基于行为决策理论的公务员决策偏差测量及干预研究

发布时间：2018-01-06 14:03

本文关键词：基于行为决策理论的公务员决策偏差测量及干预研究　出处：《西北大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：决策是人类思维最复杂的形式之一,现代管理科学中,如何在不确定情境下高效率的做出决策是面临的最大挑战。传统的决策理论是基于“完全理性”假设建立起来的,认为决策者在决策过程中可以掌握所有的信息,对每个方案效用能进行比较和衡量,追求“效用最大化”。但现实决策过程中,由于决策者的认知能力、感知能力、记忆能力、信息加工等能力有限,决策者只能在自己的掌握的信息范围内追求理性。行为决策理论是基于“有限理性”假设建立起来的理论簇。因为决策者是“有限理性”的个体,在决策的过程中不可能掌握完备的信息,决策者追求内心的满意,必然会导致非理性的决策偏差。公务员作为“有限理性”的个体,必然会存在决策偏差。该研究通过文献查阅,搜集和自编决策偏差测题,编制A、B平行版本的决策问卷。A问卷内部一致性信度0.651,B问卷内部一致性信度0.672,复本信度0.896,问卷信度良好。A问卷KMO值0.613,因子分析限定提取三个因子,累积解释总方差变异量60.47%。B问卷KMO值0.661,限定提取三个因子,累积解释总方差变异量69.50%。将提取因子命名为信息收集偏差因子、信息编辑偏差因子、信息评估偏差因子,结构效度良好。采用决策能力问卷A对西北大学150名MPA学员施测,结果表明公务员在信息收集、信息编辑和信息评估阶段均存在偏差。决策偏差总分及三个阶段偏差得分在性别、年龄、专业因素上均无显著差异。通过课堂讲授、决策情景模拟、资料辅导等方式对公务员决策偏差进行干预。干预后3个星期,采用决策能力问卷B对MPA学员干预效果进行评估。结果表明,公务员决策偏差总分显著降低(p0.05),信息编辑阶段偏差得分显著降低(p0.05),信息收集阶段、信息评估阶段偏差得分差异未达到显著水平。公务员与大学生干预效果在偏差总得分(p0.01)、信息收集阶段(p0.001)存在显著差异,在信息编辑、信息评估阶段无显著差异。本文研究结论主要有：第一,研究编制的《决策能力问卷》包括信息收集、信息编辑和信息评估三个因子,问卷具有良好的信度与效度；第二,公务员在信息收集、信息编辑和信息评估三个阶段均存在显著的决策偏差；第三,决策偏差总分在年龄、性别、专业等人口学变量上无显著差异；第四,课堂讲授、决策情境模拟、知识辅导等干预方式能有效减少决策偏差、提升公务员的理性决策能力；第五,与学生群体相比,公务员的决策行为干预具有更大的难度。
[Abstract]:Decision making is one of the most complex forms of human thinking in modern management science. How to make decisions efficiently in uncertain situations is the biggest challenge. Traditional decision theory is based on the hypothesis of "complete rationality". It is believed that the decision-maker can grasp all the information in the decision-making process, compare and measure the utility of each scheme, and pursue "utility maximization", but in the process of realistic decision making, due to the cognitive ability of the decision-maker. The ability of perception, memory and information processing is limited. The decision-maker can only pursue rationality within the scope of his own information. The behavioral decision theory is a theoretical cluster based on the hypothesis of "limited rationality", because the decision-maker is an individual of "limited rationality". In the process of decision making, it is impossible to master complete information, and the decision maker pursues inner satisfaction, which will inevitably lead to irrational decision deviation. As an individual of "limited rationality", civil servants will inevitably have a decision deviation. Through literature review, collecting and compiling the decision deviation test questions, the internal consistency reliability of questionnaire 0.651B and the internal consistency reliability 0.672 of the parallel version of AHB decision questionnaire .A were worked out. The reliability of the duplicate was 0.896, the reliability of the questionnaire was good. The KMO value of the questionnaire was 0.613. Factor analysis limited the extraction of three factors. Cumulative interpretation of the variance of total variance 60.47. B questionnaire KMO value of 0.661, limited the extraction of three factors. The total variance of cumulative interpretation was 69.50. The extraction factor was named as information collection deviation factor, information editing deviation factor and information evaluation deviation factor. The validity of structure was good. A decision ability questionnaire was used to test 150 MPA students from Northwest University. The results showed that civil servants were collecting information. There is no significant difference in the total score of decision deviation and the score of deviation in three stages in terms of gender, age and professional factors. Three weeks after intervention, decision ability questionnaire B was used to evaluate the intervention effect of MPA students. The total score of decision deviation of civil servants decreased significantly (p 0.05), the deviation score of information editing phase decreased significantly (P 0.05), and the stage of information collection. The difference of deviation score in information evaluation stage was not significant. There was significant difference between civil servants and college students in the total deviation score (p 0.01) and information collection stage (P 0.001). In information editing, there is no significant difference in information evaluation stage. The main conclusions of this paper are as follows: First, the decision ability questionnaire is composed of three factors: information collection, information editing and information evaluation. The questionnaire has good reliability and validity. Secondly, there are significant deviations in the three stages of information collection, information editing and information evaluation. Third, there was no significant difference in the total score of decision deviation in demographic variables such as age, sex, specialty and so on. 4th, classroom teaching, decision-making situation simulation, knowledge counseling and other intervention methods can effectively reduce decision-making deviation and improve the rational decision-making ability of civil servants; In 5th, the decision-making behavior intervention of civil servants was more difficult than that of students.
【学位授予单位】：西北大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：B849;C934

【参考文献】