社会动机一致性与问责对群体决策的影响

心理与行为研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (4): 528-534.

社会动机一致性与问责对群体决策的影响

王晓庄^1,2,3, 张皎霄², 赵嘉妍⁴, 赵玥², 安晓镜⁵, Ngure Mary Muthoni²

1. 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津 300387;
2. 天津师范大学心理学部，天津 300387;
3. 学生心理发展与学习天津市高校社会科学实验室，天津 300387;
4. 天津城市建设管理职业技术学院，天津 300134;
5. 邢台学院教科部，邢台 054001

收稿日期:2020-12-25 出版日期:2021-07-20 发布日期:2021-07-20
通讯作者: 张皎霄,E-mail:zjx_psy@126.com
基金资助:
天津市哲学社会科学规划课题（TJJX18-012）

The Influence of Social Motivation Consistency and Accountability on Group Decision-Making

WANG Xiaozhuang^1,2,3, ZHANG Jiaoxiao², ZHAO Jiayan⁴, ZHAO Yue², AN Xiaojing⁵, NGURE Mary Muthoni²

1. Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
2. Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
3. Tianjin Social Science Laboratory of Students’ Mental Development and Learning, Tianjin 300387;
4. Tianjin Urban Construction Management & Vocation Technology College, Tianjin 300314;
5. Department of Education Science, Xingtai University, Xingtai 054001

Received:2020-12-25 Online:2021-07-20 Published:2021-07-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用隐藏文档范式决策任务，探究群体成员社会动机一致性对决策的影响及问责的促进作用。实验1通过社会动机启动，考察全员合作、多数合作、多数利己、全员利己四种群体的信息分享及决策正确率。结果发现，合作动机成员比例越高，群体信息分享和决策质量越好，信息分享在成员社会动机与决策质量间起完全中介作用；少数利己成员的存在对合作成员的信息分享产生负面影响。实验2检验过程问责与结果问责对多数利己、全员利己群体决策的促进作用。结果发现，两种问责方式均促进了群体的信息分享与决策质量。本研究深化了社会动机影响群体决策的机制及促进途径。

关键词: 群体决策, 社会动机, 问责, 隐藏文档范式

Abstract: The present study aimed to explore the influence of social-motivation consistency among group members on decision-making and the promoting effect of accountability on decision-making by using the Hidden Profile Paradigm. Experiment 1 investigated the information sharing and the accuracy of group decision-making by priming the social motivation of individuals in four groups: all members cooperation, majority members cooperation, majority members self-interest, and all members self-interest. The results showed that the higher the proportion of members with cooperative motivation, the better the information sharing and decision-making. The information-sharing played a complete mediating effect between the proportion of members with cooperative motivation and the performance of decision-making. Moreover, the minority with self-interested motivation decreased the information sharing among cooperative members. Experiment 2 examined the effects of process accountability and outcome accountability on the facilitation of decision-making in two groups in which the majority had self-interested motivation, or full members had self-interested motivation. The results demonstrated that both kinds of accountability promoted the information share and improved the quality of decision-making. This study provided a deep understanding of the mechanism and the promotion approaches underlying the impact of social motivation consistency on group decision-making.

Key words: group decision making, social motivation, accountability, hidden profile paradigm

中图分类号:

B849

王晓庄, 张皎霄, 赵嘉妍, 赵玥, 安晓镜, Ngure Mary Muthoni. 社会动机一致性与问责对群体决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 528-534.

WANG Xiaozhuang, ZHANG Jiaoxiao, ZHAO Jiayan, ZHAO Yue, AN Xiaojing, NGURE Mary Muthoni. The Influence of Social Motivation Consistency and Accountability on Group Decision-Making[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(4): 528-534.

参考文献

陈婷, 孙晓敏. (2016). 团队决策中的共享信息偏差: 基于隐藏文档范式的机制、影响因素探究. 心理科学进展, 24(1), 132–142
刘国芳, 辛自强, 林崇德. (2017). 人际信任中的坏苹果效应及其传递. 心理与行为研究, 15(5), 691–696, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2017.05.016
刘红云, 骆方, 张玉, 张丹慧. (2013). 因变量为等级变量的中介效应分析. 心理学报, 45(12), 1431–1442
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, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2008.04.061
Beugré, C. D. (2005). Reacting aggressively to injustice at work: A cognitive stage model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 291–301, doi: 10.1007/s10869-005-8265-1.
de Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49, doi: 10.1177/1088868307304092.
de Langhe, B., van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Wierenga, B. (2011). The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 238–252, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.003.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222, doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9.
Freeman, L., & Greenacre, L. (2011). An examination of socially destructive behaviors in group work. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 5–17, doi: 10.1177/0273475310389150.
Jaikumar, S., & Mendonca, A. (2017). Groups and teams: A review of bad apple behavior. Team Performance Management, 23(5–6), 243–259.
Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information & Management, 47(3), 188–196.
Liu, Y. C., & McLeod, P. L. (2014). Individual preference for procedural order and process accountability in group problem-solving. Small Group Research, 45(2), 154–175, doi: 10.1177/1046496414522716.
Nguyen, T. M., Nham, T. P., Froese, F. G., & Malik, A. M. (2019). Motivation and knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis of main and moderating effects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(5), 998–1016, doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2019-0029.
Nijstad, B. A., & Oltmanns, J. (2012). Motivated information processing and group decision refusal. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(5), 637–651.
Patil, S. V., Vieider, F., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Process versus outcome accountability. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 69–89). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peniwati, K. (2017). Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 9(3), 533.
Randall, K. R., Resick, C. J., & DeChurch, L. A. (2011). Building team adaptive capacity: The roles of sensegiving and team composition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 525–540, doi: 10.1037/a0022622.
Sassenberg, K., Landkammer, F., & Jacoby, J. (2014). The influence of regulatory focus and group vs. individual goals on the evaluation bias in the context of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 153–164, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.009.
Scholten, L., van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 539–552, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.010.
Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 1–17, doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0001.
Steinel, W., Utz, S., & Koning, L. (2010). The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing information: Revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and importance of information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 85–96, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.07.001.
Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Hidden profiles and concealed information: Strategic information sharing and use in group decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 793–806, doi: 10.1177/0146167209333176.
Toma, C., & Butera, F. (2015). Cooperation versus competition effects on information sharing and use in group decision-making. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 9(9), 455–467.
Velden, F. S. T., Beersma, B., & de Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Majority and minority influence in group negotiation: The moderating effects of social motivation and decision rules. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 259–268, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.259.