عوامل شناختی اثرگذار بر ادراک در فرایند قانونگذاری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

2 دانشیار دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

3 رئیس مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی

4 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت بازرگانی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

چکیده

بررسی علمی رفتار نمایندگان در انجام امور نمایندگی‌شان از‌جمله قانونگذاری اهمیت بسزایی دارد. در فرایند پیچیده قانونگذاری ادراک افراد نقش مؤثری ایفا می‌کند و بدیهی است نمایندگان براساس برداشت و ادراکی که از شرایط دارند به تدوین یا تصویب قوانین دست می‌زنند. بنابراین شناسایی عوامل اثرگذار بر ادراک نمایندگان نقش مؤثری بر عملکرد نمایندگان ایفا خواهد کرد. هدف اصلی این پژوهش، شناسایی عوامل شناختی اثرگذار بر ادراک نمایندگان با بهره‌گیری از نظریه داده بنیاد کلاسیک است. تحلیل داده‌ها در فرایند کدگذاری و تحلیل، منجر به ظهور 90 کد، 12 مفهوم انتزاعی، سه مقوله، دو قضیه اصلی و هفت زیر‌قضیه شد و نشان داد عوامل شناختی از طریق دو مقوله مدل‌های ذهنی و فرایندهای ذهنی بر ادراک نمایندگان اثر می‌گذارد. منظور از مدل‌های ذهنی؛ ایدئولوژی، تمایلات حزبی، باورها و نگرش‌ها و تاریخ‌گرایی نمایندگان است و منظور از فرایندهای ذهنی؛ توجه، خودآگاهی و قدرت تجزیه و تحلیل نمایندگان است. در این تحقیق، نحوه دستیابی به مفاهیم گفته شده و دو قضیه اصلی شرح داده شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Identification of Effective Cognitive Factors on the Perception in the Legislative Process

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyyed Ali Akbar Afjei 1
  • Vajholah Ghorbani Zadeh 2
  • kazem jalali 3
  • elham heydari 4
1 professor of management, Alameh University, Tehran, Iran Tabatabai
2 associate professor of management , Alameh Tabatabai University,Tehran, Iran
3 Head of Islamic Parliament Research Center
4 Phd student
چکیده [English]

The review of MPs’ legislative behaviors in carrying out their parliamentary functions including legislation is of great importance.  With regard to the complicated legislative process, parliamentarians’ perceptions can play a major role in their legislative performances such as drafting as well as approving laws. The present research aims to identify effective cognitive factors on parliamentarians’ perceptions through using a classic grounded theory approach. Data analysis in the coding process resulted in the emergence of ninety codes, twelve concepts and three categories, two propositions and seven sub propositions. The analysis of data shows that cognitive factors can affect the MP’s perception through two mental models and processes categories. Mental models involve four concepts of political ideology, the inclinations of political parties, beliefs and attitudes also historicism. Mental processes refer to the attention, self-awareness and analysis power. In the present research, the process of how to reach these mentioned concepts as well as two main propositions are explained in detail.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Perception
  • Cognitive Factors
  • Mental Models
  • Mental Processes
  • Classic Grounded Theory Approach

مراجع

  1. 1. افجه، سید‌علی‌اکبر (1385). مبانی فلسفی و تئوری‌های رهبری و رفتار سازمانی، تهران، انتشارات سمت.

    2. بازرگان، عباس (1387). مقدمه‌ای بر روش‌های تحقیق کیفی و آمیخته، تهران، نشر دیدآور.

    3. حیدری، علی و نادر سیدکلالی (1395). «ارائه مدل مزیت رقابتی شرکت‌های مشاوره مدیریت براساس نظریه قابلیت‌های پویا»، فصلنامه مدیریت بازرگانی دانشگاه تهران، دوره 8، ش 2.

    4. مطهری، مرتضی (1379). فلسفه تاریخ، انتشارات صدرا.

