I was excited to find a new study about decision styles and how they relate to decision qualities.

We know that people have different ways of approaching decisions – or different decision styles. Several studies have suggested the existence of five distinct styles:

1) Rational
An example item in a questionnaire would be:
“I make decisions in a logical and systematic way.”

2) Intuitive
E.g.,“When I make decisions, I tend to rely on my intuition.”

3) Avoidant
E.g.,“I avoid making important decisions until the pressure is on.”

4) Dependent
E.g.,“I rarely make important decisions without consulting other people.”

5) Spontaneous
E.g.,“I generally make snap decisions.”

One big question is: are some of these styles better than others? Or in other words, can decision styles distinguish between “good” decision makers and “bad” decision makers? It would be interesting to know, for example, if decision makers with a more “rational” style generally make better or worse decisions than people with a more “intuitive” style.

A recent study by Nicole Wood and Scott Highhouse attempted to answer exactly this question. They found some interesting answers indeed:

• While intuitive decision-makers rated themselves as the best decision makers, their peers did not agree with those high opinions. It was on the contrary the rational decision style that was related to higher quality decisions, when the decisions were judged by others, rather than the decision makers themselves.
• None of the other decision styles (avoidant, dependent, or spontaneous) explained much difference in decision qualities at all. Only the avoidant style was somewhat related to low self-ratings, but with a small effect size, and none of those decision styles were related to peer ratings in any way.

Additionally, the researchers looked at personality styles, which have been much more extensively studied in the past already, and are at this point better understood than decision styles. They found that conscientiousness, as a personality trait, is also a characteristic of people who are judged as good decision makers by their peers.

To put this most recent study into perspective: the new findings line up well with previous research supporting the idea that careful decision processes lead to good outcomes. For example, it is already known that careful decision makers are more satisfied with their careers, and that they perform better in school. There are also several studies showing that rational thinkers are less likely to be tricked by typical biases and errors that most people fall for.

Taken together, there is a growing body of research suggesting that careful decision-making predicts decision quality in a number of contexts, and that a rational decision style is effective and beneficial in many areas of life.

by Ursina Teuscher (PhD), at Teuscher Decision Coaching, Portland OR

Sources, references and more info:
More information about the measure “General Decision Making Style” (GDMS) on the website of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making (JDM)
Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., & D’Alessio, M. (2009). Decision-making style among adolescents: Relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 963–976.
Crossley, C., & Highhouse, S. (2005). Relation of job search and choice process with subsequent satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 255–268.
Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2012). Decision styles and rationality: An analysis of the predictive validity of the general decision-making style inventory. Educational and Psychology Measurement, 72, 1053–1062.
Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819–829.
Epstein, S., Donovan, S., & Denes-Raj, V. (1999). The missing link in the paradox of the Linda conjunction problem: Beyond knowing and thinking of the conjunction rule, the intrinsic appeal of heuristic processing. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 25, 204–214.
Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C., & Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 328–339.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G⁄Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public- domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 534–544.
Loo, R. (2000). A psychometric evaluation of the General Decision-Making Style Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 895–905.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 818–831.
Wood, N. L., & Highhouse, S. (2014). Do self-reported decision styles relate with others’ impressions of decision quality? Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 224–228.