{
  "name": "意思決定・判断・問題解決・認知バイアス 研究メタデータ",
  "version": "0.1",
  "notice": "論文本文・尺度項目は含みません。各権利者の条件に従ってください。",
  "studies": [
    {
      "id": "simon-1955",
      "authors": "Simon, H. A.",
      "year": 1955,
      "title": "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice",
      "journal": "The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118",
      "doi": "10.2307/1884852",
      "type": "theory",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "意思決定者",
      "sample": "理論モデル",
      "method": "完全合理性に代わる限定合理性と満足化を提示",
      "finding": "情報・計算能力・時間の制約下での選択を理論化",
      "limitations": [
        "古典理論",
        "組織の権力・感情を十分扱わない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "tversky-1974",
      "authors": "Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.",
      "year": 1974,
      "title": "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases",
      "journal": "Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131",
      "doi": "10.1126/science.185.4157.1124",
      "type": "integrative experimental review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "不確実性下の判断",
      "sample": "実験研究群",
      "method": "代表性、利用可能性、係留等を整理",
      "finding": "有用な簡便法が体系的偏りを生む条件を提示",
      "limitations": [
        "実験課題中心",
        "バイアス一覧を個人診断へ使わない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "kahneman-1979",
      "authors": "Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.",
      "year": 1979,
      "title": "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk",
      "journal": "Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291",
      "doi": "10.2307/1914185",
      "type": "theory and experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "リスク下の選択",
      "sample": "実験・理論",
      "method": "参照点、損失回避、確率加重を含むモデルを提示",
      "finding": "期待効用からの体系的逸脱を説明",
      "limitations": [
        "記述理論",
        "個別選択・高額実務へ直接適用しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "tversky-1981",
      "authors": "Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.",
      "year": 1981,
      "title": "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice",
      "journal": "Science, 211(4481), 453–458",
      "doi": "10.1126/science.7455683",
      "type": "experiments and theory",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "リスク下の選択者",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "同じ結果を利得・損失等で表現した選択を比較",
      "finding": "問題表現と参照点により選好が変わり得ることを示した",
      "limitations": [
        "実験シナリオ",
        "現実の価値・制度を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "evans-2008",
      "authors": "Evans, J. St. B. T.",
      "year": 2008,
      "title": "Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition",
      "journal": "Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278",
      "doi": "10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "推論・判断研究",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "二重過程理論を比較・統合",
      "finding": "高速・自動的過程と低速・統制的過程の理論群を整理",
      "limitations": [
        "理論間差",
        "直観＝悪、分析＝善と単純化しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "gigerenzer-1996",
      "authors": "Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G.",
      "year": 1996,
      "title": "Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality",
      "journal": "Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669",
      "doi": "10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650",
      "type": "theory and simulation",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "推論・選択",
      "sample": "モデル・シミュレーション",
      "method": "少ない情報を使う高速倹約ヒューリスティックを検討",
      "finding": "環境構造に適合すれば簡便法が有効になり得る",
      "limitations": [
        "モデル・課題依存",
        "現実の権力・実装を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "gigerenzer-2011",
      "authors": "Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W.",
      "year": 2011,
      "title": "Heuristic Decision Making",
      "journal": "Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482",
      "doi": "10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "意思決定研究",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "ヒューリスティックの機能・環境適合を統合",
      "finding": "簡便法は偏りだけでなく効率・頑健性を持ち得る",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "どの環境に適合するか事前確認が必要"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "kahneman-klein-2009",
      "authors": "Kahneman, D., & Klein, G.",
      "year": 2009,
      "title": "Conditions for Intuitive Expertise: A Failure to Disagree",
      "journal": "American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526",
      "doi": "10.1037/a0016755",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "専門家の直観",
      "sample": "判断・自然主義的意思決定研究",
      "method": "直観的熟達が成立する条件を比較",
      "finding": "規則性の高い環境と十分で迅速なフィードバックが重要",
      "limitations": [
        "統合論文",
        "肩書・経験年数だけで熟達を推定しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "lipshitz-2001",
      "authors": "Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E.",
      "year": 2001,
      "title": "Taking Stock of Naturalistic Decision Making",
      "journal": "Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(5), 331–352",
      "doi": "10.1002/bdm.381",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "時間圧・不確実性の高い実務判断",
      "sample": "自然主義的意思決定研究",
      "method": "実務環境での認知・経験・状況認識を整理",
      "finding": "現場判断を実験課題だけでなく文脈内で捉える",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "経験者判断を無批判に正当化しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.381",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "frederick-2005",
      "authors": "Frederick, S.",
      "year": 2005,
      "title": "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making",
      "journal": "Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42",
      "doi": "10.1257/089533005775196732",
      "type": "measurement and experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "成人・学生",
      "sample": "複数研究",
      "method": "初発反応を抑え熟考する傾向と選択を検討",
      "finding": "認知的熟考と時間・リスク選好等の関連を報告",
      "limitations": [
        "短い尺度",
        "知能・人間価値の測定ではない",
        "文化・教育差"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "kunda-1990",
      "authors": "Kunda, Z.",
      "year": 1990,
      "title": "The Case for Motivated Reasoning",
      "journal": "Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498",
      "doi": "10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "推論・判断",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "方向づけられた目標が推論へ与える影響を統合",
      "finding": "望ましい結論へ向かう推論も妥当らしい方略に制約されると整理",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "動機を本人の悪意とみなさない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "nickerson-1998",
      "authors": "Nickerson, R. S.",
      "year": 1998,
      "title": "Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises",
      "journal": "Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220",
      "doi": "10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "判断・仮説検証",
      "sample": "広範な先行研究",
      "method": "確認バイアスの形態・説明・影響を統合",
      "finding": "既存信念に合う証拠の探索・解釈・記憶偏りを整理",
      "limitations": [
        "広い概念",
        "反証だけを機械的に強制しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "moore-2008",
      "authors": "Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J.",
      "year": 2008,
      "title": "The Trouble With Overconfidence",
      "journal": "Psychological Review, 115(2), 502–517",
      "doi": "10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502",
      "type": "theory and experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "判断者",
      "sample": "理論・実験",
      "method": "過大評価、過順位、過精密を区別",
      "finding": "異なる過信が課題難度等で異なる動きを示す",
      "limitations": [
        "実験課題",
        "自信の強さだけで能力を評価しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "lerner-1999",
      "authors": "Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E.",
      "year": 1999,
      "title": "Accounting for the Effects of Accountability",
      "journal": "Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275",
      "doi": "10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "説明責任下の判断",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "説明責任の相手・時期・正当化要求の効果を統合",
      "finding": "説明責任は条件により熟考も迎合も生み得る",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "説明を増やせば常に改善するわけではない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "baron-1988",
      "authors": "Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C.",
      "year": 1988,
      "title": "Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation",
      "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579",
      "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569",
      "type": "experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "意思決定評価者",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "同じ意思決定を結果情報の有無・良否で評価",
      "finding": "結果が良いと意思決定過程も良く評価される結果バイアスを示した",
      "limitations": [
        "実験シナリオ",
        "結果を無視することを意味しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "christensen-1991",
      "authors": "Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. J., & Willham, C. F.",
      "year": 1991,
      "title": "The Hindsight Bias: A Meta-Analysis",
      "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48(1), 147–168",
      "doi": "10.1016/0749-5978(91)90010-Q",
      "type": "meta-analysis",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "事後判断",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "後知恵バイアス研究を統合",
      "finding": "結果を知った後に予見可能性を過大評価する傾向を確認",
      "limitations": [
        "実験中心",
        "学習と責任追及を区別"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90010-Q",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "fischhoff-1975",
      "authors": "Fischhoff, B.",
      "year": 1975,
      "title": "Hindsight ≠ Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment Under Uncertainty",
      "journal": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288–299",
      "doi": "10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288",
      "type": "experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "判断者",
      "sample": "実験参加者",
      "method": "結果知識が事前確率評価へ与える影響を検討",
      "finding": "結果を知ると「最初から分かっていた」と評価しやすい",
      "limitations": [
        "実験材料",
        "現実の責任判断へ直接適用しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "staw-1976",
      "authors": "Staw, B. M.",
      "year": 1976,
      "title": "Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action",
      "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44",
      "doi": "10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2",
      "type": "experiment",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "投資意思決定者",
      "sample": "実験参加者",
      "method": "自己責任と否定的結果が追加投資へ与える影響を検討",
      "finding": "失敗した選択への関与が追加資源投入を高め得ると示した",
      "limitations": [
        "実験シナリオ",
        "継続が合理的な案件と区別"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "arkes-1985",
      "authors": "Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C.",
      "year": 1985,
      "title": "The Psychology of Sunk Cost",
      "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140",
      "doi": "10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4",
      "type": "experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "消費・投資判断者",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "回収不能費用が継続判断へ与える影響を検討",
      "finding": "サンクコストが将来選択へ影響する傾向を報告",
      "limitations": [
        "実験・学生を含む",
        "評判・契約等の将来費用と区別"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "buehler-1994",
      "authors": "Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M.",
      "year": 1994,
      "title": "Exploring the “Planning Fallacy”: Why People Underestimate Their Task Completion Times",
      "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381",
      "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366",
      "type": "experiments and field studies",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "個人の計画",
      "sample": "複数研究",
      "method": "自己の完了時間予測と説明を検討",
      "finding": "内部計画へ焦点を当て過去分布を十分使わない傾向を示した",
      "limitations": [
        "個人課題中心",
        "組織の政治・依存を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "slovic-2007",
      "authors": "Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G.",
      "year": 2007,
      "title": "The Affect Heuristic",
      "journal": "European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352",
      "doi": "10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "リスク判断",
      "sample": "実験・リスク研究",
      "method": "感情的評価がリスク・便益判断へ与える影響を統合",
      "finding": "好悪がリスクと便益の知覚へ影響する過程を整理",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "感情を排除対象にしない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "hoffrage-2000",
      "authors": "Hoffrage, U., Lindsey, S., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G.",
      "year": 2000,
      "title": "Communicating Statistical Information",
      "journal": "Science, 290(5500), 2261–2262",
      "doi": "10.1126/science.290.5500.2261",
      "type": "experimental communication research",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "統計情報の利用者",
      "sample": "実験研究",
      "method": "確率表現と推論の関係を検討",
      "finding": "自然頻度表現が一部のベイズ推論を助けると報告",
      "limitations": [
        "短報・課題依存",
        "数値理解を個人責任にしない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5500.2261",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "milkman-2009",
      "authors": "Milkman, K. L., Chugh, D., & Bazerman, M. H.",
      "year": 2009,
      "title": "How Can Decision Making Be Improved?",
      "journal": "Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 379–383",
      "doi": "10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01142.x",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "意思決定改善",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "デバイアスと選択環境の改善を整理",
      "finding": "個人訓練と意思決定環境の両方を提案",
      "limitations": [
        "短いレビュー",
        "介入効果の網羅統合ではない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01142.x",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "morewedge-2015",
      "authors": "Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S.",
      "year": 2015,
      "title": "Debiasing Decisions: Improved Decision Making With a Single Training Intervention",
      "journal": "Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129–140",
      "doi": "10.1177/2372732215600886",
      "type": "training experiments and review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "成人の判断者",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "映像・ゲーム型訓練のバイアス低減を評価",
      "finding": "一部のバイアスで持続的低減を報告",
      "limitations": [
        "特定課題・参加者",
        "実務への移転・組織効果を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215600886",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "rohrer-2018",
      "authors": "Rohrer, J. M.",
      "year": 2018,
      "title": "Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data",
      "journal": "Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42",
      "doi": "10.1177/2515245917745629",
      "type": "methodological tutorial",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "観察データを用いる研究者・意思決定者",
      "sample": "方法論",
      "method": "因果ダイアグラムで仮定、交絡、調整を明示する方法を解説",
      "finding": "相関から因果へ進む際の仮定を可視化",
      "limitations": [
        "方法論チュートリアル",
        "図を描くだけで因果が確定しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "mellers-2014",
      "authors": "Mellers, B., Stone, E., Murray, T., et al.",
      "year": 2014,
      "title": "Identifying and Cultivating Superforecasters as a Method of Improving Probabilistic Predictions",
      "journal": "Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 267–281",
      "doi": "10.1177/1745691614522815",
      "type": "field forecasting program",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "地政学予測参加者",
      "sample": "予測トーナメント",
      "method": "選抜、訓練、チーム化、集約と予測精度を検討",
      "finding": "確率予測、更新、集約で精度改善を報告",
      "limitations": [
        "特殊な予測環境",
        "選抜効果",
        "組織判断へ直接一般化しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614522815",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "stasser-1985",
      "authors": "Stasser, G., & Titus, W.",
      "year": 1985,
      "title": "Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion",
      "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1467–1478",
      "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467",
      "type": "group experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "意思決定グループ",
      "sample": "実験参加者",
      "method": "共有・非共有情報の討議を検討",
