social governance.

Keywords group decision-making      process-result model      community council      social governance     
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
Corresponding Authors: Ziqiang XIN     E-mail: xinziqiang@sohu.com
Issue Date: 21 November 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Liping CHI
Ziqiang XIN
Dongqing SUN
Cite this article:   
Liping CHI,Ziqiang XIN,Dongqing SUN. The evaluation methods of group decision-making and their applications among college students and community residents[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(1): 41-54.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00041     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2020/V28/I1/41
  
问卷项目 选项
(1)这次讨论中, 你提出多少相关的意见或建议? ①完全没有 ②有一些 ③比较多 ④相当多 ⑤非常多
(2)你提出的观点是否能被他人准确理解? ①完全不理解 ②少部分理解 ③一半理解 ④大部分理解 ⑤完全理解
(3)讨论中, 大家说出了多少你之前不知道的重要消息? ①完全没有 ②有一些 ③比较多 ④相当多 ⑤非常多
(4)讨论中, 你是否主动对他人的观点做出评价? ①从没有 ②偶尔有 ③有时有 ④经常有 ⑤总是有
(5)你在多大程度上主动参与到这次话题的讨论中? ①从不 ②偶尔 ③有时 ④经常 ⑤总是
(6)讨论过程中你是否有机会平等地表达你的观点? ①从没有 ②偶尔有 ③有时有 ④经常有 ⑤总是有
(7)你发表观点时, 是否担心自己的观点受到他人指责? ①从没有 ②偶尔有 ③有时有 ④经常有 ⑤总是有
(8)决策结果是否符合你个人的需求? ①完全不符 ②比较不符 ③说不好 ④比较符合 ⑤完全符合
(9)你是否会配合这次讨论结果的执行(或实施)? ①一定不会 ②大部分不会 ③说不好 ④大部分会 ⑤一定会
(10)这次讨论中, 大家说出了多少对决策有重要作用的信息? ①完全没有 ②有一些 ③比较多 ④相当多 ⑤非常多
(11)大家谈论的内容是否和商讨的事情有关, 没有跑题? ①总是跑题 ②经常跑题 ③有时跑题 ④偶尔跑题 ⑤从未跑题
(12)大家在讨论过程中是否踊跃地建言献策? ①从没有 ②偶尔有 ③有时有 ④经常有 ⑤总是有
(13)讨论过程中大家是否存在不同观点的争论? ①从没有 ②偶尔有 ③有时有 ④经常有 ⑤总是有
(14)讨论中, 每个人的发言机会平等吗?
①非常不平等 ②比较不平等 ③说不好 ④比较平等 ⑤完全平等
(15)领导鼓励大家表达自己不同的观点和意见吗?
①非常不鼓励 ②不太鼓励 ③说不好 ④比较鼓励 ⑤非常鼓励
(16)为了和多数人保持一致, 是否有些人有不同的想法也不说? ①完全没有 ②有一些 ③比较多 ④相当多 ⑤非常多
(17)你对这次群体讨论得出的结论满意吗?
①完全不满意 ②比较不满意 ③说不好 ④比较满意 ⑤完全满意
(18)讨论结束后, 大家的关系是否和谐融洽?
①非常不和谐 ②比较不和谐 ③说不好 ④比较和谐 ⑤非常和谐
  
组别 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
群体分 3.93 ± 0.46 3.67 ± 0.00 3.71 ± 0.39 3.82 ± 0.28 3.89 ± 0.24 3.67 ± 0.45 4.24 ± 0.30 3.58 ± 0.18 3.89 ± 0.35 4.07 ± 0.20
排序 3 8.5 7 6 4.5 8.5 1 10 4.5 2
自我分 3.89 ± 0.53 3.72 ± 0.33 3.56 ± 0.08 3.62 ± 0.19 3.82 ± 0.33 3.60 ± 0.70 4.00 ± 0.32 3.42 ± 0.36 3.53 ± 0.41 3.71 ± 0.38
排序 2 4 8 6 3 7 1 10 9 5
  
组别 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
评估者A排序 1 5 8 6 7 9 2 10 4 3
评估者B排序 3 7 6 8 4 9 1 10 5 2
问卷群体分排序 3 8.5 7 6 4.5 8.5 1 10 4.5 2
  
