Assessing Rational and Intuitive Thinking Styles

Abstract

Theories of dual cognition assume two distinguishable information processing styles: rational and intuitive. We discuss how the concepts of rationality and intuition are used in these theories, and the relations of these two thinking styles to personality characteristics. With the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI; Pacini & Epstein, 1999 ), a questionnaire that assesses personal preferences for thinking either rationally or intuitively, we found clear evidence for the independence of the two thinking styles in a large Dutch sample (N = 774). We also found Conscientiousness to be a significant predictor of a preference for rational thinking and an inverse predictor of intuitive thinking. We also administered the REI and a Big Five inventory to a Spanish sample (N = 141), and present these results next to those of the Dutch sample. We further established the validity of the REI’s distinction between rationality and intuition by administering another measure, the Preference for Intuition or Deliberation (PID; Betsch, 2004 , 2008 ), to a subset of the Dutch sample (n = 405). We briefly describe two small studies in which a preference for rationality or intuition, measured by the REI, was found to be related to task behavior. In the general discussion we consider all results together, and compare them to Pacini and Epstein’s results. We conclude that a dual-process distinction between rationality and intuition is valid cross-culturally and that a proclivity toward either is reliably measured by the REI, not only in the USA but in Europe as well.

Heritability of Preferred Thinking Styles and a Genetic Link to Working Memory Capacity

“…Studies of different age groups (Marks et al, 2008;Pacini & Epstein, 1999) and across different cultures (Witteman et al, 2009) confirm the existence of the two thinking styles and their predictive validity. Therefore, it might be expected that preferred thinking styles may have a similar pattern of heritability to personality traits.…”

Psychometric study of the Rational Experiential Inventory among undergraduate Argentinean students

“…Witteman et al (2009) reported a satisfactory fit of the model comprising two related factors (RMSEA = .07 (90% IC = .064, .068), NFI = .77, SMR = .054, GFI = .83). Of 20 rational items, 19 items showed a factor loading higher than .40, and 19 of 20 experiential items showed a factor loading between .37 and .69.…”

“…Instead, experiential items loaded on two factors that differ in the form of writing, positive and negative. Other studies have also found that two components account for about 33% of the total variance together (Björklund & Backstrom, 2008;Witteman, van den Bercken, Claes, & Godoy, 2009). However, Björklund and Backstrom (2008), when examining the four-factor solution did not find the expected structure of two sub-dimensions (skill and preference) in the rational and experiential dimensions.…”

“…Some Values Cronbach' alpha reported to different scales are the following: Rational = .86 to .90, Rational Ability = .81 to .83, Rational Engagement = .78 to .82; Experiential = .79 to .91, Experiential Ability = .79, and Experiential Engagement = .74 to .84 (Björklund & Bäckstrom, 2008;Hodgkinson et al, 2009;Marks, Hine, Blore, & Phillips, 2008;Sladek, Bond, & Phillips, 2010;Witteman et al, 2009).…”

A Survey to Determine Decision-Making Styles of Working Paramedics and Student Paramedics

“…The REI-40 has been found to be reliable (Cronbach's alpha 0.74-0.91) and consistent. 8,10,[14][15][16] It involves 40 questions that are scored on a five-point Likert scale from "Definitely False" to "Definitely True." Twenty of these questions assess each thinking style (rational or experiential), of which 10 assess favourability towards a style and 10 assess ability to use a style.…”