    1. Adams, R. B., N. Ambady, K. Nakayama and S. Shimojo (2011). The Science of Social Vision, New York, Oxford University Press.
    2. Alan, S. and J. Gary (2011). "Perception, Attribution, and Judgment of Others". Organizational Behaviour, 21(6).
    3. Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). "The other "Authoritarian Personality", In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30, New York: Academic Press.
    4. Bazerman, M., and D. Moore (2013). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, (8th ed.), John Wiley and Sons.
    5. Braithwaite, V. (1994). "Beyond Rokeachs Equality-freedom Model: tow Dimensional Value in a One Dimensional World", Journal of Social Issues, 50.
    6. Brosch, T. and D. Sander (2013). "Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Value- Based Decision Making: from Core Values to Economic Value", Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 398.
    7. Bullock, John G. (2011). "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate", American Political Science Review 105(3).
    8. Colin, F. Camerer (2009). "Progress in Behavioral Game Theory", Journal of Economic Perspectives 11(4).
    9. Costa-Gomes, M., V. P. Crawford and B. Broseta (2010). "Cognition and Behaviorin Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study", Econometrica 69 (5).
    10. Crane, Tim (2005). "The Problem of Perception’", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Accessed 1.9.2010.
    11. Curhan, J. R. and A. Pentland (2007). "Thin Slices of Negotiation: Predicting Outcomes from Conversational Dynamics Within the First 5 Minutes", Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 802.
    12. Davis, Gordan Bitter and Margrethe H. Olson (1985). Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development, Singapore: MacGraw-Hill Book Co.
    13. Duckitt, J. (2001). "A Dual-Process Cognitive–Motivational Theory of Ideology and Prejudice", In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 33. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    14. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Mill Valley, CA Sociology Press.
    15. _____ (2005). The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical Coding, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
    16. Gray, H. M., K. Gray and D. M. Wegner (2007). "Dimensions of Mind Perception", Science, 315, 619. doi:10.1126/science.1134475.
    17. Gregory, Richard (2000). Perception, Zangwill.
    18. Hamilton, D. L., N. Way, S. J. Sherman and E. Percy (2013). "Convergence and Divergence in Perceptions of Persons and Groups", In M. Mikulincer (Series Eds.) and J. Simpson, J. Dovidio (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. II. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes (p.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    19. Hershey, G. and J. Lugo (1970). Living Psychology, New York, MacMillan Company.
    20. Jost, J. T., B. A. Nosek and S. D. Gosling (2008). "Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social, Personality, and Political Psychology", Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2).
    21. Jost, J., E. Basevich, S. Dickson and S. Noorbaloochi (2016). "The Place of Values In a World of Politics: Personality, Motivation, and Ideology", in T. Brosch and  D. Sander (Eds) Handbook of Valuei Perspectives Form Economics, Neuroscience, Philosophy and Sociology. New Yourk, Oxford University Press.
    22. Kelly, M. (2000). "New Historicism", Amsterdam. AUP.
    23. Laibson, D. (1997). "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2).
    24. Piazza, E. A., T. D. Sweeny, D. Wessel, M. A. Silver and D. Whitney (2013). "Humans Use Summary Statistics to Perceive Auditory Sequences", Psy-chological Science, 24.
    25. Pomerantz, R. (2003). "Perception: Overview", In: Lynn Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, Vol. 3, London: Nature Publishing Group.
    26. Putnam, L. (Eds.), (1971). The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    27. Robbins, S. and T. Judge (2009). Organizational Behavior, Pearson Prentice Hall, 13th edition.
    28. Rubinstein, A. (2003). "Economics and Psychology? The Case of HyperbolicDiscounting", International Economic Review 44(4).
    29. Saks, A. M. and B. E. Ashforth (2011). "Organizational Socialization: Making Sense of the Past and Present as a Prologue for the Future", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51.
    30. Schneider, S. C. and R. Angelmar (1993). "Cognition in Organizational Analysis: Who’s Minding the Store", Organization Siudies, 14(3).
    31. Simon, Herbert A. (1955). "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice", The QuarterlyJournal of Economics 69(1).
    32. Slembeck, Tilman (1997). "The Formation of Economic Policy: A Cognitive-Evolutionary Approach to PolicyMaking", Constitutional Political Economy, 8.
    33. Sparkman, J. and Eidelman Scott (2016). "Putting myself in their Shoes": Ethnic Perspective Taking Explains Liberal–conservative Differences in Prejudice and Stereotyping, Personality and Individual Differences 98.
    34. Stagner, Ross (1999). "Corporate Decision-Making: An Empirical Study", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53.
    35. Taylor, J. R. and D. Robichaud (2004). "Finding the Organization in the Communication: Discourse as Action and Sensemaking", Organization, 11(3).
    36. Taylor, J. R. and E. Van Every (2000). The Emergent Organization, Lawerence Erbaum Assosiate, 11th.
    37. Tetlock. Philip E. (1984) "Cognitive Style and Political Belief Systems in the British House of Commons", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 2.
    38. Thaler, Richard H. and R. Sunstein Cass (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisionsabout Health, Wealth and Happiness, Penguin.
    39. Van Vugt, M. and T. Kameda (2012). "Evolution and Groups", In J. Levine (Ed.), Group Processes (pp. 297–332), New York, Psychology Press.
    40. Waytz, A., K. Gray, N. Epley and D. M. Wegner (2010). "Causes and Consequences of Mind Perception", Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
    41. Weick, K. E. (1993). "The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster", Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4).
    42. Weiss, Joseph W. (2001). Organizational Behavior and Change Managing Diversity, Cross Cultural Dynamics and Ethics, South-western College Publishing.
    43. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
    44. Yiu, D.W. and C. Lau (2008). "Corporate Entrepreneurship as Resource Capital Configuration in Emerging Market Firms", Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 32(1).
    45. Zebrowitz, L. A. and J. M. Montepare (2006). "The Ecological Approach to Person Perception: Evolutionary Roots and Contemporary Offshoots", New York: Psychology Press, 20(1).

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار