Vai ai contenuti. | Spostati sulla navigazione | Spostati sulla ricerca | Vai al menu | Contatti | Accessibilità

| Crea un account

Soru, Dorian (2009) Disagreements in Situated Decision Making: From Virtual to Everyday. [Tesi di dottorato]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Anteprima
Documento PDF
5Mb

Abstract (inglese)

This research investigates disagreements in decision making processes in a virtual setting, an experimental web simulation and in an everyday setting, involving a university research team from the Situated Action Theory perspective.
The specific focus is on disagreements, because they lead to critical situations which put at stake two vital issues that are common between the simulation and the research team, namely, a limited amount of time and mutual aims that must be met within a set deadline. More specifically the study investigates: (1) how participants manage disagreements within these two contexts and (2) which theoretical and methodological implications Situated Action Theory suggests for studying both of them.
The simulation in which the first part of this study takes place is a website in which participants had to choose a house to rent. It has been developed in four stages which involved 306 participants: a preliminary study, two validation studies and one study with single participants, in order to assess gender differences in chosen house. After the study with the single participants a study with the participants in couples (N=87) was performed, in order to study how they managed disagreements.
The second context in which this study takes place is an interdisciplinary research team which aimed at studying the access and communication of migrant citizens to public municipality services. All meetings that took place from December 2007 until May 2008 were video and/or audio recorded.
The corpus of the study consists of 10 hours and 50 minutes of video recorded interactions for the experimental simulation and 9 hours and 30 minutes of video and audio recorded interactions for the research team, which have been analysed from a perspective that includes conversation analysis, field notes, analysis of documents and interviews with the participants.
Analysis shows that some aspects were common within the two contexts but also that some issues differentiated the virtual context from the everyday one. A discursive re-structuring of controversial issues allowed the participants to both contexts to reach a shared decision: decision making seems to be linked more with sense making than with a rational consideration of different alternatives.
Another common characteristic of the web simulation and the research team is that the management of disagreements is mediated by the use of different micro discursive strategies studied by conversation analysts, like anticipatory completions, quotations (all of which were found within both contexts), extreme case formulations, challenging questions, format tying.
However, some differences, along with important methodological implications, have been also found. Some moments of interaction, in fact, cannot not be explained by only focusing on what the participants orient as relevant for them within the interaction, while some other moments that could be explained through conversation analysis but, when we integrated such analysis with a broader ethnographic perspective, we had a very different analysis.
All the findings suggest that a simulation allows the studying of decision-making processes from a situated perspective, however the research team study suggests that the results of such study should be contextualized to obtain a deeper knowledge of situated decision-making processes in everyday settings.

Abstract (italiano)

