Assessing how we decide: Psychometric development of a decision modes scale

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hale A Forster ◽  
Julia G. Bottesini ◽  
Crystal Reeck ◽  
Elke U. Weber
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Sense Of Self ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Decision Mode

We present the development of the Domain-general Decision Mode Scale (DDMS), a 24-item scale to measure decision modes. Decision modes are the qualitatively different approaches through which individuals report making decisions. Researchers have consistently acknowledged that existing two-systems models of decision-making processes that distinguish between an intuitive and a rational mode do not account for the range of rule-based processes that decision makers employ in evaluating and making choices. Our studies identified six different decision modes, driven respectively by calculation, affect, habit, social norms, identity, and morality. Making a decision using the calculation mode involves a deliberate process of assessing costs and benefits. Using the affective mode involves an emotion- or gut-driven process. Using the social norms mode involves consideration of what others are doing or what others condone as appropriate. Using the habitual mode involves following a previously determined rule or habit. Using the identity mode involves identifying what is consistent with one’s sense of self or own values. Finally, using the moral decision mode involves consideration of what does the most good. We conceptually group the final four decision modes under the umbrella of rule-based decision-making: making a decision based on previously-learned and/or socially-derived conventions. The DDMS exhibits good reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. By providing a scale that assesses the degree to which decision makers report using these decision modes, we integrate past research on decision modes and create a framework for additional research into the effects of different decision processes.

An Initial Investigation of the Use of Comparative Referents to Assess Social Anxiety

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 367-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura D. Seligman ◽  
Erin F. Swedish ◽  
Jason P. Rose ◽  
Jessica M. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Injunctive Norms ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Excellent Internal Consistency ◽  
Social Quality Of Life ◽  
Comparison Measures

Abstract. The current study examined the validity of two self-report measures of social anxiety constructed using social comparative referent points. It was hypothesized that these comparison measures would be both reliable and valid. Results indicated that two different comparative versions – one invoking injunctive norms and another invoking descriptive norms – showed good reliability, excellent internal consistency, and acceptable convergent and discriminant validity. The comparative measures also predicted positive functioning, some aspects of social quality of life, and social anxiety as measured by an independent self-report. These findings suggest that adding a comparative reference point to instructions on social anxiety measures may aid in the assessment of social anxiety.

A Validation Study of the Adolescent Risk-taking Questionnaire

2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Gullone ◽  
Jacqueline Paul ◽  
Susan M. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Risk Taking ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Parent Attachment ◽  
Male Adolescents ◽  
Risk Beliefs ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Adolescent Risk

AbstractThe Adolescent Risk-taking Questionnaire (ARQ) was developed to comprehensively assess adolescent risk-taking beliefs and behaviours. Research has shown that it is a reliable instrument with strong construct validity. The current study investigated the convergent and discriminant validity of the ARQ by comparing responses of a sample of 52 male adolescents from a juvenile justice centre and 211 school-attending male adolescents. Consistent with past research, the juvenile justice centre youth reported significantly higher levels of depression and less optimal levels of parent attachment compared to school-attending youth. Convergent validity of the ARQ was demonstrated through significant relationships between attachment and risk-taking. Specifically, those adolescents with less optimal parent attachment were more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviour and were less likely to perceive the behaviours included in the ARQ as risky compared to those with more optimal levels of parent attachment. Discriminant validity of the ARQ was demonstrated through significant differences between the two groups on risk beliefs and behaviours. Responses on the ARQ indicated that youth from the juvenile justice centre were significantly more likely to engage in risky behaviours, if given the opportunity, than school-based youth. They also perceived the behaviours to be less risky. It was concluded that the ARQ has good convergent and discriminant validity.

Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Jussupow ◽  
Kai Spohrer ◽  
Armin Heinzl ◽  
Joshua Gawlitza
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Errors ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Human Actors

Systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly support physicians in diagnostic decisions, but they are not without errors and biases. Failure to detect those may result in wrong diagnoses and medical errors. Compared with rule-based systems, however, these systems are less transparent and their errors less predictable. Thus, it is difficult, yet critical, for physicians to carefully evaluate AI advice. This study uncovers the cognitive challenges that medical decision makers face when they receive potentially incorrect advice from AI-based diagnosis systems and must decide whether to follow or reject it. In experiments with 68 novice and 12 experienced physicians, novice physicians with and without clinical experience as well as experienced radiologists made more inaccurate diagnosis decisions when provided with incorrect AI advice than without advice at all. We elicit five decision-making patterns and show that wrong diagnostic decisions often result from shortcomings in utilizing metacognitions related to decision makers’ own reasoning (self-monitoring) and metacognitions related to the AI-based system (system monitoring). As a result, physicians fall for decisions based on beliefs rather than actual data or engage in unsuitably superficial evaluation of the AI advice. Our study has implications for the training of physicians and spotlights the crucial role of human actors in compensating for AI errors.

scholarly journals Organizational and Individual Innovation Decisions in an Interorganizational System: Social Influence and Decision-Making Authority

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 497-521
Author(s):  
Jiawei Sophia Fu ◽  
Michelle Shumate ◽  
Noshir Contractor
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Social Influence ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Social Information Processing ◽  
Innovation Adoption ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Interorganizational System

Abstract This study examines the processes of complex innovation adoption in an interorganizational system. It distinguishes the innovation adoption mechanisms of organizational-decision-makers (ODMs), who make authority adoption decisions on behalf of an organization, from individual-decision-makers (IDMs), who make optional innovation decisions in their own work practice. Drawing on the Theory of Reasoned Action and Social Information Processing Theory, we propose and test a theoretical model of interorganizational social influence. We surveyed government health-care workers, whose advice networks mostly span organizational boundaries, across 1,849 state health agencies in Bihar, India. The collective attitudes of coworkers and advice network members influence health-care workers’ attitudes and perceptions of social norms toward four types of innovations. However, individuals’ decision-making authority moderates these relationships; advisors’ attitudes have a greater influence on ODMs, while perceptions of social norms only influence IDMs. Notably, heterogeneity of advisors’ and coworkers’ attitudes negatively influence IDMs’ evaluations of innovations but not ODMs’.

Why Won’t You Listen to Me? Measuring Receptiveness to Opposing Views

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (7) ◽  
pp. 3069-3094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia A. Minson ◽  
Frances S. Chen ◽  
Catherine H. Tinsley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Mind Wandering ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Opposing Party ◽  
Report Measure

We develop an 18-item self-report measure of receptiveness to opposing views. Studies 1a and 1b present the four-factor scale and report measures of internal, convergent, and discriminant validity. In study 2, more receptive individuals chose to consume proportionally more information from U.S. senators representing the opposing party than from their own party. In study 3, more receptive individuals reported less mind wandering when viewing a speech with which they disagreed, relative to one with which they agreed. In study 4, more receptive individuals evaluated supporting and opposing policy arguments more impartially. In study 5, we find that voters who opposed Donald Trump but reported being more receptive at the time of the election were more likely to watch the inauguration, evaluate the content of the inauguration speech in a more even-handed manner, and select a more balanced portfolio of news outlets for later consumption than their less receptive counterparts. We discuss the scale as a tool to investigate the role of receptiveness for conflict, decision making, and collaboration. This paper was accepted by Elke Weber, judgment and decision making.

Beyond Logic and Intuition: Development and Validation of a Career Discernment Scale

2020 ◽  
pp. 089484531989782
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Yip ◽  
Haoxiong Li ◽  
Ellen A. Ensher ◽  
Susan E. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Career Decision ◽  
Career Decision Making ◽  
Internal Reliability ◽  
Advice Seeking ◽  
Decision Making Factors

Past research on career decision-making has focused on two distinct modes of decision-making: logic and intuition. In this study, we extend that two-system model of career decision-making and examine the role of two additional decision-making modalities: advice seeking and spiritual discernment. We conducted two independent studies through which we develop and validate a Career Discernment Scale by examining its dimensions and internal reliability (Study 1), followed by research to establish discriminant and convergent validity (Study 2). Results provide initial support for the dimensionality and reliability of four distinct career decision-making factors, demonstrated by a clear factor structure and internal consistency. In addition, our results show evidence of convergent and discriminant validity through expected correlations across a nomological network of individual differences. Overall, this article highlights the unique role of spirituality and advice seeking in career decision-making with implications for career development and practice.

scholarly journals IDENTIFYING KEY FACTORS FOR ADOPTING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-ENABLED AUDITING TECHNIQUES BY JOINT UTILIZATION OF FUZZY-ROUGH SET THEORY AND MRDM TECHNIQUE

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Kuang-Hua Hu ◽  
Fu-Hsiang Chen ◽  
Ming-Fu Hsu ◽  
Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Rough Set ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Rough Set Theory ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Fuzzy Rough Set ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Cpa Firms

In today’s big-data era, enterprises are able to generate complex and non-structured information that could cause considerable challenges for CPA firms in data analysis and to issue improper audited reports within the required period. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled auditing technology not only facilitates accurate and comprehensive auditing for CPA firms, but is also a major breakthrough in auditing’s new environment. Applications of an AI-enabled auditing technique in external auditing can add to auditing efficiency, increase financial reporting accountability, ensure audit quality, and assist decision-makers in making reliable decisions. Strategies related to the adoption of an AI-enabled auditing technique by CPA firms cover the classical multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) task (i.e., several perspectives/criteria must be considered). To address this critical task, the present study proposes a fusion multiple rule-based decision making (MRDM) model that integrates rule-based technique (i.e., the fuzzy rough set theory (FRST) with ant colony optimization (ACO)) into MCDM techniques that can assist decision makers in selecting the best methods necessary to achieve the aspired goals of audit success. We also consider potential implications for articulating suitable strategies that can improve the adoption of AI-enabled auditing techniques and that target continuous improvement and sustainable development.

scholarly journals Measurement of Sustainment of Prevention Programs and Initiatives: The Sustainment Measurement System Scale

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence A. Palinkas ◽  
Chih-Ping Chou ◽  
Suzanne E. Spear ◽  
Sapna J. Mendon ◽  
Juan A. Villamar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Measurement System ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Prevention Programs ◽  
Good Reliability ◽  
Determinant Factors ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Principal Axis Factor Analysis ◽  
Item Scale

Abstract Background A large knowledge gap exists regarding the measurement of sustainability of evidence-based prevention programs for mental and behavioral health. This paper describes an instrument that is a component of the Sustainment Measurement System (SMS), designed to assess both determinants and outcomes of efforts to sustain prevention programs and initiatives. Methods A 42-item scale was administered to 186 representatives of 145 programs funded by 7 SAMHSA prevention grant initiatives. Scale items were identified from qualitative data collected from 45 representatives of 10 programs and 8 SAMHSA program officers and organized into 9 categories of sustainment determinants and sustainment outcomes. Factor structure identified from principal axis factor analysis and elimination of items with CFA coefficients less than .300 resulted in a 35-item scale with 8 determinant factors and 1 outcome factor. Results Confirmatory Factor Analysis provided support for a 35-item model fit to the data. The SMSS demonstrated good inter-item reliability and all determinant factors were significantly associated with sustainment outcome individual and global measures. Conclusions The SMSS is easy to use and demonstrates good reliability and convergent and discriminant validity in assessing likelihood of sustainment of SAMHSA funded prevention programs and initiatives upon termination of original funding. The measure demonstrates potential in identifying predictors of program sustainment and as a tool for enhancing the likelihood of successful sustainment through ongoing evaluation and feedback.

scholarly journals ‘How Do I Choose Thee? Let me Count the Ways’: A Textual Analysis of Similarities and Differences in Modes of Decision-making in China and the United States

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (01) ◽  
pp. 87-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke U. Weber ◽  
Daniel R. Ames ◽  
Ann-Renée Blais
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mode Selection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Cultural Variation ◽  
Personality Differences ◽  
American Novels ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Role Based ◽  
Decision Mode

This paper investigates the effect of decision-makers' culture on their implicit choice of how to make decisions. In a content analysis of major decisions described in American and Chinese twentieth-century novels, we test a series of hypotheses based on prior theoretical and empirical investigations of cross-cultural variation in human motivation and decision processes. The data show a striking degree of cultural similarity in the relationships between decision content, situational characteristics and the decision mode(s) employed, but also support several hypotheses about cultural differences. As predicted, Chinese decision-makers more frequently used role-based logic (a form of recognition-based decision-making) to arrive at decisions, by virtue of their greater awareness of and need for relational obligations. The hypothesis (based on conjectures about Chinese thinking style and personality differences) that Chinese decision-makers would show more rule-and case-based decision-making (two other variants of recognition-based decision-making) than decision-makers in American novels was also supported. After controlling for other predictor variables, there also was support for the hypothesis (based on comparative analyses of Chinese and Western philosophy) that analytic modes which base decisions on the calculation of best consequences would be used less frequendy by Chinese decision-makers. There was no evidence of greater prevention focus in Chinese decisions. These and other observed cultural similarities and differences in the dynamics of decision mode selection have implications for the study and practice of decision-making in managerial settings.

Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery for Learning Disabled Youngsters

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Ysseldyke ◽  
Bob Algozzine ◽  
Mark Shinn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Woodcock Johnson

Decision makers in the field of learning disabilities routinely administer a variety of tests; the technical characteristics of such assessment devices are important relative to decision making. The validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery was evaluated with a sample of learning disabled youngsters. In general, the Battery has some convergent validity but little discriminant validity relative to various cluster scores or specific uses. Results are discussed with regard to implications for the field of learning disabilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document