IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03532489.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Individual differences in decision-making: A test of a one-factor model of rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Vincent Berthet

    (2LPN - Laboratoire lorrain de psychologie et neurosciences de la dynamique des comportements - UL - Université de Lorraine)

  • David Autissier

    (IAE Paris Est Créteil - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises - Paris Est Créteil - UPEC UP12 - Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12, IRG - Institut de Recherche en Gestion - UPEC UP12 - Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 - Université Gustave Eiffel)

  • Vincent de Gardelle

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

The study of individual differences in rational decision-making has led to two close streams of research. While the study of scores to the Adult-Decision Making Competence (A-DMC) tasks has provided evidence in favor of a general decision-making competence (DMC) factor, studies investigating individual differences in performance on heuristics and biases tasks have challenged a one-factor model of rationality. Assuming that heuristics and biases are part of DMC and considering that the A-DMC assesses just a few of them, the aim of the present study was to test whether a general DMC factor still emerges when adding four heuristics and biases tasks to the six A-DMC tasks, while ensuring satisfactory levels of score reliability. Exploratory factor analyses revealed that while performance on the A-DMC tasks can be reasonably aggregated into a general DMC measure, a two-factor model provided the best statistical and conceptual fit of the 10 tasks combined, the two factors reflecting Mindware gaps and Contaminated mindware.

Suggested Citation

  • Vincent Berthet & David Autissier & Vincent de Gardelle, 2022. "Individual differences in decision-making: A test of a one-factor model of rationality," Post-Print hal-03532489, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03532489
    DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111485
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03532489
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03532489/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111485?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:15-34 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1392-1412 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    3. Christopher K. Hsee & Ying Zeng & Xilin Li & Alex Imas, 2021. "Bounded Rationality in Strategic Decisions: Undershooting in a Resource Pool-Choice Dilemma," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(10), pages 6553-6567, October.
    4. Jidapa Pruksarungruang & Douglas Rhein, 2022. "Depression Literacy: An Analysis of the Stigmatization of Depression in Thailand," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    5. Maria De Paola & Francesca Gioia & Fabio Piluso, 2020. "Does Reminding of Behavioural Biases Increase Returns from Financial Trading? A Field Experiment," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-1, February.
    6. Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Hromek, Kristijan & Kleinknecht, Janina & Ludwig, Sandra, 2023. "How to counteract biased self-assessments? An experimental investigation of reactions to social information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 1-25.
    7. Matthew Lee & Arzi Adbi & Jasjit Singh, 2020. "Categorical cognition and outcome efficiency in impact investing decisions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 86-107, January.
    8. Mihael A. Jeklic, 2023. "Can you trust your lawyer's call? Legal advisers exhibit myside bias resistant to debiasing interventions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 409-433, June.
    9. Kathleen A. Tomlin & Matthew L. Metzger & Jill Bradley-Geist, 2021. "Removing the Blinders: Increasing Students’ Awareness of Self-Perception Biases and Real-World Ethical Challenges Through an Educational Intervention," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(4), pages 731-746, April.
    10. Irene Scopelliti & H. Lauren Min & Erin McCormick & Karim S. Kassam & Carey K. Morewedge, 2018. "Individual Differences in Correspondence Bias: Measurement, Consequences, and Correction of Biased Interpersonal Attributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1879-1910, April.
    11. Daniels, David P. & Zlatev, Julian J., 2019. "Choice architects reveal a bias toward positivity and certainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 132-149.
    12. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:783-797 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Chiara Longoni & Andrea Bonezzi & Carey K Morewedge, 2019. "Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 46(4), pages 629-650.
    15. Julia A. Minson & Frances S. Chen & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2020. "Why Won’t You Listen to Me? Measuring Receptiveness to Opposing Views," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 3069-3094, July.
    16. David R. Mandel & Robert N. Collins & Evan F. Risko & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2020. "Effect of confidence interval construction on judgment accuracy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 783-797, September.
    17. Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar & Siu Kit Yeung & Ka Chai Yau & Chung Yee Cheung & Tanay Kulbhushan Agarwal & Cho Yan Joan Wong & Tanishka Pillai & Thea Natasha Thirlwell & Wing Nam Leung & Colman Tse, 2021. "Agency and self-other asymmetries in perceived bias and shortcomings: Replications of the Bias Blind Spot and link to free will beliefs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1392-1412, November.
    18. Yoon, Haewon & Scopelliti, Irene & Morewedge, Carey K., 2021. "Decision making can be improved through observational learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 155-188.
    19. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1392-1421 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Grant Soosalu & Suzanne Henwood & Arun Deo, 2019. "Head, Heart, and Gut in Decision Making: Development of a Multiple Brain Preference Questionnaire," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, March.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1392-1421 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03532489. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.