Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of rational-experiential thinking style on stock-flow performance: The mediating role of cognitive reflection

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stocks and flows are the foundations of dynamic systems. Understanding these mechanisms is essential in the lives of individuals. However, individuals often lack a good understanding of such systems. Previous studies have found that rational thinking as measured by cognitive reflection test (CRT) can positively influence stock-flow performance. CRT is an objective, 3-item scale for testing the level of rational thinking. However, it is unidimensional and does not assess rational and intuitive thinking styles, separately. Based on dual process theories, rational and intuitive styles are independent and separate with low correlations. To examine their separate effects, we designed a survey using Rational-Experiential thinking style test (REI-40). In addition, we examined the effect of ability and favorability as their sub-dimensions on stock-flow performance both directly and indirectly1through CRT. In total, 254 individuals participated in the study. The results provided support for the positive effect of rational thinking and negative effect of experiential (i.e., intuitive) thinking on stock-flow performance. Interestingly, the significant effects were related to the favorability sub-dimensions. Ability sub-dimensions had no significant effect on stock-flow performance. CRT partially mediated the effect of rationality dimension and its sub-dimension of rational favorability. It had no mediating effect on experientiality and its sub-dimensions. These results indicate that interest in rational thinking plays an important role in stock-flow performance. Furthermore, experiential ability has no negative effect on either CRT score or stock-flow performance. Rational favorability part of ERI-40 and CRT are most suitable for predicting performance in jobs related to stock-flow systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baghaei Lakeh, A., & Ghaffarzadegan, N. (2015). Does analytical thinking improve understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review, 31(1–2), 46–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendoly, E., Donohue, K., & Schultz, K. L. (2006). Behavior in operations management: Assessing recent findings and revisiting old assumptions. Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 737–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, C., & Iannello, P. (2010). Measuring individual differences in intuitive and deliberate decision-making styles. In A. Glockner & C. Witteman (Eds.), Foundations for tracing intuition: Challenges and methods. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, C., & Kunz, J. J. (2008). Individual strategy preferences and decisional fit. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), 532–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bialek, M., & Pennycook, G. (2018). The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods, 50(5), 1953–1959.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund, F., & Bäckström, M. (2008). Individual differences in processing styles: Validity of the rational–experiential inventory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(5), 439–446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bleijenbergh, I., Vennix, J., Jacobs, E., & van Engen, M. (2016). Understanding decision making about balancing two stocks: The faculty gender balancing task. System Dynamics Review, 32(1), 6–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 16(4), 249–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 23(2–3), 285–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunstein, A., Gonzalez, C., & Kanter, S. (2010). Effects of domain experience in the stock–flow failure. System Dynamics Review, 26(4), 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campitelli, G., & Labollita, M. (2010). Correlations of cognitive reflection with judgments and choices. Judgment and Decision making, 5(3), 182–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesarini, D., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K., & Wallace, B. (2012). The behavioral genetics of behavioral anomalies. Management Science, 58(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, G., Ball, D., Gaeth, G. J., & Jun, S. (2002). The ability of ratings and choice conjoint to predict market shares: A Monte Carlo simulation. Journal of Business Research, 55(3), 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cokely, E. T., & Kelley, C. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgement and Decision Making, 4(1), 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, M. A., & Gonzalez, C. (2007). Understanding the building blocks of dynamic systems. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 23(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, M. A., Gonzalez, C., & Sterman, J. D. (2009). Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 116–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 95–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutt, V., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). Human control of climate change. Climatic Change, 111(3–4), 497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. (2011). Dual-process theories of reasoning: Contemporary issues and developmental applications. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 86–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11(4), 382–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, H., & Gonzalez, C. (2016). Making sense of dynamic systems: How our understanding of stocks and flows depends on a global perspective. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 496–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, H., Degen, C., & Funke, J. (2015). Improving stock-flow reasoning with verbal formats. Simulation & Gaming, 46(3–4), 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise choices, apt feelings: A theory of normative judgment. The Philosophical Review, 101(4), 934–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Cognition, 87(1), B11–B22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., Buchel, C., Frith, C., & Dolan, R. J. (2000). Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. Neuroimage, 12(5), 504–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, C., & Dutt, V. (2011). A generic dynamic control task for behavioral research and education. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1904–1914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, C., & Wong, H. Y. (2012). Understanding stocks and flows through analogy. System Dynamics Review, 28(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 207–219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., & Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 17(5), 753–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, X., Bian, Y., & Shang, J. (2020). Impact of decision style on newsvendor ordering behaviors: mean anchoring, demand chasing and overconfidence. Soft Computing, 24(9), 6197–6212.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M. (2005). Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. In T. Betsch & S. Haberstroh (Eds.), The routines of decision making (pp. 67–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iederan, O. C., Curşeu, P. L., & Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2009). Effective decision-making: The role of cognitive complexity in strategic decisions. Studia Psychologica, 51(4), 293–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbar, Y., Cone, J., & Gilovich, T. (2010). People’s intuitions about intuitive insight and intuitive choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 232–247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E., & Brehmer, B. (2003). Understanding and control of a simple dynamic system. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 19(2), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kinnunen, S. P., & Windmann, S. (2013). Dual-processing altruism. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, D. J., & James, G. (2010). Probability matching and strategy availability. Memory & Cognition, 38(6), 667–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokis, J. V., Macpherson, R., Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83(1), 26–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 199–249). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. D., Jarcho, J. M., & Satpute, A. B. (2004). Evidence-based and intuition-based self-knowledge: An FMRI study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 421–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Littrell, S., Fugelsang, J., & Risko, E. F. (2020). Not so fast: Individual differences in impulsiveness are only a modest predictor of cognitive reflection. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, A. D., Hine, D. W., Blore, R. L., & Phillips, W. J. (2008). Assessing individual differences in adolescents’ preference for rational and experiential cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMackin, J., & Slovic, P. (2000). When does explicit justification impair decision making? Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 14(6), 527–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadbeigi, A., Mohammadsalehi, N., & Aligol, M. (2015). Validity and reliability of the instruments and types of measurements in health applied researches. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, 13(12), 1153–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, B. B., Hill, A. V., & Donohue, K. L. (2013). Individual differences in the newsvendor problem: Behavior and cognitive reflection. Journal of Operations Management, 31(1–2), 72–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, B., Siemsen, E., & Kremer, M. (2014). Judgmental forecasting: Cognitive reflection and decision speed. Production and Operations Management, 23(7), 1146–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes, E., & Saysel, A. K. (2009). Misperceptions of global climate change: Information policies. Climatic Change, 93(1–2), 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, A., & Moritz, B. B. (2015). Decision making and cognition in multi-echelon supply chains: An experimental study. Production and Operations Management, 24(8), 1216–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oechssler, J., Roider, A., & Schmitz, P. W. (2009). Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(1), 147–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 988–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(6), 972–987.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2013). Belief bias during reasoning among religious believers and skeptics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 806–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2016). Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition? Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 341–348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, W. J. (2017). Rational-experiential inventory. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shakelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.