      "finding": "共有済み情報が討議されやすく独自情報が統合されにくいと示した",
      "limitations": [
        "実験課題",
        "実務の権力・専門性を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "mesmer-2009",
      "authors": "Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A.",
      "year": 2009,
      "title": "Information Sharing and Team Performance: A Meta-Analysis",
      "journal": "Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546",
      "doi": "10.1037/a0013773",
      "type": "meta-analysis",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "チーム意思決定・遂行",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "情報共有と成果、共有・独自情報を統合",
      "finding": "情報共有は成果と関連するが種類と課題条件が重要",
      "limitations": [
        "相関・実験混在",
        "量と利用の質を区別"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "esser-1998",
      "authors": "Esser, J. K.",
      "year": 1998,
      "title": "Alive and Well After 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research",
      "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 116–141",
      "doi": "10.1006/obhd.1998.2758",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "集団意思決定",
      "sample": "集団思考研究",
      "method": "理論・実証結果をレビュー",
      "finding": "集団思考モデルの支持は部分的で条件・測定課題があると整理",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "失敗した会議へ事後ラベルを貼らない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2758",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "diehl-1987",
      "authors": "Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W.",
      "year": 1987,
      "title": "Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Toward the Solution of a Riddle",
      "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509",
      "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497",
      "type": "experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "発想グループ",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "相互作用群と名義群の発想生産性を比較",
      "finding": "発話待ち等の生産阻害が集団ブレインストーミングの損失に関係",
      "limitations": [
        "実験課題",
        "創造性の質・実装を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "rowe-1999",
      "authors": "Rowe, G., & Wright, G.",
      "year": 1999,
      "title": "The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis",
      "journal": "International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353–375",
      "doi": "10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "専門家予測",
      "sample": "デルファイ研究",
      "method": "匿名・反復・集約・フィードバックの論点を整理",
      "finding": "構造化専門家判断の条件と限界を提示",
      "limitations": [
        "研究の異質性",
        "匿名性・選定・集約方法に依存"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "kerr-2004",
      "authors": "Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S.",
      "year": 2004,
      "title": "Group Performance and Decision Making",
      "journal": "Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655",
      "doi": "10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "集団遂行・判断",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "集団の情報処理、動機、組合せ規則を統合",
      "finding": "集団は構成・課題・規則により個人を上回りも下回りもすると整理",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "平均人数効果を処方しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "dedreu-2008",
      "authors": "De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D.",
      "year": 2008,
      "title": "Motivated Information Processing in Group Judgment and Decision Making",
      "journal": "Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49",
      "doi": "10.1177/1088868307304092",
      "type": "integrative theory review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "集団判断",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "認識的動機と社会的動機を統合",
      "finding": "精緻な情報処理は正確さへの動機と協同・個人志向に依存すると整理",
      "limitations": [
        "概念統合",
        "権力・制度を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304092",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "wagner-1994",
      "authors": "Wagner, J. A.",
      "year": 1994,
      "title": "Participation’s Effects on Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration of Research Evidence",
      "journal": "Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 312–330",
      "doi": "10.5465/amr.1994.9410210753",
      "type": "meta-analytic review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "職場の意思決定参加",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "参加と業績・満足の証拠を再検討",
      "finding": "平均効果は小さく、設計・方法による差を示す",
      "limitations": [
        "古い研究群",
        "参加の実質・権力差を区別"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410210753",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "isenberg-1986",
      "authors": "Isenberg, D. J.",
      "year": 1986,
      "title": "Group Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis",
      "journal": "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141–1151",
      "doi": "10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141",
      "type": "meta-analysis",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "集団討議",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "討議前後の態度シフトを統合",
      "finding": "平均的な集団分極化と情報・比較過程を整理",
      "limitations": [
        "実験中心",
        "組織の決定権・責任を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "mertens-2022",
      "authors": "Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J., & Brosch, T.",
      "year": 2022,
      "title": "The Effectiveness of Nudging: A Meta-Analysis of Choice Architecture Interventions Across Behavioral Domains",
      "journal": "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), e2107346118",
