观点产生任务中CM与FTF群体决策质量比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-20 20:06

本文选题：观点产生 + 头脑风暴　；参考：《浙江大学》2002年硕士论文

【摘要】：自1953年Osbom首次提出头脑风暴的概念和原则以来,头脑风暴法一直作为观点产生的最主要的技术之一,在促进个体或群体尽可能地提出所有观点这一方面发挥着巨大的作用。以往的研究表明,互动群体比同等规模的名义群体产生更少的观点,并认为造成这一现象的原因主要有三:产生式障碍、评价恐惧和社会闲混,其中产生式障碍是最主要的原因。随着整个社会的信息技术化程度日益加剧,在个体和群体决策的过程中,也出现了一些计算机支持和辅助系统。电子头脑风暴就是计算机技术在传统头脑风暴中的应用与扩展。从某种程度上而言,相对于头脑风暴法的传统形式,电子头脑风暴法最大的优点就在于它能够有效的克服产生式障碍这一弊端,并有助于大规模群体运用头脑风暴法进行观点产生。本研究采用实验室模拟实验,对群体规模、群体类型和交流方式等三个变量在群体运用FTF头脑风暴法和CM头脑风暴法进行观点产生在数量和质量等几个指标上进行了比较。主要结论如下:(1)有效观点和创新观点产生的数量,主要受到产生式障碍和评价恐惧的影响。产生式障碍主要存在于FTF互动群体中,随着群体规模的增大,产生式障碍越严重。产生式障碍主要影响群体有效观点产生的数量。评价恐惧主要存在于FTF互动群体中,不受群体规模的影响。评价恐惧主要影响到群体创新观点和反社会规范观点的产生。(2)交流方式对群体观点产生的深度和广度没有影响。匿名性和平行沟通是促进群体成员产生大量创新观点主要原因,即CM互动群体是群体创新观点产生的最佳群体。但交流方式不影响观点产生的深度和广度。群体规模和群体类型影响到观点产生的深度和广度。大规模群体产生的观点广度要显著高于小规模的群体产生的观点广度。名义群体比互动群体产生范围更广的观点。(3)CM条件下的成员对自己或群体所产生的观点用于解决实际问题的信心不足:并且比FTF群体在观点产生的过程中需要更长的时间。
[Abstract]:Since Osbom first put forward the concept and principle of brainstorming in 1953, brainstorming has been one of the most important techniques for the generation of ideas. It plays an important role in promoting individuals or groups to put forward all views as much as possible. Previous studies have shown that interactive groups produce fewer views than nominal groups of the same size, and believe that there are three main reasons for this phenomenon: production barriers, evaluation of fear and social idleness, Among them, the main reason is the production obstacle. With the increasing degree of information technology in the whole society, there are some computer support and auxiliary systems in the process of individual and group decision-making. Electronic brainstorming is the application and expansion of computer technology in traditional brainstorming. To some extent, compared to the traditional form of brainstorming, the greatest advantage of electronic brainstorming is that it can effectively overcome the drawback of productive obstacles. And help large-scale groups to use brainstorming method to produce ideas. In this study, three variables, group size, group type and communication mode, were compared in terms of quantity and quality by using FTF brainstorming method and CM brainstorming method. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) the number of effective and innovative ideas produced is mainly influenced by generative barriers and fear of evaluation. The productive obstacle mainly exists in the FTF interactive group. With the increase of the group size, the production obstacle becomes more serious. Productive barriers mainly affect the number of effective views produced by groups. Evaluation fear mainly exists in FTF interactive group and is not affected by group size. Evaluation fear mainly affects the generation of group innovation and antisocial norms.) the way of communication has no effect on the depth and breadth of group view. Anonymity and parallel communication are the main reasons to promote group members to produce a large number of innovative views, that is, CM interactive group is the best group to produce group innovation views. However, the way of communication does not affect the depth and breadth of the point of view. Group size and group type influence the depth and breadth of opinion. The breadth of views generated by large-scale groups is significantly higher than that by small-scale groups. The members under the condition of nominal group having a wider scope than the interactive group do not have enough confidence in themselves or the ideas produced by the group to solve practical problems: and it takes longer time than the FTF group in the process of producing the idea.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2002
【分类号】：C934

【引证文献】