바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.28 No.2

Citation Share

정보처리과정의 편파와 의사결정: Hidden Profile 패러다임을 이용한 집단 의사결정의 연구

Bias in Information Processing and Decision Making: A Study of Group Decision Making by Hidden Profile Paradigm

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2014, v.28 no.2, pp.177-199
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.2.010
노혜경 (숙명여자대학교)
노혜경. (2014). 정보처리과정의 편파와 의사결정: Hidden Profile 패러다임을 이용한 집단 의사결정의 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 28(2), 177-199, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.2.010

초록

이 연구는 정보처리 과정의 편파가 의사결정에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 살펴보았다. 개인의 정보처리와 집단의 정보처리를 하나의 연속적인 과정으로 이해하고 각 단계에서 나타나는 정보처리 편파가 궁극적으로 집단의 의사결정의 질에 부정적으로 작용하는지 조사하였다. 개인적 정보처리의 편파로는 정보표집, 정보평가, 정보통합의 문제를 그리고 집단 단위에서는 정보교환과 의사결정의 문제들을 살펴보고 이들이 결과적으로 집단의 의사결정에 어떻게 연관되는지 알아보았다. 연구 결과 개인은 주어진 모든 정보를 다 이용하지 않고 주관적으로 중요한 소수의 정보를 중심으로 의사결정을 하며, 체계적 정보처리보다 직관적 정보처리가 더 우수한 의사결정을 가능케 하는 것으로 나타났다. 집단의 의사결정에서도 정보처리의 편파가 나타나 집단토론 시에 모든 정보가 동등하게 교환되지 않고, 공유정보를 비공유정보보다 더 빈번히 언급하고 더 중요한 것으로 판단하며, 또한 초기 의사결정을 고수하려는 확증편파도 나타났다. 위의 연구 결과를 바탕으로 개인 및 집단의 의사결정의 과정의 문제들을 개관하였으며 이를 통해 집단의 의사결정의 질을 향상시킬 수 있는 대처방안을 모색해 보았다.

keywords
Group Decision Making, biased information processing, hidden profile, information sampling, confirmaion bias, 집단의 의사결정, 정보처리의 편파, 숨겨진 속성, 정보표집, 확증편파

Abstract

Although groups have potentials of superior decision making than individuals on the basis of diverse sources and therefore a more complete information base, they do not always make better decisions than individuals. The present study examined influence of biased information processing on decision making. We regarded the process of decision making of individuals and of groups as a single continuous process. It was assumed that at each stage of decision making, the biased information processing would eventually impact on the quality of decision negatively. As factors which affect the quality of decision making, are included such as bias in information sampling, evaluating, integrating up to choosing the correct option, and bias in information exchanging and integrating in group decision making. Result suggested that individuals focus on a small number of subjective important informations for decision rather than use all given informations; moreover intuitive information processing enables better decision than systematic processing. Furthermore, not all informations are exchanged equivalent in group discussion, instead, shared informations are mentioned more frequently and deemed more important than unshared. It showed also confirmatory bias for the information which is consistent with the initial decision. Based on the result of the above study, some ways to improve group decision making are discussed.

keywords
Group Decision Making, biased information processing, hidden profile, information sampling, confirmaion bias, 집단의 의사결정, 정보처리의 편파, 숨겨진 속성, 정보표집, 확증편파

참고문헌

1.

Allingham, M. (2002). Choice Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2.

Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

3.

Brodbeck, F. C., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review, 32, 459-479.

4.

Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psyhology, Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.

5.

Buys, V. J. (1978). Humans would do better without groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 123-125.

6.

Campbell, J. & Stasser, G. (2006). The influence of time and task demonstrability on decisionmaking in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 37, 271-294.

7.

Chernyshenko, O. S., Miner, A. G., Baumann, M. R., & Sniezek, J. A. (2003). The impact of information distribution, ownership, and discussion on group member judgement: The differential cue weighting model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 12-25.

8.

Diehl, M. (2009). Group decision making as a multisource information sampling processes, Antrag auf Föderung im Rahmen einer Sachbeihilfe.

9.

Diehl, M., Möhle, B., Zipfel, C., & Ziegler, R. (in prep.). Uncovering hidden profiles by computer supported group decision making.

10.

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.

11.

Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity Loss in Idea-Generating Groups: Tracking down the Blocking Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403.

12.

Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 586-598.

13.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95-109.

14.

Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.

15.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes, Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

16.

Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitiveecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107, 659-676.

17.

Fiedler, K. (2008). The ultimate sampling dilemma in experience-based decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 186-203.

18.

Fiedler, K. & Kareev, Y. (2006). Does decision quality (always) increase with the size of information samples? Some vicissitudes in applying the law of large numbers, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 883-903.

19.

Forest, J. A., & Feldman, R. S. (2000). Detecting deception and judge’s involvement: Lower task involvement leads to better lie detection, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 118-125.

20.

Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 19, New York: Academic Press. 41-80.

21.

Gigerenzer, G., 2007, Good Feelings, Viking, New York

22.

Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probalistic Mental Models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence, Psychological Review, 98, 506-528.

23.

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

24.

Gigerenzer, G. & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality, Psychological Review, 103, 650-669.

25.

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation, In: P. Cole & J. Morgan, Syntax and semantics, New Yort:Academic Press, 41-58.

26.

Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Ruvolo, C, M. (1990). Stereotype-based expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 46, 35-60.

27.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

28.

Möhle, B., Diehl, M., & Willim, N. (2005), Reliability of information in computer mediated decision making groups. Poster presented at the 14th General Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Würzburg, Germany, July, 2005.

29.

Moscovici, S. & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135.

30.

Parks, C. D., & Cowlin, R. A. (1996). Acceptance of uncommon information into group discussion when that information is or is not demonstrable. Organization Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 66, 307-315.

31.

Ross, M. & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 322-336.

32.

Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. & Frey, D. (2002), Productive conflict in group decision making:Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563-586.

33.

Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F.C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R. & Frey, D., (2006), Group decision making in hidden profile situations:Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080-1093.

34.

Sedikides, C., Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1998). Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum.

35.

Stasser, G. (2000). Information distribution, participation, and group decision: Explorations with the DISCUSS and SPEAK Models. In Ilgen, D. R.; Hulin, C. L. (eds.), Computational modeling ofbehavior in organizations: The third scientific discipline. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 135-161.

36.

Stasser, G. & Stewart, D. D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision making groups:Solving problems versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.

37.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.

38.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304-313.

39.

Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I. & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 102-116.

40.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations. London: Little, Brown.

41.

Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability, Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.

42.

Wilson, T. D. & Schooler, J. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181-192.

43.

Wittenbaum, G. M, Hollingshead, A. B. & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71, 286-310.

44.

Zipfel, C. (2007). Ende mit Schrecken oder Schrecken ohne Ende - Escalation of Commitment in Gruppen, Berlin: Logos.

45.

Zuber, J. A. Crott, H. W., & Werner, J. (1992). Choice shift and group polarization: An analysis of the status of arguments and social decision schemes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 50-61.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책