  
  
组别 互动
次数
成员1 成员2 成员3 成员4 成员5
1 206 66 41 11 7 81
2 115 26 42 16 31
3 100 40 12 4 33 11
4 312 82 63 55 46 66
5 333 5 77 91 45 115
6 202 28 6 89 33 46
7 325 71 60 85 81 28
8 238 11 92 54 70 11
9 238 50 48 1 70 69
10 184 29 47 45 42 21
  
  
  
组别 讨论阶段数 互动类别 是否轮流发言 是否有明确
领导者
特点
1 10 循序渐进 3人主要发言, 空调使用经验丰富
2 8 两步一回头 无讨论交锋, 每人负责一项单独决定; 缺一人
3 6 循序渐进 讨论太表面, 没有深入展开
4 随机漫步 讨论无主线, 整体散乱, 目标不明确
5 11 两步一回头 新点子多, 时间感强
6 8 随机漫步 组长讲话具有攻击性、褒贬色彩严重
7 14 循序渐进 思路清晰、讨论充分, 后期有跑题
8 随机漫步 为避免矛盾出现群体思维、无理由妥协; 一人迟到
9 10 两步一回头 时间富裕, 存在小圈子讨论现象
10 11 循序渐进 交锋充分, 多次征询
  
组别 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
广度 70 40 80 30 50 30 70 40 50 70
深度 120 50 110 50 50 60 110 60 50 80
  
组别 人数 前测广度 前测深度 后测广度 后测深度 前测问卷 后测问卷
A社区 9 30 90 60 180 4.09 ± 0.38 4.31 ± 0.26
B社区 7 60 150 50 130 4.25 ± 0.42 4.03 ± 0.52
C社区 8 60 160 50 120 4.50 ± 0.29 4.33 ± 0.30
  
组别 时长 发言
字数
总发言
次数
跑题
次数
多人同时发言 一言堂
时长 占比 发言次数 占比
A社区 30′44″ 3626 114 4 19′26″ 62.91% 17 14.91%
B社区 30′12″ 6824 155 5 2′01″ 6.68% 48 30.97%
C社区 28′18″ 5757 134 2 1′46″(7) 6.42% 17 12.69%
  
1 毕鹏程 . ( 2010). 领导风格对群体决策过程及结果的影响. 经济管理, 32( 2), 80-84.
2 陈明榴 . ( 2015, 1月). 群体决策综述. 科教导刊(上旬刊)), ( 1), 187.
3 傅小兰 . ( 2017, 11月). 加强社会心理服务体系建设. 人民论坛, ( S2), 124.
4 寇延丁, 袁天鹏 . (2012). 可操作的民主: 罗伯特议事规则下乡全纪录.杭州: 浙江大学出版社.
5 卢志平 . ( 2010). 群体决策过程的复杂性及其演化. 科技管理研究, 30( 14), 264-268.
6 罗伯特 . (2014). 罗伯特议事规则 (袁天鹏, 孙涤译).南京:江苏科学技术出版社.
7 沙勇忠, 陆莉 . ( 2016). 一种基于会话文本的群体决策冲突检测方法. 图书情报知识, ( 1), 108-115.
8 孙冬青, 辛自强 . ( 2017). 群体决策的研究范式及决策质量评估方法. 心理技术与应用, 5( 10), 628-637.
9 孙江涛 . (2018,7月). 浅析居民参与社区协商议事的过程与方法. 中国社会工作, ( 19), 31-32.
10 王燕 . ( 2015). 上访群体的社区维稳与社会工作介入研究. 企业导报, ( 10), 190-190.
11 辛自强 . (2018a). 社会治理中的心理学问题. 心理科学进展, 26( 1), 1-13.
12 辛自强 . (2018b). 社会心理服务体系建设的定位与思路. 心理技术与应用, 6( 5), 257-261.
13 于泳红, 汪航 . ( 2008). 群体决策中非共享信息加工的影响因素研究进展. 心理科学, 31( 4), 1007- 1009, 1013.
14 赵春飞 . ( 2016). 社区治理现状浅析. 中国经贸导刊, ( 6), 70-72.
15 郑全全, 李宏 . ( 2003). 面对面和计算机群体决策在观点产生上的比较. 心理学报, 35( 4), 492-498.
16 郑全全, 郑波, 郑锡宁, 许跃进 . ( 2005). 多决策方法多交流方式的群体决策比较. 心理学报, 37( 2), 246-252.
17 郑全全, 朱华燕 . ( 2001). 自由讨论条件下群体决策质量的影响因素. 心理学报, 33( 3), 264-269.
18 Alfandari R.( 2019). Multi-professional work in child protection decision-making: An Israeli case study. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 51-57.
19 Blackhurst J., Wu T. T., & Craighead C. W . ( 2008). A systematic approach for supply chain conflict detection with a hierarchical Petri Net extension. Omega, 36( 5), 680-696.
20 BurtscherM.., &Meyer, B . ( 2014). Promoting good decisions: How regulatory focus affects group information processing and decision-making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17( 5), 663-681.
url: http://dx.doi.org/ Processes
21 Chapman,J.( 2006). Anxiety and defective decision making: An elaboration of the groupthink model. Management Decision, 44( 10), 1391-1404.
22 Cordes,S. ( 2016). Virtual team learning: The role of collaboration process and technology affordance in team decision making. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 8( 4), 602-627.
23 DeiglmayrA., &Spada, H . ( 2010). Collaborative problem- solving with distributed information: The role of inferences from interdependent information. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13( 3), 361-378.
url: http://dx.doi.org/oup Processes
24 Devine D. J., Clayton L. D., Philips J. L., Dunford B. B., & Melner S. B . ( 1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30( 6), 678-711.
25 ErtacS., &Gurdal M.Y, . ( 2019). Preference communication and leadership in group decision-making. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics,80,130-140.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.004
26 Hillebregt C. F., Scholten E. W. M., Post M. W. M., Visser-Meily J. M. A., & Ketelaar M . (2019). Family group decision making interventions in adult healthcare and welfare: A systematic literature review of its key elements and effectiveness. BMJ Open, doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2018-026768.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bmjopen-2018-026768.
27 LamS.., &Schaubroeck, J . (2011). Information sharing and group efficacy influences on communication and decision quality. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28( 3), 509-528.
28 Larson J. R., Pennie G .,Foster -Fishman& Keys, C. B. .,(1994). Discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67( 3), 446-461.
29 Postmes T., Spears R., & Cihangir S . (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80( 6), 918-930.
30 Reimer T., Reimer A., & Czienskowski U . ( 2010). Decision-making groups attenuate the discussion bias in favor of shared information: A meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 77( 1), 121-142.
31 RillingJ.., &Sanfey A.G, . ( 2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62( 1), 23-48.
32 Salerno J. M., Peter-Hagene L. C .,& Jay A. C. V. .,( 2019). Women and African Americans are less influential when they express anger during group decision making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22( 1), 57-79.
url: http://dx.doi.org/ Processes
33 Sinaceur M., Thomas-Hunt M. C., Neale M. A., O’Neill O. A., & Haag C . ( 2010). Accuracy and perceived expert status in group decisions: When minority members make majority members more accurate privately. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36( 3), 423-437.
34 Taylor D. W., Berry P. C., & Block C. H . ( 1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3( 1), 23-47.
35 TimmermansD., &Vlek, C . ( 1996). Effects on decision quality of supporting multi-attribute evaluation in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(2), 158-170.
36 WoolleyA., &Malone, T . ( 2011). What makes a team smarter? More women. Harvard Business Review, 89( 6), 32-33.
37 Xiao Y., Zhang H., & Basadur T. M . ( 2016). Does information sharing always improve team decision making? An examination of the hidden profile condition in new product development. Journal of Business Research, 69( 2), 587-595.
[1] WANG Junxiu. The public psychological service system with multiple integrated structures: Policy-making approach, construction strategy and core content[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(1): 55-61.
[2] CHEN Xuefeng,TENG Diqing,CHEN Jing,LI Yanmei. Effects of fundamental social motives on social behaviors and the system of public psychological services[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(1): 13-21.
[3] XIN Ziqiang.  Psychological issues inside social governance[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(1): 1-13.
[4] CHEN Ting; SUN Xiaomin. Shared information bias in group decision-making: Based on hidden profile paradigm[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2016, 24(1): 132-142.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech