FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W919385747> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W919385747 endingPage "82" @default.
• W919385747 startingPage "63" @default.
• W919385747 abstract "Abstract: There are several available measures that can help us to distinguish between two general types of processing, usually known as intuitive and deliberative. In the current study we examined two of them, Rationality-Experiantility Inventory and Preference for Intuition/Deliberation Scale in Slovak sample of 860 working adults and students (Study 1). In Study 2 (with N = 428 participants) we verified the 2-factor structure of REI after rephrasing problematic items shown in Study 1. The results showed that both PID and REI have good internal consistency, structures of Slovak versions correspond with the original versions. We found also some gender and age differences, and identified three factors (decision-making based on affect and holistic processing, decision-making based on creativity and cognitions, and planned, deliberate decision-making).Key words: intuition, REI, PID, psychometric propertiesIndividual differences in decision-making have become increasingly important in decision- making literature (Stanovich, 2011), because they have consequences for our choices and rationality. Reliable assessment of these differences in cognitive styles used in decision-making is a challenge for researchers. On one hand, there are enough measures of various cognitive styles distinguishing between processes generally falling under Type 1 and Type 2 in a dual process framework. On the other hand, most of these measures have several shortcomings - they are generally self-reported (therefore, it is necessary to establish their psychometric properties and construct validity on a larger sample), and most of them originated in Western cultures (therefore, it is necessary to examine their cross-cultural stability for use in countries outside their origin).Within decision-making research, two broad basic preferences are distinguished: intuitive and deliberative, which is rooted in the dual process theories (Betsch & Kunz, 2008; Gigerenzer, 2008; Gladwell, 2005; Kahneman, 2011; Sadler-Smith, 2008; Stanovich & West, 2000; Stanovich, 2011; Westcott, 1961). Individuals differ in the degree they use intuition (Type 1 processes) and deliberation (Type 2 processes) in perception, thinking and solving problems. Based on this assumption, constructs of cognitive styles have been formulated and, subsequently, various scales measuring these constructs have been created to identify the degree to which an individual relies on intuitive or deliberative problem solving and decision-making. On the other hand, there are some arguments against identification of intuition with Type 1 processes and deliberation with Type 2 processes (Cavojova & Hanak, 2014). Cultural studies reviewed by Buchtel and Norenzayan (2009) suggest that holistic processing can also be learned, effortful and normatively correct for solving some problems, and that it is likely to reflect cultural differences in Type 2 processing. Evans and Stanovich (2013) distinguish between types (Type 1 and 2 as qualitatively distinct ways of processing information) and modes of processing, which are cognitive styles and are manifest within the domain of what is regarded as Type 2 thinking. Taking cognitive styles as only a variation in the domain of Type 2 processes largely explains the many cultural differences reviewed by Buchtel and Norenzayan (2009).The increase of research interest in intuition in decision making has been accompanied by an increase of methods measuring this construct. Intuition can be measured within a dual process theories framework as an (in)ability to suppress an intuitive (yet incorrect) answer (Frederick, 2005), or as a preferred cognitive style or personality dimension (e.g., Betsch, 2004; Myers Briggs, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998; Pacini & Epstein, 1999). We focused on the two most widely used measures, the Preference for Intuition/Deliberation scale PID (Betsch, 2004) and the Rational-Experiential Inventory REI (Pacini & Epstein, 1999) and we examine analytical/deliberative and intuitive/experiential cognitive styles as two modes of processing information within the Type 2 processes. …" @default.
• W919385747 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W919385747 creator A5004048600 @default.
• W919385747 creator A5038485103 @default.
• W919385747 creator A5076383652 @default.
• W919385747 date "2015-01-01" @default.
• W919385747 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W919385747 title "APPROPRIATENESS OF TWO INVENTORIES MEASURING INTUITION (THE PID AND THE REI) FOR SLOVAK POPULATION" @default.
• W919385747 cites W1561434399 @default.
• W919385747 cites W1984687958 @default.
• W919385747 cites W1991752477 @default.
• W919385747 cites W1994225415 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2007432711 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2080919379 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2111143170 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2142421248 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2161080627 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2164930261 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2167366201 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2168869211 @default.
• W919385747 cites W2752099845 @default.
• W919385747 cites W654145152 @default.
• W919385747 cites W1958142371 @default.
• W919385747 doi "https://doi.org/10.21909/sp.2015.01.674" @default.
• W919385747 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W919385747 type Work @default.
• W919385747 sameAs 919385747 @default.
• W919385747 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W919385747 countsByYear W9193857472017 @default.
• W919385747 countsByYear W9193857472018 @default.
• W919385747 countsByYear W9193857472019 @default.
• W919385747 countsByYear W9193857472020 @default.
• W919385747 countsByYear W9193857472023 @default.
• W919385747 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W919385747 hasAuthorship W919385747A5004048600 @default.
• W919385747 hasAuthorship W919385747A5038485103 @default.
• W919385747 hasAuthorship W919385747A5076383652 @default.
• W919385747 hasBestOaLocation W9193857471 @default.
• W919385747 hasConcept C132010649 @default.
• W919385747 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W919385747 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W919385747 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W919385747 hasConcept C2777842544 @default.
• W919385747 hasConcept C2780102689 @default.
• W919385747 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W919385747 hasConceptScore W919385747C132010649 @default.
• W919385747 hasConceptScore W919385747C138885662 @default.
• W919385747 hasConceptScore W919385747C15744967 @default.
• W919385747 hasConceptScore W919385747C188147891 @default.
• W919385747 hasConceptScore W919385747C2777842544 @default.
• W919385747 hasConceptScore W919385747C2780102689 @default.
• W919385747 hasConceptScore W919385747C41895202 @default.
• W919385747 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W919385747 hasLocation W9193857471 @default.
• W919385747 hasOpenAccess W919385747 @default.
• W919385747 hasPrimaryLocation W9193857471 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W2592002436 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W2765850246 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W2978621900 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W3125406327 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W4205994876 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W4213232489 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W4239974689 @default.
• W919385747 hasRelatedWork W4383571492 @default.
• W919385747 hasVolume "57" @default.
• W919385747 isParatext "false" @default.
• W919385747 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W919385747 magId "919385747" @default.
• W919385747 workType "article" @default.