Questo studio analizza i disaccordi che emergono nei momenti di presa di decisione sia in un contesto virtuale (una simulazione web sperimentale), sia in un contesto quotidiano (un gruppo di ricerca universitario). La prospettiva adottata fa riferimento alla teoria dell'azione situata.
Ci si è focalizzati sui disaccordi poiché essi sono dei momenti critici per entrambi i contesti studiati: interagiscono infatti con delle dimensioni fondamentali dei processi in atto, quali la gestione del tempo e degli obiettivi dei partecipanti. Gli scopi più specifici di questo studio sono: (1) analizzare come i partecipanti alla ricerca, nei due diversi contesti, gestiscono i momenti di disaccordo; (2) evidenziare gli apporti teorici e metodologici che la teoria dell'azione situata può fornire per lo studio dei disaccordi in questi due contesti tra loro molto diversi.
Il primo contesto oggetto di studio è una simulazione web attraverso cui era richiesto ai partecipanti di scegliere una casa da prendere in affitto. La simulazione è stata sviluppata in quattro fasi che hanno coinvolto 306 partecipanti: uno studio preliminare, due validazioni e uno studio con partecipanti singoli, il quale ha permesso di verificare eventuali differenze di genere nella scelta della casa. Successivamente a queste fasi è stato effettuato uno studio con coppie di partecipanti (N=87), in maniera tale da approfondire i momenti di disaccordo eventualmente emersi.
Il secondo contesto oggetto di studio è un gruppo di ricerca interdisciplinare il cui scopo era studiare l'accesso e la comunicazione dei cittadini migranti a due sportelli comunali. Sono state video/audio registrate tutte le riunioni del gruppo di ricerca che hanno avuto luogo tra dicembre 2007 e maggio 2008.
Il corpus totale di questo studio è costituito da 10 ore e 50 minuti di registrazioni video per quanto riguarda la simulazione, a cui si aggiungono 9 ore e 30 minuti di video o audio registrazioni per quanto riguarda il gruppo di ricerca. Le registrazioni sono state analizzate mediante analisi della conversazione, che è stata integrata con note di campo, analisi di documenti e interviste ai partecipanti.
L'analisi permette di mostrare che ci sono alcuni aspetti comuni ai due contesti studiati, ma anche delle importanti differenze. In entrambi i contesti una ri-strutturazione discorsiva di una questione controversa ha consentito ai partecipanti di risolvere un momento di disaccordo: ciò suggerisce che le prese di decisione possano essere considerate un processo di sense making, piuttosto che una scelta razionale tra diverse alternative.
Un'altra caratteristica comune che è stata riscontrata è l'utilizzo, nella risoluzione dei disaccordi, di micro strategie discorsive analizzate nell'ambito dell'analisi della conversazione: anticipatory completions e quotations (riscontrate in entrambi i contesti), extreme case formulations, challenging questions, format tying.
Sono state riscontrate, tuttavia, anche delle differenze tra i due contesti, le quali suggeriscono importanti considerazioni metodologiche. Alcuni momenti di interazione (in particolare all'interno del gruppo di ricerca) non potevano essere compresi tenendo conto soltanto degli aspetti esplicitati dai partecipanti nell'interazione: è stato necessario prendere in considerazione diversi aspetti contestuali e istituzionali condivisi solo implicitamente tra i partecipanti. Si è visto inoltre che, anche se alcuni momenti di interazione potevano essere spiegati mediante l'analisi della conversazione, l'integrazione di tale spiegazione con i risultati dell'etnografia, ha permesso di effettuare un'analisi molto più accurata e differente da quella conversazionale.
Complessivamente l'analisi suggerisce che una simulazione consente lo studio dei processi decisionali secondo una prospettiva situata, tuttavia lo studio all'interno del gruppo di ricerca suggerisce anche che tale analisi dovrebbe essere contestualizzata mediante l'etnografia, in modo da comprendere meglio come tali processi si svolgano nei contesti quotidiani (che presentano una maggiore complessità rispetto alle simulazioni).

Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
Tipo di EPrint:Tesi di dottorato
Relatore:Mantovani, Giuseppe
Dottorato (corsi e scuole):Ciclo 22 > Scuole per il 22simo ciclo > SCIENZE PSICOLOGICHE > PSICOLOGIA SOCIALE E DELLA PERSONALITA'
Data di deposito della tesi:NON SPECIFICATO
Anno di Pubblicazione:25 Dicembre 2009
Parole chiave (italiano / inglese):decision making,simulation,ethnography,situated decision making,sense making,naturalistic decision making
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 11 - Scienze storiche, filosofiche, pedagogiche e psicologiche > M-PSI/05 Psicologia sociale
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale
Codice ID:2429
Depositato il:26 Ott 2010 17:16
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

Alby, F. & Zucchermaglio, C. (2006). 'Afterwards we can understand what went wrong, but now let's fix it': How Situated Work Practices Shape Group Decision Making. Organization Studies, 27(7), 943-966. Cerca con Google

Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque. Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'École Americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503-546. Cerca con Google

Allais, M. (1990). Criticism of the postulates and axioms of the American School. In P. K. Moser (Eds.) Rationality in action: Contemporary approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted from M. Allais and O. Hagen (Eds.), Expected utility hypotheses and the Allais paradox (pp. 67-95). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Cerca con Google

