Conflict Management in Pluralistic Societies: Aspect of Judgment Analysis. Abstract Interpersonal Conflict in pluralistic societies has been analyzed into¡§Fact Conflict¡¨(mutual interference in beliefs) and¡§Value Conflict¡¨ (mutual interference in preferences ), The interpersonal conflict can be caused by purely cognitive factors, that¡¦s to say, the fact conflict and value conflict can be treated together under the general rubric of¡§Cognitive Conflict¡¨. The growing of locally environmental disputes concerning large scale publicdecision-makings, such as the cases of constructions of Fifth Naphtha Cracking Plant,Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, and Meinung Dam etc., have raised enormous socialcost in recent years. One of the main causes of above mentioned disputes is cognitiveconflict. Among various efforts against problem of cognitive conflict, The Social JudgmentTheory, SJT, and the Cognitive Conflict Paradigm, CCP, have been confirmed to beone of the effective approaches to settle the problem of cognitive conflict. Social Judgment Theory is a descriptive and normative approach to judgment and decision making developed by Kenneth Hammond (1965,1975,1996) on the basis of Lens Model. Social Judgment Theory has been applied to the analysis of multiple cue probability learning, interpersonal conflict, interpersonal learning, and social policy decisions. It has also produced the policy decision aid. Moreover, Social Judgment Theory emphasizes that the¡§Judgment¡¨is generally more effective (reaches a higher achievement level), and more efficient(reaches a given achievement level more quickly) by utilizing of cognitive feedback while making decision. Cognitive Conflict Paradigm is to provide a scenario to uncover information concerning cognitive conflict. It¡¦s an experimental laboratory method that involves two stages: (1)Training stage in which two subjects are trained in such a way that each learns to think differently about a common set of problems, and(2)Conflict stage in which the two subjects are brought together and attempt to arrive at a joint decisions concerning the problems. Through Cognitive Conflict Paradigm, the investigator can observe two persons offering conflicting answers, efforts to cope with differences and arrive at a joint decision, in fact, observe the effect of the experience on their cognitive change and the efforts to solve subsequent problems. In this study, a series of simulated decision making task about Meinung Dam construction and the Social Judgment Theory & Cognitive Conflict Paradigm have been employed and tested by way of a laboratory quasi-experiment. The research fingings of this study include: 1. Dual cognitive feedback is more effective than outcome feedback in regard to the improvement of individual decision quality. 2. Single cognitive feedback is more effective than outcome feedback in regard to the improvement of individual decision quality. 3. Single cognitive feedback is as insignificant as outcome feedback in regard to the improvement of joint decision quality. 4. Dual cognitive feedback is more effective than outcome feedback in regard to the elimination of cognitive conflict. 5. Single cognitive feedback is as insignificant as outcome feedback in regard to the elimination of cognitive conflict. 6. The most constructive result obtained in this study was that we had presented a conceptual framework, research paradigm, and conflict management procedure generated from the application of Social Judgment Theory & Cognitive Conflict Paradigm to analyze and solve the conflict problems in pluralistic societies. These framework, paradigm, and procedure should be useful to subsequent cognitive conflict researchers and practical public decision making. Keywords¡GPluralistic Societies, Judgment Analysis ,Lens Model, Social Judgment Theory, Cognitive Conflict Paradigm, Outcome Feedback, Cognitive Feedback.

Taipei and Kasohsiung city¡¦s citizens live in base condition of society life area, base on the individuality cognition factors of information, education, morality, and ethic to the social reaction in the pluralistic society. People have to the co-operation and reciprocity each other in the everyday life. The morality norms standard depends on the different between private and public, to decide the co-operation and betrayal. The value or morality cognition embeds the society structure and society relations, it embodies social capital dimensions on interpersonal trust, network structure, and culture perception. They affect the individuality responsibility; reflect the north-south gap phenomena of economy, society, political, government, public policy and public management. For the issue on north-south gap includes in both individuality and society factor. a majority of research from the aspects on economy, society, political, and government. Few of research focus on civil culture empirical comparison study. Society system mechanism center in civil culture, from the judgment analysis aspects, the research employs the method of Social Judgment Theory, to investigate that Taipei and Kasohsiung city¡¦s citizens think about multiple attributes relevant information to judge the private or public affairs, reflect value, morality cognition, and social capital in the everyday life. The aim is to prove abstract concept on value, morality cognition, and social capital, to establish empirical study of civil culture relevant variance, to reflect individuality society, to provide the operation procedure of morality cognition in the future study. The research design takes double system case, selects the value cues of free-speech ,society-identity, develop-efficiency, society-stable, and add-income; the morality cognition cues of unfair, upself, reciprocity, relation and toleration; the social capital cues of interpersonal trust, network structure, and culture perception, to reflect citizens psychology priority weight. it keys to north-south gap problem, by the way on economy development and public affairs management education to pass the society shift test and resolve problem. The subject is citizen, tests in sample 531and568 .The research findings: ¡]i¡^Taipei and Kasohsiung city¡¦s citizen value priority weight: post-materialist¡]32% vs21%¡^,materialist¡]65% vs72%¡^,mixed type¡]3% vs7%¡^. ¡]ii¡^Taipei and Kasohsiung city¡¦s citizen morality cognition priority weight: fairness¡]38% vs31%¡^, careness¡]42% vs47%¡^, fairness/ careness¡]20% vs22%¡^ ¡]iii¡^Taipei and Kasohsiung city¡¦s citizen social capital priority weight: interpersonal trust¡]44% vs44%¡^, network structure¡]27%vs19%¡^, culture perception¡]29%vs37%¡^. The results reflect that Kasohsiung city holds tradition society state; Taipei city owns modern society state.

No description available.

No description available.

Clinical decision rules improve health care fidelity, benefit patients, physicians and healthcare systems, without reducing patient safety or satisfaction, while promoting cost-effective practice standards. It is critical to appropriately and consistently apply clinical decision rules to realize these benefits. The objective of this thesis was to understand how physicians use the Ottawa Ankle Rules to guide radiography decision-making. The study employed a clinical judgment survey targeting members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Statistical analyses were informed by the Brunswik Lens Model and Social Judgment Analysis. Physicians’ overall agreement with the ankle rule was high, but can be improved. Physicians placed greatest value on rule-based cues, while considering non-rule-based cues as moderately important. There is room to improve physician agreement with the ankle rule and use of rule-based cues through knowledge translation interventions. Further development of this Lens Modeling technique could lend itself to a valuable cognitive behavioral intervention.

Clinical decision rules improve health care fidelity, benefit patients, physicians and healthcare systems, without reducing patient safety or satisfaction, while promoting cost-effective practice standards. It is critical to appropriately and consistently apply clinical decision rules to realize these benefits. The objective of this thesis was to understand how physicians use the Ottawa Ankle Rules to guide radiography decision-making. The study employed a clinical judgment survey targeting members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Statistical analyses were informed by the Brunswik Lens Model and Social Judgment Analysis. Physicians’ overall agreement with the ankle rule was high, but can be improved. Physicians placed greatest value on rule-based cues, while considering non-rule-based cues as moderately important. There is room to improve physician agreement with the ankle rule and use of rule-based cues through knowledge translation interventions. Further development of this Lens Modeling technique could lend itself to a valuable cognitive behavioral intervention.

Clinical decision rules improve health care fidelity, benefit patients, physicians and healthcare systems, without reducing patient safety or satisfaction, while promoting cost-effective practice standards. It is critical to appropriately and consistently apply clinical decision rules to realize these benefits. The objective of this thesis was to understand how physicians use the Ottawa Ankle Rules to guide radiography decision-making. The study employed a clinical judgment survey targeting members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Statistical analyses were informed by the Brunswik Lens Model and Social Judgment Analysis. Physicians’ overall agreement with the ankle rule was high, but can be improved. Physicians placed greatest value on rule-based cues, while considering non-rule-based cues as moderately important. There is room to improve physician agreement with the ankle rule and use of rule-based cues through knowledge translation interventions. Further development of this Lens Modeling technique could lend itself to a valuable cognitive behavioral intervention.

Decision making study has been the multi-disciplinary research involving operations researchers, management scientists, statisticians, mathematical psychologists and economists as well as others. This study aims to investigate the theory and methodology of decision making research and apply them to different contexts in real cases. The study has reviewed the literature of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM), Evidential Reasoning (ER) approach, Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) movement, Social Judgment Theory (SJT), and Adaptive Toolbox (AT) program. On the basis of these literatures, two methods, Evidence-based Trade-Off (EBTO) and Judgment Analysis with Heuristic Modelling (JA-HM), have been proposed and developed to accomplish decision making problems under different conditions. In the EBTO method, we propose a novel framework to aid people s decision making under uncertainty and imprecise goal. Under the framework, the imprecise goal is objectively modelled through an analytical structure, and is independent of the task requirement; the task requirement is specified by the trade-off strategy among criteria of the analytical structure through an importance weighting process, and is subject to the requirement change of a particular decision making task; the evidence available, that could contribute to the evaluation of general performance of the decision alternatives, are formulated with belief structures which are capable of capturing various format of uncertainties that arise from the absence of data, incomplete information and subjective judgments. The EBTO method was further applied in a case study of Soldier system decision making. The application has demonstrated that EBTO, as a tool, is able to provide a holistic analysis regarding the requirements of Soldier missions, the physical conditions of Soldiers, and the capability of their equipment and weapon systems, which is critical in domain. By drawing the cross-disciplinary literature from NDM and AT, the JA-HM extended the traditional Judgment Analysis (JA) method, through a number of novel methodological procedures, to account for the unique features of decision making tasks under extreme time pressure and dynamic shifting situations. These novel methodological procedures include, the notion of decision point to deconstruct the dynamic shifting situations in a way that decision problem could be identified and formulated; the classification of routine and non-routine problems, and associated data alignment process to enable meaningful decision data analysis across different decision makers (DMs); the notion of composite cue to account for the DMs iterative process of information perception and comprehension in dynamic task environment; the application of computational models of heuristics to account for the time constraints and process dynamics of DMs decision making process; and the application of cross-validation process to enable the methodological principle of competitive testing of decision models. The JA-HM was further applied in a case study of fire emergency decision making. The application has been the first behavioural test of the validity of the computational models of heuristics, in predicting the DMs decision making during fire emergency response. It has also been the first behavioural test of the validity of the non-compensatory heuristics in predicting the DMs decisions on ranking task. The findings identified extend the literature of AT and NDM, and have implications for the fire emergency decision making.

Pharmakodiagnostische Tests eröffnen die Möglichkeit, Krebstherapien individueller auf den Patienten zugeschnitten zu verschreiben. Die vorliegende Dissertation widmet sich deshalb der Frage, wie diese Gruppen in Deutschland sowie den USA in Bezug auf diese Tests Entscheidungen treffen. Alle im Rahmen dieser Arbeit durchgeführten Studien waren unterteilt in eine Vorstudie und eine Hauptsstudie. Die Ergebnisse der Vorstudie wurden im Rahmen der Hauptstudie zur Entwicklung eines Fall-Vignetten Fragebogens benutzt,um die Verwendung von kompensatorischen und nicht-kompensatorischen Entscheidungsstrategien zu untersuchen. Mit Studie I wurde gezeigt, dass sowohl deutsche als auch amerikanische Onkologen eine hohe Bereitschaft haben, solche Tests anzuwenden. Die entsprechenden Entscheidungen wurden am besten durch ein kompensatorisches Modell (Franklin’s Rule)vorhergesagt. Eine Leitlinien-Empfehlung führte nahezu immer zu einer Test-Entscheidung. Verschiedene Bedingungen machten eine Entscheidung für nicht-empfohlene Tests jedoch wahrscheinlicher. Studie II zeigte, dass Pathologen nur zu einem beschränkten Ausmaß bereit waren, von dem etablierten Test-Standard für neuartige Test-Prozeduren abzuweichen. Die Entscheidungsstrategie beider Gruppen wurde gleich gut durch die jeweiligen kompensatorischen Modelle (Franklin’s und Dawes’ Rule) sowie durch das nicht-kompensatorische Modell (Take The Best) vorhergesagt. Für die mit Studie III untersuchten Krebspatienten zeigte sich, dass ein nicht-kompensatorisches Modell (Matching Heuristic) die besten Entscheidungs-Vorhersagen machte.Während die Entscheidungen der US Patienten jedoch maßgeblich von einer Arzt-Empfehlung geleitet waren, fand sich dies nicht für die deutschen Patienten. Die sich aus den Befunden ergebenden Implikationen für die hier untersuchten Gruppen, für die mit der Leitlinien-Entwicklung beauftragten Autoritäten als auch für das Gesundheitssystem im Allgemeinen wurden abschließend diskutiert. / Upcoming pharmacodiagnostic tests offer the opportunity to better tailor cancer treatment decisions to individual patient needs. However, they put oncologists, pathologists, and cancer patients in the position of having to deal with a new technology, which often comes with its own specific risks. Little is known about how these different groups will handle this situation. This thesis is a first effort to examine, within Germany and the USA, how the respective groups would deal with a decision on applying such a test to a cancer treatment decision. All accomplished studies were divided into an explorative pilot study and a main study. Results of the pilot study were used for the main study to develop a case vignette questionnaire in order to investigate compensatory and noncompensatory decision-making strategies.In Study I, it was found that both, German and US oncologists’ decision-making policies were best described by a compensatory model (Franklin’s rule). A recommendation of a test by guidelines triggered nearly always a choice for having the test, although under different conditions also choices for nonrecommended tests were likely. Study II found that pathologists were, to a rather small extent, prepared to opt for more sophisticated test alternatives, compared to standard procedures. For both samples, decision making was equally well-predicted by two compensatory models (Franklin’s rule and Dawes’ rule), as it was by a noncompensatory model (Take The Best.Study III focused on cancer patients. The German as well as the US patients’ decisions were best predicted by a noncompensatory model (Matching Heuristic), while for the US patients, the most impacting cue was the recommendation by an oncologist, what could not be found for the German sample.Several implications of these findings for the respective groups, for authorities in charge of developing guidelines, as well as for the health systems in general, are discussed.