Structuring Conflict in Individual, Face‐to‐Face, and Computer‐Mediated Group Decision Making: Carping Versus Objective Devil's Advocacy*
通过实验室实验比较客观与非客观（吹毛求疵）的魔鬼代言法在个体和群体（面对面或计算机媒介）决策中的效果，发现客观的魔鬼代言法能提高决策质量，而吹毛求疵在面对面群体中会抑制决策效果。
Researchers and practitioners have long been interested in the effects of cognitive conflict techniques on individual and group decision making. One widely used and studied technique, devil's advocacy (DA), has been found to enhance decision‐making performance for both individuals and groups. Devil's advocacy begins with a recommended decision, followed by a critique of the decision that questions its assumptions. Researchers have not yet examined the effects of the objectivity of the devil's advocacy comments in computer‐mediated environments. This paper reports the results of a laboratory experiment that focused on this question by comparing the effects of an objective, nonemotional DA to an emotional, “carping” DA within individuals and groups using either computer‐mediated or face‐to‐face communication. In a manner consistent with prior research, both DA treatments were operationalized through the use of paper‐based consulting reports. The results suggest that individuals and computer‐mediated groups develop and consider more solution alternatives than face‐to‐face groups, and that subjects given the objective DA treatment produce higher quality decisions than those given the carping DA treatment. Face‐to‐face groups in the carping DA treatment considered the fewest alternative solutions in their decision‐making process, reached the lowest solution quality, yet reached decision consensus in the fewest voting rounds. The practical implications of the results suggest that questioning statements made by a devil's advocate should be objective, regardless of group communication condition. Carping devil's advocacy appears to stifle group decision outcomes when groups are using face‐to‐face communication.