  • Phillips, W. J., Fletcher, J. M., Marks, A. D., & Hine, D. W. (2016). Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(3), 260–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Qi, L., & Gonzalez, C. (2015). Mathematical knowledge is related to understanding stocks and flows: Results from two nations. System Dynamics Review, 31(3), 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi, L., & Gonzalez, C. (2019). Math matters: Mathematical knowledge plays an essential role in Chinese undergraduates' stock-and-flow task performance. System Dynamics Review, 35(3), 208–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (2017). Observation & experiment: An introduction to causal inference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rusou, Z., Zakay, D., & Usher, M. (2013). Pitting intuitive and analytical thinking against each other: The case of transitivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 608–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. B., Montoya-Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 575–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, S., & Shenhav-Sheffer, M. (2004). Structure of difficulties in mate-selection decisions and its relationship to rational and intuitive cognitive styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(2), 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, S., Salton, E., & Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 415–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirzadifard, M., Shahghasemi, E., Hejazi, E., Naghsh, Z., & Ranjbar, G. (2018). Psychometric properties of rational-experiential inventory for adolescents. SAGE Open, 8(1), 2158244018767219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2009). If it's difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science, 20(2), 135–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2010). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2003). The rationality debate as a progressive research program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 531–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2011). The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1989a). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(3), 301–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1989b). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35(3), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2001). System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Review, 43(4), 8–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2008). Risk communication on climate: Mental models and mass balance. Science, 322(5901), 532–533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2010). Does formal system dynamics training improve people's understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review, 26(4), 316–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D., & Booth Sweeney, L. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3–4), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, K., & Funke, J. (2019). How we conceptualize climate change: Revealing the force-dynamic structure underlying stock-flow reasoning. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 5, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strohhecker, J., & Leyer, M. (2019). How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks. European Journal of Operational Research, 276(3), 1044–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stupple, E., Gale, M., & Richmond, C. (2013). Working memory, cognitive miserliness and logic as predictors of performance on the cognitive reflection test. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35(35), 1396–1401.

  • Thompson, V. A. (2009). Dual-process theories: A metacognitive perspective. In J. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldhuis, G. A., & Korzilius, H. (2017). Seeing with the mind: The relationship between spatial ability and inferring dynamic behaviour from graphs. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34(6), 710–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viator, R. E., Harp, N. L., Rinaldo, S. B., & Marquardt, B. B. (2020). The mediating effect of reflective-analytic cognitive style on rational thought. Thinking & Reasoning, 26(3), 381–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, K. (2005). Improving strategic management with the fundamental principles of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 21(4), 329–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinhardt, J. M., Hendijani, R., Harman, J. L., Steel, P., & Gonzalez, C. (2015). How analytic reasoning style and global thinking relate to understanding stocks and flows. Journal of Operations Management, 39, 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, G. (1991). Diffusion of responsibility: Effects on the escalation tendency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 408–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witteman, C., van den Bercken, J., Claes, L., & Godoy, A. (2009). Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Jalal-e-Al-e-Ahmad Hwy & Chamran Hwy، Al-e-Ahmad, Tehran, Iran

    Rosa Hendijani, Forouzan Ghafourian & Iman Attari

Authors
  1. Rosa Hendijani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Forouzan Ghafourian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iman Attari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosa Hendijani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(XLSX 48 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1. Survey Questions

Department Store Task

The graph below shows the number of people entering and leaving a department store over a 30-min period.

figure a

Please answer the following questions.

Check the box if the answer cannot be determined from the information provided.

figure b

Cognitive Reflection Test

  1. 1.

    1. A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost in cents?

  2. 2.

    If it takes 5 machines 5 min to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets?

  3. 3.

    In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake in days?

Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI-40)

Instructions: Using the following scale, please rate the extent to which each item applies to you.

1 (Definitely Not True of me) 2 3 4 5 (Definitely True of me)

Experientiality Scale

  1. 1.

    I like to rely on my intuitive impressions. (ef)

  2. 2.

    Using my “gut feelings” usually works well for me in figuring out problems in my life. (ea)

  3. 3.

    I don’t have a very good sense of intuition. (ea–)

  4. 4.

    Intuition can be a very useful way to solve problems. (ef)

  5. 5.

    I believe in trusting my hunches. (ea)

  6. 6.

    I often go by my instincts when deciding on a course of action. (ef)

  7. 7.

    I don’t think it is a good idea to rely on one’s intuition for important decisions. (ef–)

  8. 8.

    I don’t like situations in which I have to rely on intuition. (ef–)

  9. 9.

    I tend to use my heart as a guide for my actions. (ef)

  10. 10.

    I trust my initial feelings about people. (ea)

  11. 11.

    I think there are times when one should rely on one’s intuition. (ef)

  12. 12.

    When it comes to trusting people, I can usually rely on my gut feelings. (ea)

  13. 13.

    I think it is foolish to make important decisions based on feelings. (ef–)

  14. 14.

    If I were to rely on my gut feelings, I would often make mistakes. (ea–)

  15. 15.

    I generally don’t depend on my feelings to help me make decisions. (ef–)

  16. 16.

    I hardly ever go wrong when I listen to my deepest “gut feelings” to find an answer. (ea)

  17. 17.

    I would not want to depend on anyone who described himself or herself as intuitive. (ef–)

  18. 18.

    I suspect my hunches are inaccurate as often as they are accurate. (ea–)

  19. 19.

    I can usually feel when a person is right or wrong, even if I can’t explain how I know. (ea)

  20. 20.

    My snap judgments are probably not as good as most people’s. (ea–)

Rationality scale

  1. 1.

    I am not very good at solving problems that require careful logical analysis. (ra–)

  2. 2.

    I don’t like to have to do a lot of thinking. (rf–)

  3. 3.

    I enjoy solving problems that require hard thinking. (rf)

  4. 4.

    I try to avoid situations that require thinking in depth about something. (rf–)

  5. 5.

    I have a logical mind. (ra)

  6. 6.

    I’m not that good at figuring out complicated problems. (ra–)

  7. 7.

    I am much better at figuring things out logically than most people. (ra)

  8. 8.

    I enjoy intellectual challenges. (rf)

  9. 9.

    Reasoning things out carefully is not one of my strong points. (ra–)

  10. 10.

    I am not a very analytical thinker. (ra

  11. 11.

    I prefer complex to simple problems. (rf)

  12. 12.

    Thinking hard and for a long time about something gives me little satisfaction. (rf–)

  13. 13.

    I don’t reason well under pressure. (ra–) −0.03 0.46 0.36 0.35

  14. 14.

    I have no problem in thinking things through clearly. (ra) 0.04 0.42 0.39 0.46

  15. 15.

    I enjoy thinking in abstract terms. (rf) 0.10 0.40 0.31 0.33

  16. 16.

    Knowing the answer without having to understand the reasoning behind it is good enough for me. (rf–)

  17. 17.

    Thinking is not my idea of an enjoyable activity. (rf–)

  18. 18.

    I usually have clear, explainable reasons for my decisions. (ra)

  19. 19.

    Using logic usually works well for me in figuring out problems in my life. (ra)

  20. 20.

    Learning new ways to think would be very appealing to me. (rf)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hendijani, R., Ghafourian, F. & Attari, I. The effect of rational-experiential thinking style on stock-flow performance: The mediating role of cognitive reflection. Curr Psychol 42, 867–881 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01459-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01459-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation