資料載入處理中...
臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統
:::
網站導覽
國圖首頁
聯絡我們
操作說明
English
行動版
(3.149.254.110)
登入
字型:
**字體大小變更功能,需開啟瀏覽器的JAVASCRIPT,如您的瀏覽器不支援,
IE6請利用鍵盤按住ALT鍵 + V → X → (G)最大(L)較大(M)中(S)較小(A)小,來選擇適合您的文字大小,
如為IE7以上、Firefoxy或Chrome瀏覽器則可利用鍵盤 Ctrl + (+)放大 (-)縮小來改變字型大小。
來源文獻查詢
引文查詢
瀏覽查詢
作者權威檔
引用/點閱統計
我的研究室
資料庫說明
相關網站
來源文獻查詢
/
簡易查詢
/
查詢結果列表
/
詳目列表
:::
詳目顯示
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆
/1
頁
來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料
題名:
個體自信度對雙人決策的影響
書刊名:
心理學報
作者:
余柳濤
/
鮑建樟
/
陳清華
/
王大輝
作者(外文):
Yu, Liu-tao
/
Bao, Jian-zhang
/
Chen, Qing-hua
/
Wang, Da-hui
出版日期:
2016
卷期:
2016(8)
頁次:
1013-1025
主題關鍵詞:
雙人決策
;
動態交互
;
自信度
;
自信度分享
;
虛擬決策
;
Dyadic decision making
;
Dynamic interaction
;
Confidence
;
Confidence sharing
;
Virtual decision making
原始連結:
連回原系統網址
相關次數:
被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
排除自我引用:0
共同引用:0
點閱:8
群體決策是重要的社會現象,個體自信度在群體決策中發揮了重要作用。本文開展了不同難度和信息交流方式下的雙人決策實驗,通過分析自信度和個體決策以及決策調整行為的關系,研究了個體自信度的交流對雙人決策的影響。實驗結果表明,個體的自信度與選擇的正確率高度正相關;雙人決策過程是個體根據對方的自信度和選擇來不斷調整自己的選擇最終達成一致的過程,并通過交互過程提高雙人決策的正確率;實驗中雙人決策的質量明顯優于"自信度分享模型"和"更自信者主導決策模型"的預期結果,表明群體決策不是通過分享自信度進行的貝葉斯優化整合過程,也不是由更自信的個體完全主導的過程。
以文找文
Making a decision as a group of individuals is at the core of any society. Group decision making(GDM) is thus a topic across many research fields. In particular, two questions are crucial to evaluate group decisions:(1) Whether the group performance is better or worse than that of the individuals, and(2) how the individuals’ decisions lead to the group decision. Previous studies have found controversial answers for the first question, indicating that group performance actually depends on the situation. Therefore, to better understand GDM, researchers have looked for the key factors that influence the formation of a group decision. Recently, confidence has been shown to play a pivotal role in this process. Bahrami et al.(2010) proposed a "weighted confidence sharing"(WCS) model to describe the information integration process in GDM. Koriat(2012) investigated the situation when "the more confident member dominates"(MCD) the decision of groups with two members. While explaining the performance of GDM, these studies ignored the dynamic information communication process. How the dynamical interaction between members of the group affects GDM is thus unclear. To explore this question, we designed and carried out a dyadic motion direction discrimination task with a varying communication process. In our three experiments, participants first decide individually in what direction random dots is moving and also report their confidence in a scale from 1 to 6 after making the decision. To study the dynamical process of reaching a consensual decision, we designed the experiments as follows. If the decisions of the two participants in a group are consensual, feedback information on the screen will tell them whether their answers are right or wrong; otherwise, they need to repeat the decision after seeing the identical stimulus again and incorporating information about the behavior of the other participant. In Experiment 1 and 2, each participant is informed about the other’s choice, while in Experiment 3 the other’s confidence is additionally reported. This process is repeated round-by-round until they reach a consensus. The task’s difficulty can be adjusted by varying the coherence level of the dot pattern(the fraction of dots moving towards the same direction) and by varying the number of choice alternatives(two directions for Experiment 1, and four directions for Experiment 2 and 3). Byfitting the experimental data using a cumulative Gaussian function, we compared the psychometric sensitivities between individuals, dyad and the WCS and MCD models. Furthermore, we built a model based on Markov process to consider the dynamic change of choice probability due to interaction. We found that in all three experiments, the accuracy of the first-round choice, which was done individually without influence of the other, strongly positively correlates