More than meets the eye? Intuition and analysis revisited

Research on individual differences in information processing is characterized by two incompatible theoretical perspectives. The unitary view postulates that analysis and intuition are the opposite poles of a single dimension, whereas the dual-process view proposes that they are independent constructs. We investigated this issue using two established measures of information-processing style, the Cognitive Style Index (CSI) and the Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI), each representative of one of the two conflicting views. We found that the REI’s dimensionality was consistent with the dual-process view, reflected by two uncorrelated factors, although we failed to replicate the instrument developers’ subsequent re-formulation into ability and engagement sub-scales. The structure of the CSI was more problematic, implying the existence of three factors, which is inconsistent with the unitary view advocated by its developers. Our studies suggest that the REI’s original formulation is preferred, and that the unitary conception underpinning the CSI should be abandoned forthwith.

[1]  E. de Boer,et al.  Reflections on reflections. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  E. Sadler‐Smith,et al.  Intuition: a fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. , 2008, British journal of psychology.

[3]  G. Hodgkinson,et al.  Cognition in organizations. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  L. A. Pervin.  Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research , 1992 .

[5]  S Epstein,et al.  The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  Andrew L. Comrey,et al.  Common methodological problems in factor analytic studies. , 1978 .

[7]  Robert Hudson,et al.  Further reflections on the nature of intuition‐analysis and the construct validity of the Cognitive Style Index , 2003 .

[8]  Matthew D. Lieberman,et al.  Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. , 2007, Annual review of psychology.

[9]  Eugene Sadler-Smith,et al.  Reflections on reflections... on the nature of intuition, analysis and the construct validity of the Cognitive Style Index , 2003 .

[10]  S. Epstein,et al.  Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[12]  Christopher W. Allinson,et al.  The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition‐Analysis For Organizational Research , 1996 .

[13]  L. J. Williams,et al.  Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and alternatives , 1997 .

[14]  Steven J. Armstrong,et al.  The effects of cognitive style on research supervision: a study of student-supervisor dyads in management education , 2004 .

[15]  Erik Dane,et al.  Exploring Intuition and its Role in Managerial Decision Making , 2007 .

[16]  Seymour Epstein,et al.  Cognitive-experiential self-theory. , 1998 .

[17]  Eugene Sadler-Smith,et al.  Validity of the Cognitive Style Index: Replication and Extension , 2000 .

[18]  W F Velicer,et al.  Factors Influencing Four Rules For Determining The Number Of Components To Retain. , 1982, Multivariate behavioral research.

[19]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[20]  E. Sadler‐Smith,et al.  Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re‐assessment of the Allinson‐Hayes Cognitive Style Index , 2003 .

[21]  P. Mussen,et al.  Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology , 1972 .

[22]  Neal M. Ashkanasy,et al.  Intuition , 2005 .