Beach, L. R. (1990). Image Theory: decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester , UK: Wiley. Cerca con Google

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 289-300. Cerca con Google

Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). University Students Resisting Academic Identity. In K. Richards & P. Seedhouse (Eds.) Applying Conversation Analysis (pp. 124-139). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cerca con Google

Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Cerca con Google

Bernoulli, D. (1954[1738]). Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis [Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk]. Translation from Latin printed in Econometrica, 22, 23-36. Cerca con Google

Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and Thinking: a Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Billig, M. (1999a). Whose Terms? Whose Ordinariness? Rhetoric and Ideology in Conversation Analysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 543-558. Cerca con Google

Billig, M. (1999b). Conversation Analysis and the Claims of Naivety. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 572-576. Cerca con Google

Boyle, R. (2000). Whatever happened to preference organization? Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 583-604. Cerca con Google

Brehmer, B. (1992). Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica, 81(3), 211-241. Cerca con Google

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Eds.) Questions and Politeness (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Chapman, T., Nettelbeck, T., Welsh, M., & Mills, V. (2006). Investigating the construct validity associated with microworld research: A comparison of performance under different management structures across expert and non-expert naturalistic decision-making groups. Australian Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 40-47. Cerca con Google

Cheshire, J. (2007). Discourse Variation, Grammaticalization and Stuff Like That. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155-193. Cerca con Google

Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the Study of Experts' Characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 21-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cerca con Google

Chmosky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Clark, H. H. & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as Demonstrations. Language, 66, 764-805. Cerca con Google

Cole, M. (1995). Culture and cognitive development: from cross-cultural research to creating systems of cultural mediation. Culture & Psychology, 1(1), 25-54. Cerca con Google

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology: a Once and Future Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Davies B. & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive construction of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 43–62. Cerca con Google

De Vries, M. (2008). The Representation of Language within Language: A Syntactico-Pragmatic Typology of Direct Speech. Studia Linguistica, 62(1), 39-77. Cerca con Google

Edley, N. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, S.J. Yates (Eds.) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 189-228). London: Sage. Cerca con Google

Edwards, W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors, 4, 59-73. Cerca con Google

Edwards, D. (2000). Extreme Case Formulations: Softeners, Investment, and Doing Nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347-373. Cerca con Google

Elliott, T., Welsh, M., Nettelbeck, T., & Mills, V. (2007). Investigating naturalistic decision making in a simulated microworld: what questions should we ask? Behaviour Research Methods, 39(4), 901-910. Cerca con Google

Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting, Human Factors Society (pp. 97-101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Cerca con Google

Endsley, M. R. (2006). Expertise and situation awareness. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 633-651). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Frankel, R. M. (1984). From sentence to sequence: Understanding the medical encounter from microinteractional analysis. Discourse Processes, 7, 135-170. Cerca con Google

Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). Arguing About the Future: On Indirect Disagreements in Conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1881-1900. Cerca con Google

Gilbert, G. N. & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Goffman, E. (1955). On Face-Work: an Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213-231. Cerca con Google

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633. Cerca con Google

Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent Vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds). Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Goodwin, C. (1997). The Blackness of Black: Color Categories as Situated Practice. In L. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo & B. Burge (Eds). Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition (pp. 111-140). New York: Springer-Verlag. Cerca con Google

Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cerca con Google

Harsanyi, J. C. (1976). Essays on ethics, social behavior, and scientific explanation. Berlin: Springer. Cerca con Google

Harvey, N. & Bolger, F. (2001). Collecting information: Optimizing outcomes, screening options, or facilitating discrimination? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A(1), 269-301. Cerca con Google

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnometodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cerca con Google

Jefferson, G. (1990). List-Construction as a Task and Resource. In G. Psathas (Eds.) Interaction Competence (pp. 63-92). Washington D. C.: University Press of America. Cerca con Google

