The Effects of Individual Differences in Cognitive Styles on decision-Making Accuracy and Latency

Abstract : How might individuals' typical decision-making styles affect the quality and latency of their decisions? In a first study, 48 adults completed three measures of cognitive styles, including the Personal Need for Structure and Personal Fear of Invalidity scales (PNS and PFI; Thompson, Naccarato, Parker, & Moskowitz, 2001), and the Need for Cognition scale (NFC; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Participants then completed three trials of a medium-fidelity simulation of a naval surveillance and threat assessment task called TITAN (i.e., "Team and Individual Threat Assessment Network") that required participants to evaluate seven pieces of information for potential targets displayed in a radar space (e.g., direction, speed, bearing, etc.). After reviewing the information for each target, participants submitted their threat assessment and were provided feedback about the degree of actual threat for the target. For each session, participants were instructed to clear the radar space of as many targets as possible within a 25-minute period and to perform this operation as accurately as possible. Results showed a significant decrease in processing time across trials. Higher NFC scores predicted a significantly smaller mean decision error across trials, and higher PNS scores predicted a greater mean decision error, although the latter effect failed to reach statistical significance. None of the cognitive styles scores had a significant main effect on the mean time spent processing TITAN targets. In Study 2, 80 Canadian Forces personnel completed the three cognitive styles measures and worked in four-person teams on TANDEM 11, a simulation similar to TITAN. Each team consisted of three subordinates who separately reviewed and integrated five pieces of complex information per target before forwarding their individual threat assessments to a team leader. The team leader then assessed the veridicality of the three assessments and integrated them into a final threat assessment for each7

[1]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[2]  Gordon B. Moskowitz,et al.  Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences. , 1993 .

[3]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? , 2002 .

[4]  M. Leary,et al.  Objectivism in information utilization: theory and measurement. , 1986, Journal of personality assessment.

[5]  Nancy H. Leonard,et al.  Information processing style and decision making , 1999 .

[6]  A. Searleman,et al.  Personal need for structure, the Einstellung task, and the effects of stress , 1998 .

[7]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  An individual differences perspective on assessing cognitive processes. , 1996 .

[8]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[9]  P. Ackerman.  Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. , 1987 .

[10]  Meredith O'Brien,et al.  The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. , 1995 .

[11]  Freda Kemp.  Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 2003 .

[12]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  Time Pressure and Information Integration in Social Judgment , 1993 .

[13]  E. Stotland,et al.  An experimental investigation of need for cognition. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[14]  Effects of components of personal need for structure on occupational strain. , 1996, The Journal of social psychology.

[15]  Richard A. Cosier,et al.  Effects of cognitive styles and decision setting on performance , 1990 .

[16]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[17]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  DISPOSITIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE MOTIVATION : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN NEED FOR COGNITION , 1996 .

[18]  H. Mirels,et al.  Judgmental self-doubt: beliefs about one’s judgmental prowess , 2002 .

[19]  Leonard L. Martin,et al.  Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. , 1990 .

[20]  M. Mikulincer,et al.  Epistemic needs and learned helplessness , 1991 .

[21]  K. Lewin,et al.  Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers , 1951 .

[22]  M. Zanna,et al.  The conflicted individual: personality-based and domain-specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. , 1995, Journal of personality.

[23]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring ☆ , 1983 .

[24]  R. G. Hunt,et al.  Cognitive style and decision making , 1989 .

[25]  Sabina Kleitman,et al.  The Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments , 2002, The Journal of general psychology.

[26]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information. , 1994 .