본문 바로가기
KERD
논문

피드백이 추가된 하이브리드 협력이 의사결정에 미치는 영향: 숨겨진 속성 과제를 중심으로

The Effect of Feedback-Enhanced Hybrid collaboration on Group Decision Making in Hidden Profile Situations

박주용|박정연
한국심리학회 (The Korean Psychological Association)|2024.03|한국심리학회지:일반 (Korean Journal of Psychology: General)|제43권 제1호|pp. 65-85|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2024.3.43.1.65

1

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

피드백feedbackgroup decision making하이브리드 협력숨겨진 속성hidden profile집단 의사결정hybrid collaboration
주제분류심리과학

초록

하이브리드 협력이란 개인이 먼저 과제를 수행한 다음 그 결과를 이용하는 협력 방식을 가리킨다. 선행연구에서 이 방식이, 처음부터 협력하게 하는 방식에 비해 아이디어 산출과제에서 더 우수한 성과를 보인다는 것이 확인되었다. 본 연구에서는 하이브리드 방식에 피드백을 추가하는 새로운 협력 방식을 제안하고 의사결정 과제에서 그 효과를 검증하였다. 피드백이란 과제에 참여한 구성원들이 수행 결과에 대해 서로 코멘트를 주고받는 활동으로, 본 연구에서는 개별 구성원의 의사결정문을 대상으로 하였다. 의사결정 장면에서의 피드백 활동의 효과를 알아보기 위해, 숨겨진 속성 과제를 사용하였다. 이 과제에서는 집단 구성원들이 공유되지 않은 특수한 정보를 공유할 때 비로소 정확한 의사결정을 내릴 수 있다는 특징이 있다. 267명의 대학생 참가자를, 처음부터 함께 과제를 수행하는 전통적 협력 조건, 하이브리드 협력 조건, 그리고 피드백이 추가된 하이브리드 협력 조건으로 나누어 과제를 수행하게 한 다음, 의사결정과 토론의 질을 비교하였다. 의사결정의 질은 의사결정의 정확성으로, 토론의 질은 토론 강도와 토론 편향으로 각각 분석하였다. 토론 강도는 시간당 언급된 정보의 양으로, 토론 편향은 비공유 정보 대비 공유 정보의 언급 비율로 계산되었다. 실험 결과, 피드백이 추가된 하이브리드 협력 집단에서의 의사결정이 가장 정확하였고, 하이브리드 집단과 전통적 집단에서의 차이는 유의미하지 않았다. 토론 강도에서는, 피드백이 추가된 협력 집단이 가장 높았고, 이어서 하이브리드 협력 집단이, 그리고 전통적 협력 집단이 가장 낮았다. 토론 편향의 경우, 세 협력 방식에서 유의미한 차이가 발견되지 않았다. 이상의 결과는 피드백을 이용한 협력이, 기존의 다른 협력 방식에 비해, 숨겨진 속성 과제에서 집단 의사결정의 성과를 높일 수 있음을 보여준다.

Abstract

Hybrid collaboration is a method where individuals first tackle tasks independently before utilizing their outcomes collaboratively. Prior studies have demonstrated its superiority in idea generation tasks over starting with collaboration from the outset. This research introduces an innovative collaborative method by integrating feedback into the hybrid collaboration and examines its effect on a decision-making task. To assess the effectiveness of feedback, a hidden profile task was employed. The experiment was conducted with 267 undergraduate students, who were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: traditional collaboration(working together from the start), hybrid collaboration, and feedback-enhanced hybrid collaboration. Participants carried out tasks under these conditions, with their performance later evaluated to compare the decision quality and the discussion quality. Decision quality was evaluated based on accuracy, while discussion quality was measured through intensity and bias. Findings indicated that the feedback-enhanced hybrid collaboration achieved the highest decision accuracy, with no significant difference between hybrid and traditional collaboration. Discussion intensity was highest in the group with feedback-enhanced hybrid collaboration, followed by the hybrid collaboration, and finally, the traditional collaboration. No significant differences in discussion bias were detected across the various collaboration methods. These findings imply that integrating feedback into collaborative processes can improve group decision-making performance in hidden profile situations.

참고문헌 (53)

  1. Anderson, L. R., "Information cascades in the laboratory", The American Economic Review, 87(5), pp.847~862 (1997)
  2. Armstrong, J. S, "Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (Vol. 30)" (2001)
  3. Bae S. J., "The validity of using cumulative peer assessed scores for final grades in college courses", Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 27(2), pp.221~245 (2016)[DOI]
  4. Brookfield, S. D., "Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms" (2012)
  5. Brodbeck, F. C., "The dissemination of critical, unshared information in decision making groups : The effects of pre-discussion dissent", European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(1), pp.35~56 (2002)[DOI]
  6. Buckingham, M., "The feedback fallacy", Harvard Business Review, 97(2), pp.92~101 (2019)
  7. Ciftci, H., "Effects of peere-feedback on Turkish EFL students' writing performance", Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), pp.61~84 (2012)[DOI]
  8. Deutsch, M., "A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment", The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), pp.629~636 (1955)[DOI]
  9. Galbraith, D., "The work of writing : Raiding the inarticulate", Educational Psychologist, 53(4), pp.238~257 (2018)[DOI]
  10. Galinsky, A. D., "From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know : The effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information sharing in groups", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), pp.606~618 (2004)[DOI]
  11. Girotra, K., "Idea generation and the quality of the best idea", Management Science, 56(4), pp.591~605 (2010)[DOI]
  12. Greitemeyer, T., "Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm : Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), pp.322~339 (2003)[DOI]
  13. Gruenfeld, D. H., "Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the US Supreme Court : Rethinking the politics of political decision making", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), pp.5~ (1995)[DOI]
  14. Hastie, R., "Inside the Jury" (1983)
  15. Hung, A. A., "Information cascades : Replication and an extension to majority rule and conformity-rewarding institutions", American Economic Review, 91(5), pp.1508~1520 (2001)[DOI]
  16. Joordens, S., "The pedagogical anatomy of peer-assessment:Dissecting a peerScholar assignment", Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics & Informatics, 7(5), pp.11~15 (2009)
  17. Kelly, G. J., "Epistemic levels in argument : An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing", Science education, 86(3), pp.314~342 (2002)[DOI]
  18. Kim, S., "The effect of hybrid collaboration method on performance", Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 35(4), pp.229~242 (2023)[DOI]
  19. Korde, R., "Alternating individual and group idea generation : Finding the elusive synergy", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, pp.177~190 (2017)[DOI]
  20. Lim, J., "Self-study enhances the learning effect of discussions", Journal of the Learning Sciences, 32(3), pp.455~476 (2023)[DOI]
  21. Liu, N. F., "Peer feedback : the learning element of peer assessment", Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), pp.279~290 (2006)[DOI]
  22. Lorenz, J., "How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), pp.9020~9025 (2011)
  23. Lorge, I., "A survey of studies contrasting the quality of group performance and individual performance, 1920-1957", Psychological Bulletin, 55(6), pp.337~372 (1958)[DOI]
  24. Lu, L., "Twenty-five years of hidden profiles in group decision making : A meta-analysis", Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), pp.54~75 (2012)[DOI]
  25. McGrath, J. E., "Groups: Interaction and Performance (Vol. 14)" (1984)
  26. Nemeth, C., "In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business" (2018)
  27. Nemeth, C., "Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent : Stimulating quantity and quality", European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), pp.707~720 (2001)[DOI]
  28. Nemeth, C., "Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(9), pp.788~799 (1987)[DOI]
  29. Nemeth, C., "Exposure to dissent and recall of information", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(3), pp.429~437 (1990)[DOI]
  30. Nemeth, C., "The liberating role of conflict in group creativity : A study in two countries", European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), pp.365~374 (2004)[DOI]
  31. Nemeth, C., "Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs minority influence", European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1), pp.45~55 (1983)[DOI]
  32. Oh, Y., "The reliability and validity of online peer assessment on proofs in a number theory course", Korean Society of Mathematical Education, 57(3), pp.215~229 (2018)[DOI]
  33. Park, J., "ClassPrep : A peer review system for class preparation", British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), pp.511~523 (2017)[DOI]
  34. Postmes, T., "Quality of decision making and group norms", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), pp.918~930 (2001)[DOI]
  35. Puncochar, J. M., "Confidence in Individual and Group Decision Making : When"Two Heads"Are Worse Than One", Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), pp.582~591 (2004)[DOI]
  36. Rietzschel, E. F., "Productivity is not enough : A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), pp.244~251 (2006)[DOI]
  37. Rivard, L. P., "The effect of talk and writing on learning science : An exploratory study", Science Education, 84(5), pp.566~593 (2000)[DOI]
  38. Ro, H. K., "Bias in Information Processing and Decision Making : A Study of Group Decision Making by Hidden Profile Paradigm", Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28(2), pp.177~199 (2014)[DOI]
  39. Russell, K. C., "Process factors explaining psycho-social outcomes in adventure therapy", Psychotherapy, 54(3), pp.273~280 (2017)[DOI]
  40. Sadler, P. M., "The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning", Educational Assessment, 11(1), pp.1~31 (2006)[DOI]
  41. Sandoval, W. A., "The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations", Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), pp.23~55 (2005)[DOI]
  42. Schulz-Hardt, S., "Group decision making in hidden profile situations : Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), pp.1080~1093 (2006)[DOI]
  43. Schulz-Hardt, S., "How to achieve synergy in group decision making : Lessons to be learned from the hidden profile paradigm", European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), pp.305~343 (2012)[DOI]
  44. Stasser, G., "Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge", pp.49~69 (1999)
  45. Stasser, G., "The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation", pp.197~213 (2019)
  46. Stasser, G., "Pooling of unshared information in group decision making : Biased information sampling during discussion", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), pp.1467~1478 (1985)[DOI]
  47. Stasser, G., "Hidden profiles : A brief history", Psychological Inquiry, 14(3), pp.304~313 (2003)[DOI]
  48. Stasser, G., "Pooling unshared information : The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), pp.102~116 (2000)[DOI]
  49. Stewart, D. D., "Accountability and the discussion of unshared, critical information in decision-making groups", Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(1), pp.18~23 (1998)[DOI]
  50. Surowiecki, J., "The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations" (2004)
  51. Tsai, Y. C., "Fostering revision of argumentative writing through structured peer assessment", Perceptual and Motor Skills, 116(1), pp.210~221 (2013)[DOI]
  52. Xiao, Y., "The impact of two types of peer assessment on students'performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment", The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), pp.186~193 (2008)[DOI]
  53. Yore, L. D., "Written discourse in scientific communities : A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language", International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), pp.109~141 (2006)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

하이브리드 협력 방식이 과제 수행에 미치는 영향: 두 영어 단어 조합 과제를 중심으로김송의, 박주용한국인지및생물심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물2023 · 제35권 제4호정보처리과정의 편파와 의사결정: Hidden Profile 패러다임을 이용한 집단 의사결정의 연구노혜경한국사회및성격심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격2014 · 제28권 제2호협력학습에서 교수자 피드백과 지각된 팀 성과 간 관계에 대한 팀 효능감과 집단지성의 조절효과김효원한국열린교육학회 · 열린교육연구2019 · 제27권 제3호다자간 협상에서 목표 설정과 피드백 효과노혜경한국산업및조직심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직2017 · 제30권 제2호집단지성의 구현을 위한 협력학습의 원리 탐색양미경한국교육방법학회 · 교육방법연구2011 · 제23권 제2호리더의 의사소통 방식이 집단 극화 및 정보 표집 편향에 미치는 영향 - 한국의 수직적 위계질서 중심 문화에 대한 고찰을 중심으로-소원현한국세계지역학회 · 세계지역연구논총2010 · 제28권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (2건)

코로나 대유행 시기 외로움과 삶의 만족의 관계에서 우울과 지각된 사회적 지지의 종단매개효과이동훈, 정다송pp. 1-29건강한 노년과 인지예비능: 생의 과정을 통한 인지 및 병리적 노화의 조절최진영, 이한경pp. 31-64
원문 보기