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. Cerca con Google

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. Cerca con Google

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-324. Cerca con Google

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475. Cerca con Google

Klein, G. A. (1997). The Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) Model: Looking Back, Looking Forward. In C. E. Zsambok, & G. A. Klein (Eds.) Naturalistic Decision Making (pp. 285-292). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cerca con Google

Klein, G. A. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cerca con Google

Klein, G.A., Calderwood, R., & Clinton-Cirocco, A. (1986). Rapid decision making on the fireground. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 30th Annual Meeting, 1, 576-580. Cerca con Google

Klein G. A., Orasanu J., Calderwood R., & Zsambok C. E. (1993). Decision making in action: models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cerca con Google

Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures. Language in Society, 22(2), 193-216. Cerca con Google

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342. Cerca con Google

Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding “Face” in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303-321. Cerca con Google

Levinson, S. C. (2005). Living with Manny's dangerous idea. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 431-453. Cerca con Google

Lipshitz, R. (1993). Converging themes in the study of decision making in realistic settings. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.) Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 103-137). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cerca con Google

Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J. & Salas, E. (2001). Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 331-352. Cerca con Google

Mantovani, G. (2000). Exploring borders: Understanding Culture and Psychology. London: Routledge. Cerca con Google

Mantovani, G. (2003). I metodi qualitativi in psicologia. Strumenti per una ricerca situata. In G. Mantovani e A. Spagnolli (a cura di) Metodi qualitativi in psicologia (pp. 15-45). Bologna: Il Mulino. Cerca con Google

March, J. G. (1991). How Decisions Happen in Organizations. Human-Computer Interaction, 6, 95-117. Cerca con Google

March, J. G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making. New York: The Free Press. Cerca con Google

Marschak, J. (1950). Rational behavior, uncertain prospects, and measurable utility. Econometrica, 18(2), 111-141. Cerca con Google

Neuman, Y. & Tabak, I. (2003). Inconsistency as an Interactional Problem: A Lesson from Political Rhetoric. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(3), 251-267. Cerca con Google

Ochs, E. & Jacoby, S. (1997). Down to the Wire: The Cultural Clock of Physicists and The Discourse of Consensus. Language in Society, 26(4), 479-506. Cerca con Google

Orasanu, J. & Connolly, T. (1993). The Reinvention of decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.) Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 3-20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cerca con Google

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of Social Action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims. Human Studies, 9, 219-229. Cerca con Google

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage. Cerca con Google

Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (200l) Discursive Social Psychology. in W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.) The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 103-118). London: Wiley. Cerca con Google

Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, Severity, and Context in Disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 1087-1111. Cerca con Google

Sacks, H. (1987). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee. (Eds.) Talk and Social Organisation (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Cerca con Google

Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation: Vol. I. Oxford: Blackwell. Cerca con Google

Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation: Vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell. Cerca con Google

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735. Cerca con Google

Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327. Cerca con Google

Schegloff, E. A. Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382. Cerca con Google

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of 'uh huh' and Other Things That Come Between Sentences. In D. Tannen (Eds.) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981) (pp. 71-93). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Cerca con Google

Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between Micro and Macro: Contexts and Other Connections. In J. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Much & N. Smelser (Eds.) The Micro-Macro Link (pp. 207-234). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Cerca con Google

Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an Interactional Achievement III: The Omnirelevance of Action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 185-211. Cerca con Google

Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose Text? Whose Context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165-187. Cerca con Google

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Soru, D., Cottone, P., Altoè, G., Schiavinato, V. & Mantovani, G. (2009). Developing a Simulated Environment to Study Naturalistic Decision Making Processes. Abstract published in Proceedings of NDM9, the Ninth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making, London, UK, June 2009. Cerca con Google

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1953[1944]). Theory of games and economic behavior. Third edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cerca con Google

Zsambok, C. E. (1997). NDM: Where are we now? In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.) Naturalistic Decision Making (pp. 3-16). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record