Search

This paper discusses issues associated with the measurement of intuitive and analytical decision-making in management context. The review of existing instruments illustrates conceptual differences and vagueness of the theoretical underpinnings of the measured construct. It also reveals lack of distinction between intuitive predisposition, preference, ability and actual use. Moreover, some of the existing scales seem to have low internal consistency or they are unsuitable for large-scale organisational studies. In view of these findings, we used four different measures of decision-making style applied in a specific situation. These were (a) intuitive and analytical decision-making style questionnaires developed for our study, (b) an open ended self-description of the participant's approach to the decision, assessed for analytical and intuitive style by three coders and by computer software, (c) latency (time taken to make the decision), and (d) verbalisation (number of words in self-description). Even though most measures were significantly inter-correlated in the anticipated direction, our findings reflected different effects of predictor variables on each measure. Therefore, it might be prudent to use a combination of measures to improve confidence in the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past three decades there has been considerable debate on whether the use of intuition is valid for making successful decisions under uncertainty and risk. Extensive research and subsequent discussion has been generated on Kahneman and Tversky's (1982) findings that heuristic principles and intuition lead to severe and systematic errors. Simon (1987), however, argues that many decision-makers make diagnoses and provide solutions rapidly without being able to report how they attained the result, frequently with considerable accuracy. Intuition in the current study is defined as a nonconscious process of problem-solving through pattern recognition and higherorder reasoning, developed over time through tacit learning and experience, and expressed through both insight and emotion. It will be argued that personality, perceptual and ability factors influence the use of either or both of these cognitive styles. We will introduce arguments from both sides of the debate — rational versus non-rational models of decision-making, and provide evidence that focuses on determining many of the important factors that influence accurate and reliable outcomes in judgment and decision making. The research was conducted with decision-makers in the share market, considered a high-risk industry (Schiller, 1993; Shefrin, 2000). The model tested in this study incorporates various determinants of decision-making performance: level of experience; general personality factors such as affective and cognitive preferential styles; perceived pressures on the decision-maker; feelings during the decision event; cognitive style; and use of heuristics and biases. Implications and directions for future research are also included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]