识别决策风格:REI-20 和 GDMS 的衡量标准相同吗?

IF 1.5 Q3 MANAGEMENT
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在研究两种工具所得出的结果之间的关系,这两种工具分别是理性-体验式清单(其修订版名为 REI-20)和一般决策风格(GDMS)。尽管这两种工具在概念和决策风格的构建上有所不同,但它们都涉及两个非常相似的概念--理性和经验性或直觉,这源于认知-经验自我理论的双重概念。我们使用相同的实验样本,研究了 REI-20 模式(即理性和体验)与 GDMS 模式(即理性、直觉、依赖、回避和自发)之间的关系。我们检查了 REI-20 确定的理性和体验决策风格与 GDMS 的理性和直觉模式之间的对应关系。我们还研究了决策特征群组之间的关系,决策特征群组被定义为这两种工具所确定的理性和直觉/体验模式的不同水平的组合。最后,我们分析了两份问卷所确定的决策风格之间的性别差异。工具间分析表明,REI-20 和 GDMS 所确定的理性相关性很弱;但经验性和直觉性之间的相关性很强。在比较性别差异时,两种工具都没有得出结论。REI-20 对性别差异有明显区分,表明女性比男性更理性,更善于实验,而 GDMS 则认为这些差异不明显。这意味着,在对决策过程和结果进行高级分析时,使用特定的决策风格清单需要格外谨慎,因为各种工具可能会对决策者进行不同的分类,并得出不同的结论,甚至是相互矛盾的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Identifying decision-making style: Do REI-20 and GDMS measure the same?

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Decision
Decision MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信