干预认知冲突

James Holzworth
{"title":"干预认知冲突","authors":"James Holzworth","doi":"10.1016/0030-5073(83)90148-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The cognitive conflict paradigm, developed within the framework of Social Judgment Theory, was used to determine effects of intervention in interpersonal conflict. Task predictability and the third party's knowledge of task characteristics were manipulated as independent variables. After being trained to have different policies, judges were brought together to work on a common set of judgment problems. During the conflict session, a third party (mediator) intervened to assist judges in making joint predictive judgments. Task predictability was found to have more effect on conflict reduction than did intervention. Overall, intervention did not appear to effect conflict reduction; however, mediator characteristics were significantly correlated with an objective measure of a mediator's relative usefulness. Results are discussed in terms of Social Judgment Theory, T. <span>A. Kochan and T. Jick's (<em>Journal of Conflict Resolution</em>, 1978, <strong>22</strong>, 209–240)</span> model of mediation effectiveness, and <span>I. D. Steiner's (<em>Group processes and productivity</em>, New York: Academic Press, 1972)</span> analysis of group productivity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":76928,"journal":{"name":"Organizational behavior and human performance","volume":"32 2","pages":"Pages 216-231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1983-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90148-4","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intervention in a cognitive conflict\",\"authors\":\"James Holzworth\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0030-5073(83)90148-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The cognitive conflict paradigm, developed within the framework of Social Judgment Theory, was used to determine effects of intervention in interpersonal conflict. Task predictability and the third party's knowledge of task characteristics were manipulated as independent variables. After being trained to have different policies, judges were brought together to work on a common set of judgment problems. During the conflict session, a third party (mediator) intervened to assist judges in making joint predictive judgments. Task predictability was found to have more effect on conflict reduction than did intervention. Overall, intervention did not appear to effect conflict reduction; however, mediator characteristics were significantly correlated with an objective measure of a mediator's relative usefulness. Results are discussed in terms of Social Judgment Theory, T. <span>A. Kochan and T. Jick's (<em>Journal of Conflict Resolution</em>, 1978, <strong>22</strong>, 209–240)</span> model of mediation effectiveness, and <span>I. D. Steiner's (<em>Group processes and productivity</em>, New York: Academic Press, 1972)</span> analysis of group productivity.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational behavior and human performance\",\"volume\":\"32 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 216-231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1983-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90148-4\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational behavior and human performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0030507383901484\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational behavior and human performance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0030507383901484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

认知冲突范式是在社会判断理论框架内发展起来的,用来确定干预人际冲突的效果。任务可预见性和第三方对任务特征的了解作为自变量。在接受不同政策的培训后,法官们被召集到一起,共同解决一系列审判问题。在冲突审理过程中,第三方(调解员)介入,协助法官共同作出预见性判决。任务可预见性比干预对减少冲突有更大的作用。总的来说,干预似乎没有减少冲突;然而,中介特征与中介相对有用性的客观测量显著相关。本文从社会判断理论、T. A. Kochan和T. Jick (Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1978, 22, 209-240)的调解有效性模型和I. D. Steiner (Group processes and productivity,纽约:学术出版社,1972)的群体生产力分析三个方面对结果进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intervention in a cognitive conflict

The cognitive conflict paradigm, developed within the framework of Social Judgment Theory, was used to determine effects of intervention in interpersonal conflict. Task predictability and the third party's knowledge of task characteristics were manipulated as independent variables. After being trained to have different policies, judges were brought together to work on a common set of judgment problems. During the conflict session, a third party (mediator) intervened to assist judges in making joint predictive judgments. Task predictability was found to have more effect on conflict reduction than did intervention. Overall, intervention did not appear to effect conflict reduction; however, mediator characteristics were significantly correlated with an objective measure of a mediator's relative usefulness. Results are discussed in terms of Social Judgment Theory, T. A. Kochan and T. Jick's (Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1978, 22, 209–240) model of mediation effectiveness, and I. D. Steiner's (Group processes and productivity, New York: Academic Press, 1972) analysis of group productivity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信