, Volume 189, Supplement 1, pp 119–130 | Cite as

Associations between psychologists’ thinking styles and accuracy on a diagnostic classification task

  • Alexander A. AartsEmail author
  • Cilia L. M. Witteman
  • Pierre M. Souren
  • Jos I. M. Egger
Open Access


The present study investigated whether individual differences between psychologists in thinking styles are associated with accuracy in diagnostic classification. We asked novice and experienced clinicians to classify two clinical cases of clients with two co-occurring psychological disorders. No significant difference in diagnostic accuracy was found between the two groups, but when combining the data from novices and experienced psychologists accuracy was found to be negatively associated with certain decision making strategies and with a higher self-assessed ability and preference for a rational thinking style. Our results underscore the idea that it might be fruitful to look for explanations of differences in the accuracy of diagnostic judgments in individual differences between psychologists (such as in thinking styles or decision making strategies used), rather than in experience level.


Diagnostic classification Thinking style Decision making 


Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.


  1. American Psychiatric Association: (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed., text rev.). Author, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Corbin J., McElroy T., Black C. (2010) Memory reflected in our decisions: Higher working memory capacity predicts greater bias in risky choice. Judgment and Decision Making 5: 110–115Google Scholar
  3. Delaney P., Sahakyan L. (2007) Unexpected costs of high working memory capacity following directed forgetting and contextual change manipulations. Memory and Cognition 35: 1074–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elstein A. S., Schwarz A. (2002) Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: Selective review of the cognitive literature. British Medical Journal 324: 729–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Epstein S. (2010) Demystifying intuition: What it is, what it does, and how it does it. psychological Inquiry 21: 295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans J. St. B. T. (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fletcher J. M., Marks A. D. G., Hine D. W. (2011) Working memory capacity and cognitive styles in decision making. Personality and individual differences 50: 1136–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frances A., Ross R. (2001) DSM-IV-TRTM case studies: A clinical guide to differentia diagnosis. American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Garb H. N. (1996) The representativeness and past-behavior heuristics in clinical judgment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 27: 272–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garb H. N. (1998) Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garb H.N. (2005) Clinical judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 1: 67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer G., Gaissmaier W. (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62: 451–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inquisit [Computer software]. (2010). Seattle, WA: Millisecond software.Google Scholar
  14. Kim N. S., Ahn W. (2002) Clinical psychologists’ theory-based representations of mental disorders predict their diagnostic reasoning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology.: General 131: 451–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marewski J. N., Gaissmaier W., Gigerenzer G. (2010) Good judgments do not require complex cognition. Cognitive processing 11: 103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakagawa S. (2004) A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioural Ecology 15: 1044–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pacini R., Epstein S. (1999) The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 972–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pretz J. E., Totz K. S. (2007) Measuring individual differences in affective, heuristic, and holistic intuition. Personality and Individual Differences 43: 1247–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spengler P. M., White M. J., Ægisdóttir S., Maugherman A. S., Anderson L. A., Cook R. S. et al (2009) The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Effects of experience on judgment accuracy. The Counseling Psychologist 37: 350–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Srivastava A., Grube M. (2009) Does intuition have a role in psychiatric diagnosis?. Psychiatric Quarterly 2: 99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vermande M. M., Vanden Bercken J. H., De Bruyn E. E. (1996) Effects of diagnostic classification systems on clinical hypothesis-generation. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 18: 49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Witteman C., Vanden Bercken J., Claes L., Godoy A. (2009) Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 25: 39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander A. Aarts
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cilia L. M. Witteman
    • 1
  • Pierre M. Souren
    • 1
  • Jos I. M. Egger
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Behavioural Science InstituteRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Centre of Excellence for NeuropsychiatryVincent van Gogh Institute for PsychiatryVenrayThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Centre for CognitionRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations