社會判斷理論對互動管理成果之評估

The Adoption of SJT in Evaluating the Performance of IM

決策與判斷分析領域是公共事務管理的主要分析途徑之一。互動管理(Interactive Management, IM)與社會判斷理論(Social Judgment Theory, SJT)是兩種可適於形成多元社會共識的集體決策方法。本研究選擇具理論基礎的SJT驗證IM 成果的效度，研究成果顯示SJT 程序能獲得高滿意度的共識。另IM 成果則具備心理認知上的理論效度，提供IM 成果為參與者接受的理由。使用SJT 的受測者其一致性並未提高，但學習程度明顯向群體結論變動。在滿意度、學習程度與關心程度等主觀評量方面，使用SJT 的受測者優於未使用SJT 的受測者，但與使用IM 程序的受測者間則沒有明顯的差異。雖然使用SJT 的受測者間內隱的一致性雖然未提升，但對群體結論公開的滿意度卻高於未使用SJT 的受測者。顯示消弭衝突的方法不在建立單一的價值觀，而是設計一套能使當事人願意接受共識的程序。

In a plural democratic society, the macro phenomena and policies are formed by individual cognition and choices. Thus the domain of Judgment and Decision Analysis based on individual cognitions has become one of major approaches for Public Affairs Management. The policy problems generally involve with many different decision makers whose values are either unknown or impossible to rank in a consistent fashion. Different from individual decision-making, the group decision-making method can cope with multiple decision makers and their values. Therefore the group decision-making method is so helpful for reaching consensus and overcoming the individual cognition constraints that it’s necessary in forming public policies. By reviewing various group decision-making methods, this study found that Interactive Management (IM) and Social Judgment Theory (SJT) are two sorts of method which can be used to reach consensus in a plural society. As one of them, the IM results have been proved effective for solving complicated problems and compliant with citizen participation spirit of a plural society. However, the accuracy of IM results cannot be proved by the method and the weight between factors cannot identify, either. SJT can be used to analyze the assumption between decision criteria of different hierarchies and obtain the weights between different factors out of the same result so that SJT can examine the annotated graphics of IM. Besides, since SJT emphasizes cognitive feedback, it can facilitate reaching consensus by comparing various stakeholders’ judgment policy dissolving the cognitive conflicts. Thus this study applied theoretical SJT to examine the validity of IM results. We discussed SJT procedure in a collective, hierarchic and large-scaled way. The study also adopted classic experimental design to compare the cognitive changes of participants before and after the SJT procedure to explore the performance of SJT results of group decisionmaking in public affairs cases in terms of agreement, individual learning effect and satisfaction. The results of this study show that SJT procedure can be operated in a large-scaled way and reach consensus with high satisfaction. In addition, the theoretical validity of IM results on psychological cognition provides the reason why participants accepted the results. Talking about the changes of the participants’ cognition through SJT procedure, the participants using SJT have not improved their agreement except trained participants, while the learning effect changes significantly towards group conclusion. In the subjective evaluations such as satisfaction, learning effect and caring degree, the participants who use SJT are better than those who do not, but not better than those who use IM procedure. Though the covert agreement between the participants who use SJT has not been improved, their overt satisfaction towards the group conclusion is better than those who do not. It shows that the conflict between participants has not disappeared yet, while they accept the consensus. Therefore, the way to wipe away the conflicts in a plural society is not to build up a single exclusive value, but to design a procedure allowing the stakeholders accept consensus.