Tomasz Wachowicz, Ewa Roszkowska, Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko
{"title":"识别决策风格:REI-20 和 GDMS 的衡量标准相同吗?","authors":"Tomasz Wachowicz, Ewa Roszkowska, Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko","doi":"10.1007/s40622-024-00373-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The paper aims to study relationships between results obtained by two instruments, the rational-experiential inventory, in its modified version named REI-20, and the general decision-making style (GDMS). Although both instruments differ in concept and construction of decision styles, they refer to two very similar constructs—rationality and experientiality or intuition, resulting from the dual concept of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Using the same experimental sample, we examined the relationships between the REI-20 modes, i.e., rational and experiential, and GDMS modes, i.e., rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. We checked how rational and experiential decision-making styles identified by REI-20 correspond to the rational and intuitive modes of GDMS. We also examined the relationships between clusters of decision-making profiles, defined as combinations of various levels of rational and intuitive/experiential modes determined from both instruments. Finally, we analyzed the gender differences between the styles identified by both inventories. The between-tool analysis showed that rationality determined from REI-20 and GDMS correlate only weakly; however, the correlation between experientiality and intuitiveness is strong. Both tools produced inconclusive results when comparing gender differences. REI-20 differentiated significantly between genders, indicating that women are less rational and more experimental than men, while GDMS considered these differences insignificant. It implies that using a particular decision-making style inventory in advanced analyses of the process and outcomes of the decision-making requires exceptional caution as various tools may produce a different classification of decision-makers and lead to different, if not contradictory, conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":43923,"journal":{"name":"Decision","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying decision-making style: Do REI-20 and GDMS measure the same?\",\"authors\":\"Tomasz Wachowicz, Ewa Roszkowska, Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40622-024-00373-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The paper aims to study relationships between results obtained by two instruments, the rational-experiential inventory, in its modified version named REI-20, and the general decision-making style (GDMS). Although both instruments differ in concept and construction of decision styles, they refer to two very similar constructs—rationality and experientiality or intuition, resulting from the dual concept of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Using the same experimental sample, we examined the relationships between the REI-20 modes, i.e., rational and experiential, and GDMS modes, i.e., rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. We checked how rational and experiential decision-making styles identified by REI-20 correspond to the rational and intuitive modes of GDMS. We also examined the relationships between clusters of decision-making profiles, defined as combinations of various levels of rational and intuitive/experiential modes determined from both instruments. Finally, we analyzed the gender differences between the styles identified by both inventories. The between-tool analysis showed that rationality determined from REI-20 and GDMS correlate only weakly; however, the correlation between experientiality and intuitiveness is strong. Both tools produced inconclusive results when comparing gender differences. REI-20 differentiated significantly between genders, indicating that women are less rational and more experimental than men, while GDMS considered these differences insignificant. It implies that using a particular decision-making style inventory in advanced analyses of the process and outcomes of the decision-making requires exceptional caution as various tools may produce a different classification of decision-makers and lead to different, if not contradictory, conclusions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decision\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decision\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-024-00373-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-024-00373-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Identifying decision-making style: Do REI-20 and GDMS measure the same?
The paper aims to study relationships between results obtained by two instruments, the rational-experiential inventory, in its modified version named REI-20, and the general decision-making style (GDMS). Although both instruments differ in concept and construction of decision styles, they refer to two very similar constructs—rationality and experientiality or intuition, resulting from the dual concept of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Using the same experimental sample, we examined the relationships between the REI-20 modes, i.e., rational and experiential, and GDMS modes, i.e., rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant, and spontaneous. We checked how rational and experiential decision-making styles identified by REI-20 correspond to the rational and intuitive modes of GDMS. We also examined the relationships between clusters of decision-making profiles, defined as combinations of various levels of rational and intuitive/experiential modes determined from both instruments. Finally, we analyzed the gender differences between the styles identified by both inventories. The between-tool analysis showed that rationality determined from REI-20 and GDMS correlate only weakly; however, the correlation between experientiality and intuitiveness is strong. Both tools produced inconclusive results when comparing gender differences. REI-20 differentiated significantly between genders, indicating that women are less rational and more experimental than men, while GDMS considered these differences insignificant. It implies that using a particular decision-making style inventory in advanced analyses of the process and outcomes of the decision-making requires exceptional caution as various tools may produce a different classification of decision-makers and lead to different, if not contradictory, conclusions.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the Journal, Decision, is to publish qualitative, quantitative, survey-based, simulation-based research articles at the national and sub-national levels. While there is no stated regional focus of the journal, we are more interested in examining if and how individuals, firms and governments in emerging economies may make decisions differently. Published for the management scholars, business executives and managers, the Journal aims to advance the management research by publishing empirically and theoretically grounded articles in management decision making process. The Editors aim to provide an efficient and high-quality review process to the authors.
The Journal accepts submissions in several formats such as original research papers, case studies, review articles and book reviews (book reviews are only by invitation).
The Journal welcomes research-based, original and insightful articles on organizational, individual, socio-economic-political, environmental decision making with relevance to theory and practice of business. It also focusses on the managerial decision-making challenges in private, public, private-public partnership and non-profit organizations. The Journal also encourages case studies that provide a rich description of the business or societal contexts in managerial decision-making process including areas – but not limited to – conflict over natural resources, product innovation and copyright laws, legislative or policy change, socio-technical embedding of financial markets, particularly in developing economy, an ethnographic understanding of relations at a workplace, or social network in marketing management, etc.
Research topics covered in the Journal include (but not limited to):
Finance and Accounting
Organizational Theory and Behavior
Decision Science
Public Policy-Economic Insights
Operation Management
Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Information Technology and Systems Management
Optimization and Modelling
Supply Chain Management
Data Analytics
Marketing Management
Human Resource Management