with confidence(Pearson’s correlation coefficients approaching 0.99). However, in the following rounds, where the individual decision could be influenced by the other’s choices, the correlation of the accuracy with confidence decreases. This decrease is particularly evident in Experiment 3, where participants can gauge the confidence of each other. We further compared in Experiment 2 and 3 the relationship between the probability of changing one’s choice in the next round and the difference of the individual confidences in the current round. Our results show that the probability of changing the choice positively correlates with confidence difference, and the trend is more prominent for Experiment 3, where the participants can see each other’s confidence. This finding implies that confidence does affect each other’s choice during GDM. Further, the psychometric sensitivities hold the relationship S dyad(29)SW CS(29)S MCD ?S B(29)S A for all three experiments, implicating that neither the WCS nor the MCD model can describe the experimental data integrally. Moreover, SMCD is slightly smaller than SB in Experiment 1 and 2, which is reversed in Experiment 3, indicating confidence’s effect on GDM again. In conclusion, our results show that(1) the decision accuracy is positively correlated with individuals’ confidence;(2) the communication of confidence of the other can influence the tendency to change one’s decision, leading to higher probability to follow the other’s choice given that she/he is more confident;(3) the dyad performance is better than both individuals’ performance and both models’ predictions, indicating that the more confident member does not dominate the group decision and Bayesian integration of shared confidence cannot account for the whole group performance;(4) a Markov model considering the change of choice probability due to dynamic interactions described the experimental data well. However, to better understand the dynamics of GDM, we need to refine the experimental design to extend the interaction rounds in the future.
以文找文
期刊論文
1.
Kerr, N. L.、Tindale, R. S.(2004)。Group performance and decision making。Annual Review of Psychology,55,623-655。
2.
Woolley, A. W.、Chabris, C. F.、Pentland, A.、Hashmi, N.、Malone, T. W.(2010)。Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups。Science,330(6004),686-688。
3.
李紓、梁竹苑、孫彥(2012)。人類決策:基礎科學研究中富有前景的學科。中國科學院院刊,27(增刊),52-65。
延伸查詢
4.
熊菲、劉雲、司夏萌、程輝(2011)。不完全信息下的群體決策仿真。系統工程理論與實踐,31(1),151-157。
延伸查詢
5.
Toelch, U.、Bach, D. R.、Dolan, R. J.(2014)。The neural underpinnings of an optimal exploitation of social information under uncertainty。Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,9(11),1746-1753。
6.
Suzuki, S.、Harasawa, N.、Ueno, K.、Gardner, J. L.、Ichinohe, N.、Haruno, M.、Nakahara, H.(2012)。Learning to simulate others' decisions。Neuron,74(6),1125-1137。
7.
Suzuki, S.、Adachi, R.、Dunne, S.、Bossaerts, P.、O'Doherty, J. P.(2015)。Neural mechanisms underlying human consensus decision-making。Neuron,86(2),591-602。
8.
Simon, H. A.、Dantzig, G. B.、Hogarth, R.、Plott, C. R.、Raiffa, H.、Schelling, T. C.、Winter, S.(1987)。Decision making and problem solving。Interfaces,17(5),11-31。
9.
Purushothaman, G.、Bradley, D. C.(2005)。Neural population code for fine perceptual decisions in area MT。Nature Neuroscience,8(1),99-106。
10.
李武、席酉民、成思危(2002)。群體決策過程組織研究述評。管理科學學報,5(2),55-66。
延伸查詢
11.
Laughlin, P. R.、Hatch, E. C.、Silver, J. S.、Boh, L.(2006)。Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size。Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90(4),644-651。
12.
Kugler, T.、Kausel, E. E.、Kocher, M. G.(2012)。Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups。Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science,3(4),471-482。
13.
Krause, J.、Ruxton, G. D.、Krause, S.(2010)。Swarm intelligence in animals and humans。Trends in Ecology & Evolution,25(1),28-34。
14.
Koriat, A.(2015)。When two heads are better than one and when they can be worse: The amplification hypothesis。Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,144(5),934-950。
15.