      "doi": "10.1073/pnas.2107346118",
      "type": "meta-analysis",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "選択アーキテクチャ介入",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "領域横断でナッジ効果を統合",
      "finding": "平均的効果と大きな異質性を報告",
      "limitations": [
        "出版バイアス・文脈差の議論",
        "効果の再評価が続く",
        "権利・透明性を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107346118",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "chernev-2015",
      "authors": "Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J.",
      "year": 2015,
      "title": "Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis",
      "journal": "Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 333–358",
      "doi": "10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002",
      "type": "meta-analysis",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "消費者・選択者",
      "sample": "先行研究群",
      "method": "選択肢数と選択過多、調整条件を統合",
      "finding": "選択過多は目的の不確実性、課題難度、選好不確実性等の条件に依存",
      "limitations": [
        "消費者研究中心",
        "職場・権利選択へ直接一般化しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "dietvorst-2015",
      "authors": "Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C.",
      "year": 2015,
      "title": "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err",
      "journal": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126",
      "doi": "10.1037/xge0000033",
      "type": "experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "予測利用者",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "人とアルゴリズムの誤り後の利用選択を比較",
      "finding": "アルゴリズムの誤り観察後に過度に回避する傾向を報告",
      "limitations": [
        "実験課題",
        "実際の高リスク導入へ直接適用しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "logg-2019",
      "authors": "Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A.",
      "year": 2019,
      "title": "Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment",
      "journal": "Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103",
      "doi": "10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005",
      "type": "experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "助言利用者",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "人・アルゴリズム助言への重みづけを比較",
      "finding": "条件によりアルゴリズム助言を人より重視する傾向を報告",
      "limitations": [
        "実験課題",
        "対象・専門性・説明で変化",
        "過信を正当化しない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "skitka-1999",
      "authors": "Skitka, L. J., Mosier, K., & Burdick, M.",
      "year": 1999,
      "title": "Does Automation Bias Decision-Making?",
      "journal": "International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51(5), 991–1006",
      "doi": "10.1006/ijhc.1999.0255",
      "type": "laboratory experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "自動化支援下の判断者",
      "sample": "実験参加者",
      "method": "自動化の誤助言・見落としと判断を検討",
      "finding": "自動化への依存が誤り・省略に結びつく場合を示した",
      "limitations": [
        "実験環境",
        "現代AIとの差",
        "訓練・責任設計を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0255",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "parasuraman-2000",
      "authors": "Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D.",
      "year": 2000,
      "title": "A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction With Automation",
      "journal": "IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A, 30(3), 286–297",
      "doi": "10.1109/3468.844354",
      "type": "conceptual framework",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "自動化システム利用者",
      "sample": "人間工学研究",
      "method": "情報取得・分析・選択・実行の自動化水準を整理",
      "finding": "機能ごとに自動化水準と人の役割を設計する枠組みを提示",
      "limitations": [
        "概念枠組み",
        "現代AIの学習・生成特性を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "dzindolet-2003",
      "authors": "Dzindolet, M. T., Peterson, S. A., Pomranky, R. A., Pierce, L. G., & Beck, H. P.",
      "year": 2003,
      "title": "The Role of Trust in Automation Reliance",
      "journal": "International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 697–718",
      "doi": "10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7",
      "type": "experiments",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "介入・実証研究",
      "population": "自動意思決定支援の利用者",
      "sample": "複数実験",
      "method": "自動化への信頼、自己信頼、依存を検討",
      "finding": "能力・誤り情報が信頼と依存へ影響すると報告",
      "limitations": [
        "実験課題",
        "信頼と適正依存を区別"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "jarrahi-2018",
      "authors": "Jarrahi, M. H.",
      "year": 2018,
      "title": "Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work: Human-AI Symbiosis in Organizational Decision Making",
      "journal": "Business Horizons, 61(4), 577–586",
      "doi": "10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007",
      "type": "integrative conceptual review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "組織意思決定とAI",
      "sample": "先行研究・事例",
      "method": "人とAIの相補性を不確実性・複雑性から整理",
      "finding": "分析能力と人の文脈・直観の相補関係を提示",
      "limitations": [
        "概念レビュー",
        "実証効果の統合ではない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "selbst-2019",
      "authors": "Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J.",
      "year": 2019,
      "title": "Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems",
      "journal": "Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 59–68",
      "doi": "10.1145/3287560.3287598",
      "type": "conceptual analysis",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "基礎理論・測定",
      "population": "自動意思決定の設計・利用",
