多决策方法多交流方式的群体决策比较

心理学报 ›› 2005, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (02): 246-252.

多决策方法多交流方式的群体决策比较

郑全全,郑波,郑锡宁,许跃进

浙江大学心理学系，杭州 310028

收稿日期:2003-10-25 修回日期:1900-01-01 发布日期:2005-03-30 出版日期:2005-03-30
通讯作者: 郑全全

COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON DECISION-MAKING OF GROUPS USING MULTI-METHOD UNDER MULTI-COMMUNICATION CONDITIONS

Zheng Quanquan,Zheng Bo,Zheng Xining,Xu Yuejin

Department of Psychology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, China

Received:2003-10-25 Revised:1900-01-01 Online:2005-03-30 Published:2005-03-30
Contact: Zheng Quanquan

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用人员选拔的实验室模拟实验，以160名被试组成40个4人群体，对4种决策方法和2类交流方式的群体决策进行了比较。结果发现（1）决策方法和交流方式对于讨论过程的信息交流具有显著影响；（2）以计算机为中介进行决策的被试知觉到的任务难度要高于面对面决策条件；决策方法对于群体成员有关实验任务难度知觉具有主效应；交流方式和决策方法对于群体决策过程满意感和结果满意感没有显著影响；（3）在以投票轮次来表明群体达成一致意见所需时间上，决策方法对于投票轮次具有显著影响。恶魔式辩护、辨证式查询两种方法下所需的投票轮次多于专家意见法和自由讨论法的投票轮次。

关键词: 计算机中介, 面对面, 群体决策, 恶魔式辩护, 辨证式查询

Abstract: The relative effects of communication media (computer-mediated, CM vs. Face-To-Face, FTF) and methods of discussion, i.e., devil’s advocacy (DA), dialectical inquiry (DI), expertise (E), unstructured discussion (control group, C), on decision making of groups with simulated laboratory experiments of personnel selection were investigated by this study. The results showed: (1) There were significant effects of communication conditions and methods of discussion on information exchanging. (2) On the side of group members’ attitudes, the members suffered much more difficulty in CM than in FTF. There were major effects of methods of discussion on difficulty of decision-making felt by members. And there were no significant effects of communication media and methods of discussion on both process satisfaction and outcome satisfaction. (3) The number of turns of votes for making sure consensus under DA and DI was more than that under E and C. There were significant effects of methods of discussion on the number of turns of votes which indicated the total time of decision-making of groups.

Key words: computer-mediated, face-to-face, decision-making of group, devil’s advocacy, dialectical inquiry

中图分类号:

B849
C93

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(02), 246-252.

Zheng Quanquan,Zheng Bo,Zheng Xining,Xu Yuejin. (2005). COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON DECISION-MAKING OF GROUPS USING MULTI-METHOD UNDER MULTI-COMMUNICATION CONDITIONS. , 37(02), 246-252.

[1]	郑全全,李宏. 面对面和计算机群体决策在观点产生上的比较[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(04): 492-498.
[2]	朱华燕,郑全全. MAU程序和自由讨论的群体决策质量比较[J]. 心理学报, 2001, 33(6): 73-78.
[3]	郑全全,朱华燕. 自由讨论条件下群体决策质量的影响因素[J]. 心理学报, 2001, 33(3): 73-78.
[4]	郑全全,朱华燕,胡凌雁,吴昌旭,丁岳枫. 群体决策过程中的信息取样偏差[J]. 心理学报, 2001, 33(1): 68-74.