The document describes the development and testing of the Generalized Intuitional versus Analytical Decision Making Index (GIADMI). It aims to develop brief scales to measure individual preferences for intuitive or analytical decision making styles. 51 students completed a questionnaire including the original 13-item GIADMI scale. Factor analysis revealed two factors corresponding to analytical and intuitive decision making. The final scales consisted of 3 items for analytical thinking and 6 for intuitive thinking. The scales showed good reliability and some evidence of construct validity, though further refinement is needed for the analytical scale. The study provides a new tool to efficiently measure individual differences in intuitive versus analytical decision making.

1. Generalized Intuitional versus Analytical Decision Making Index (GIADMI)
Shontell B. Verwayne
Background
Many believe intuition is an irrational way of thinking and
should not be trusted in daily decision making. Nevertheless,
lately there has been much more of a focus on intuition as a
viable method of decision making. According to Grauer (2014),
intuition can provide thought processes that we may not be able
to justify or verify through practical means. However, despite
the fact that more and more researchers are studying the
concept of intuition, there is a scarcity of empirical research
looking in on the circumstances in which intuitive decision
making is effective compared to analytical decision making
(Dane, Rockmann, & Pratt, 2012). According to Boundless’s
article, “Analytical Mindset” (2014), analytical decision
making is the ability to see a problem whether it be simple or
challenging, express what it is the problem is, and then solve
the problem efficiently based on available information.
According to Lennart Sjöberg (2003), decisions are crucial in
many kinds of action; some would regard them as the most
important factor. But viewing decisions as the major motivation
to action is questionable. Emotions and other factors often
guide action and decision making, and in many real-life
situations it becomes necessary to cope with such things after a
decision has been taken, and to continue doing so for some
time in the face of unforeseen complications and difficulties.
Objectives
Develop brief scales for measuring the extent to which
individuals prefer analytical or intuitional decision making
styles. Examine reliability and validity of the scales.
Method
Participants
Fifty-one students at Stetson university participated in the
study. Of those who chose to disclose their gender there were
37 women (Mean age = 19.73) and 12 men (Mean age =
18.54). The participant pool was 66.7% Caucasian, 5.9%
African-American, 2.0% Asian, 13.7% Hispanic, 7.8% Bi-
racial, and 2.0% Other.
Materials
The questionnaire packet had seven tests, which included the
GIADMI. The original GIADMI included 13 items, seven of
which were written to suggest an intuitional decision making
style and six that were meant to suggest an analytical decision
making style. A principle components factor analysis with
varimax rotation revealed two major factors with three items
for the analytical scale (Table 1) and six items for the Intuitive
scale (Table 2). The packet also included the Alternate Uses
Test (Guilford, 1976), the Planfulness Test (CPI, Gough, 1996),
the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965), the
Capacity for Love Test (VIA: Cap, Peterson & Seligman,
2004), the Talkativeness Test (AB5C: I+/IV-, Hofstee, de Raad,
& Goldberg, 1992), and the Attractiveness Test (Big-7: 525,
Saucier, 1997).
Methods (cont.)
Materials (cont.)
A modified version of The Alternate Uses Test required participants to
think of uses for common items such as: paper clip, Q-tip, tennis ball,
thumb tack, and empty ink cartridge and total scores were the total
number of uses. The reliability (coefficient alphas) for the Planfulness
Test, the Rosenberg Self-esteem scale, the Capacity for Love Test, the
Talkativeness Test and the Attractiveness Test are: .62, .77, .70, .84,
and .66, respectively.
Procedure
Participants were given the questionnaire packet in a group setting
They were informed that participation was voluntary and their answers
would remain anonymous.
Results and Conclusions
The Analytical scale had a mean of 7.33 (SD = 2.94) and appeared
reliable with coefficient Alpha = .78. Similarly, the Intuitive scale was
reliable (Coefficient Alpha = .72) and had a mean of 25.33 (SD = 4.78).
The factor analysis revealed two factors resulting in the analytical and
intuitional items shown in Tables 1 and 2. The correlation between the
two scales was very low (r = .03). The two scales showed different
patterns of correlations with other measures and suggested some degree
of construct validity. The Intuitional scale was predicted to show higher
correlations with creativity, self esteem, perceptions of attractiveness and
capacity for love which involve more subjectivity. As Table 3 indicates,
these predictions were supported except for the correlation with
creativity (Alternative Uses). The Analytical scale showed lower
correlations with the other measures but showed an unexpected
significant negative correlation with Planfulness. The results of the
study suggest that the Intuitional scale might be a useful research
instrument providing a brief, reliable measure of intuitive thinking style.
It appears, however, that the Analytical scale needs further refinement to
improve its validity even though its reliability seems to be adequate.
References
Boundless. (2014, November 14). Analytical Mindset. Retrieved from
Boundless Business:
https://www.boundless.com/business/textbooks/boundless-business-
textbook/management-8/characteristics-of-good-managers-63/analytical-
mindset-304-7874/
Dane, E., Rockmann, K. W., & Pratt, M. G. (2012). When should I trust
my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and human Decision Processes,
187-194.
Grauer, S. (2014, August 13). Stuart's Blog: Tree Stumps Part 2.
Retrieved from The Grauer School's Weekly Newsletter:
http://www.grauerschool.com/stuarts-blog-tree-stumps-part-2/
Sjoberg, L. (2003). Intuitive vs. Analytical decision making: which is
preferred? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 17-29.
Correspondence on this research should be addressed to: Shontell Verwayne, Stetson University, Department of
Psychology 228 West Wisconsin Avenue, DeLand FL 32720, sverwayn@stetson.edu
Analytical Items Item-Total
Correlations
1.I find it too risky to not analyze my choices. .550
2. I often feel as though I make a checklist of things in my
head and/or on paper when making decisions
.615
3. It’s best to wait until I have all of the facts. .615
Intuitional Items Item-Total
Correlations
1. If I don’t feel in my heart that a decision is correct, I will
usually go with my instinct.
.419
2. My first instincts are usually right. .457
3. Trusting our instinct often saves us from disaster. .413
4. I often feel as if I have a “Sixth Sense”. .600
5. If I feel like something is right, I usually go with that
feeling.
.410
6. My friends and family often say that I am insightful. .452
New Scales
Other Measures Analytical Intuitional
Alternate Uses Test .082 .011
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale -.039 .322*
Attractiveness -.153 .300*
Talkativeness .158 .129
Capacity for Love .056 .244
Planfulness -.417** -.186
Table 1: Items of Analytical Part of the Test with Item Total Correlation
Table 2: Items of Intuitional Part of the Test with Item Total Correlation
Table 3: Correlations between Analytical and Intuitional Test Scores
and Other Measures Related to Convergent and Discriminant Items
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)