      "sample": "公平性・社会技術研究",
      "method": "技術的抽象化が制度・文脈・相互作用を見落とす罠を整理",
      "finding": "公平性を社会技術システム全体で扱う必要を提示",
      "limitations": [
        "概念論文",
        "具体的な効果量・法的基準ではない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "kellogg-2020",
      "authors": "Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A.",
      "year": 2020,
      "title": "Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control",
      "journal": "Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410",
      "doi": "10.5465/annals.2018.0174",
      "type": "integrative review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "アルゴリズムによる職場統制",
      "sample": "組織・労働研究文献",
      "method": "アルゴリズム統制と労働者の対応を統合",
      "finding": "推薦、制限、記録、評価、報酬等を通じた統制を整理",
      "limitations": [
        "レビュー",
        "産業・技術差",
        "効果量統合ではない"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "parent-parker-2022",
      "authors": "Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Parker, S. K.",
      "year": 2022,
      "title": "Algorithms as Work Designers: How Algorithmic Management Influences the Design of Jobs",
      "journal": "Human Resource Management Review, 32(3), 100838",
      "doi": "10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838",
      "type": "integrative conceptual review",
      "status": "peer-reviewed",
      "evidence_role": "統合研究",
      "population": "アルゴリズム管理下の仕事",
      "sample": "仕事設計・管理研究",
      "method": "アルゴリズム管理が仕事特性へ及ぼす経路を統合",
      "finding": "自律性、課題、フィードバック、関係等への影響を整理",
      "limitations": [
        "概念・統合研究",
        "長期介入効果は未確立"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "nist-ai-100",
      "authors": "National Institute of Standards and Technology",
      "year": 2023,
      "title": "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)",
      "journal": "NIST AI 100-1",
      "doi": "10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1",
      "type": "official risk management framework",
      "status": "official technical report",
      "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度",
      "population": "AIを設計・導入・利用する組織",
      "sample": "該当なし",
      "method": "リスク管理の公式枠組み・プロファイル",
      "finding": "AIリスクをGovern・Map・Measure・Manageで扱う自発的枠組みを提示",
      "limitations": [
        "米国の自発的枠組み",
        "法的義務そのものではない",
        "用途固有評価が必要"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "nist-ai-600",
      "authors": "National Institute of Standards and Technology",
      "year": 2024,
      "title": "Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile",
      "journal": "NIST AI 600-1",
      "doi": "10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1",
      "type": "official risk management profile",
      "status": "official technical report",
      "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度",
      "population": "AIを設計・導入・利用する組織",
      "sample": "該当なし",
      "method": "リスク管理の公式枠組み・プロファイル",
      "finding": "生成AI固有リスクと管理行動をAI RMFへ接続",
      "limitations": [
        "生成AIプロファイル",
        "雇用判断専用ではない",
        "継続更新が必要"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "ilo-data",
      "authors": "International Labour Organization",
      "year": 1997,
      "title": "Protection of Workers’ Personal Data: An ILO Code of Practice",
      "journal": "International Labour Organization",
      "url": "https://www.ilo.org/publications/protection-workers%E2%80%99-personal-data-ilo-code-practice",
      "type": "official code of practice",
      "status": "official",
      "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度",
      "population": "働く人と組織",
      "sample": "該当なし",
      "method": "公式文書の原則・要件を整理",
      "finding": "労働者個人データの目的限定、透明性、アクセス等の原則を提示",
      "limitations": [
        "拘束的条約ではない",
        "国内法を別途確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://www.ilo.org/publications/protection-workers%E2%80%99-personal-data-ilo-code-practice",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "eu-platform-2024",
      "authors": "European Parliament and Council of the European Union",
      "year": 2024,
      "title": "Directive (EU) 2024/2831 on Improving Working Conditions in Platform Work",
      "journal": "Official Journal of the European Union",
      "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2831/oj/eng",
      "type": "official legal instrument",
      "status": "official",
      "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度",
      "population": "働く人と組織",
      "sample": "該当なし",
      "method": "公式文書の原則・要件を整理",
      "finding": "プラットフォーム労働の自動監視・意思決定に透明性、人の監督、説明・異議等を規定",
      "limitations": [
        "EUプラットフォーム労働に関する法令",
        "日本へ直接適用されない",
        "国内実装を確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2831/oj/eng",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    },
    {
      "id": "who-2022",
      "authors": "World Health Organization",
      "year": 2022,
      "title": "WHO Guidelines on Mental Health at Work",
      "journal": "World Health Organization",
      "url": "https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052",
      "type": "official evidence-based guideline",
      "status": "official",
      "evidence_role": "公式指針・制度",
      "population": "働く人と組織",
      "sample": "該当なし",
      "method": "公式文書の原則・要件を整理",
      "finding": "心理社会的リスクへの組織介入、管理職訓練、労働者支援等を提示",
      "limitations": [
        "意思決定専用ではない",
        "国内制度・個別状況を確認"
      ],
      "source_url": "https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052",
      "last_human_verified": "2026-07-12"
    }
  ]
}