Koriat, A.(2012)。When are two heads better than one and why?。Science,336(6079),360-362。
16.
Juni, M. Z.、Eckstein, M. P.(2015)。Flexible human collective wisdom。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,41,1588-1611。
17.
Khasawneh, R. T.、Abu-Shanab, E. A.(2013)。Factors influencing group decision making performance in a GSS enabled environment。Computer Science and Information Technology,1(2),145-152。
18.
Koriat, A.(2008)。Subjective confidence in one's answers: The consensuality principle。Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,34(4),945-959。
19.
Koriat, A.(2012)。The self-consistency model of subjective confidence。Psychological Review,119(1),80-113。
20.
Churchland, A. K.、Kiani, R.、Shadlen, M. N.(2008)。Decision-making with multiple alternatives。Nature Neuroscience,11(6),693-702。
21.
De Lafuente, V.、Jazayeri, M.、Shadlen, M. N.(2015)。Representation of accumulating evidence for a decision in two parietal areas。Journal of Neuroscience,35(10),4306-4318。
22.
Haney, C. W.、Banks, C.、Zimbardo, P. G.(1973)。Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison。International Journal of Criminology & Penology,1(1),69-97。
23.
Hebart, M. N.、Schriever, Y.、Donner, T. H.、Haynes, J. D.(2016)。The relationship between perceptual decision variables and confidence in the human brain。Cerebral Cortex,26(1),118-130。
24.
Hertwig, R.(2012)。Tapping into the wisdom of the crowd-with confidence。Science,336(6079),303-304。
25.
Bahrami, B.、Olsen, K.、Bang, D.、Roepstorff, A.、Rees, G.、Frith, C.(2012)。What failure in collective decision-making tells us about metacognition。Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences,367(1594),1350-1365。
26.
Bahrami, B.、Olsen, K.、Latham, P. E.、Roepstorff, A.、Rees, G.、Frith, C. D.(2010)。Optimally interacting minds。Science,329(5995),1081-1085。
27.
Baron, R. S.(2005)。So right it's wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making。Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,37,219-253。
28.
Branson, L.、Steele, N. L.、Sung, C. H.(2010)。When two heads are worse than one: Impact of group style and information type on performance evaluation。Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences,22(1),75-84。
29.
Britten, K. H.、Shadlen, M. N.、Newsome, W. T.、Movshon, J. A.(1992)。The analysis of visual motion: A comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance。Journal of Neuroscience,12(12),4745-4765。
30.
Latané, Bibb、Williams, Kipling D.、Harkins, Stephen G.(1979)。Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing。Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37(6),822-832。
圖書論文
1.
Yu, A. J.(2015)。Decision-making tasks。Encyclopedia of computational neuroscience。New York:Springer。
推文
當script無法執行時可按︰
推文
推薦
當script無法執行時可按︰
推薦
引用網址
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
當script無法執行時可按︰
引用嵌入語法
轉寄
當script無法執行時可按︰
轉寄
top
:::
相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱
無相關期刊論文
無相關博士論文
無相關書籍
無相關著作
1.
經驗開放性對跨文化管理有效性的作用機制
2.
積極應對還是逃避? 主動性人格對職場排斥與組織公民行為的影響機制
3.
基於QQ空間的社交網站使用對青少年抑鬱的影響:上行社會比較和自尊的序列中介作用
4.
漢語兒童讀詞者的認知特徵及其影響因素
5.
認知重評阻斷條件化恐懼記憶的習得與表達--對恐懼反應的長程抑制作用
6.
基於價值的議程對學習時間分配影響的眼動研究
7.
提取誘發遺忘中的情緒記憶權衡效應
8.
經濟地位和計量地位:社會地位比較對主觀幸福感的影響及其年齡差異
9.
與上司“心有靈犀”會讓你的工作更出色嗎?--追隨原型一致性、工作投入與工作績效
10.
認知控制在工作記憶表徵引導注意中的作用:來自眼動的證據
11.
義符啟動範式下義符的語義和語法激活的時間進程
12.
漢語塞-元-塞音序列語境效應機制探討
13.
誰該成為體驗型產品網絡評論的主角,圖片還是文字?
14.
個體攻擊性對憤怒表情類別知覺的影響
15.
聲調在漢語音節感知中的作用
QR Code