Introduction

Decision-making is a fundamental process that significantly influences organizations’ success and sustainability. At its core, decision-making involves choosing from alternative courses of action based on the evaluation of relevant information and potential outcomes (Salas et al., 2010). The quality of decision-making is crucial because it directly affects an organization’s capacity to achieve its goals and maintain a competitive edge. By emphasizing the importance of quality in decision-making, organizations can better navigate challenges and capitalize on opportunities, ensuring long-term success and resilience (Johnson & Walker, 2023). Specifically, high-quality decisions are characterized by thorough analysis, consideration of diverse perspectives, and a balanced assessment of risks and opportunities.

In this study, we aim to investigate the effect of (1) cognitive reflection versus rationality and (2) creativity and humor on the quality of decision-making. Cognitive reflection (CR) refers to the mental process of consciously evaluating and re-evaluating one’s initial thoughts and intuitions before deciding. CR involves a deliberate and analytical approach to problem-solving, whereby individuals question their automatic responses and consider alternative perspectives and information. This reflective thinking is crucial for avoiding cognitive biases and errors in judgment, leading to more accurate and rational decision-making. In organizational contexts, fostering cognitive reflection can enhance the quality of decisions (Frederick, 2005; Sirota et al., 2021). Notably, Frederick (2005) developed a test to measure CR (CRT), which will be used in this study.

Our study involves two more independent variables – vital drivers of innovation and competitive advantage – namely, creativity and humor. Organizational creativity involves generating novel and valuable ideas, solutions, and approaches to improve products, services, decision-making processes, and strategies. By nurturing creativity, organizations can, among other things, maintain a dynamic and forward-thinking approach to business (Mumford et al., 2012).

Humor in organizations plays a significant role in creating a positive and productive work environment. When used appropriately, humor can facilitate communication and foster creativity. Humor in organizations was extensively studied by Martin et al. (2003) who identified four trait-like humor styles. Two humor styles highlight the positive psychological effects of humor, such as affiliative humor, which links to interpersonal processes, and self-enhancing humor, which (in turn) links to intrapersonal processes. Two other humor styles underscore the adverse effects of humor, such as aggressive humor, which links to interpersonal processes, and self-defeating humor, which (in turn) links to intrapersonal processes.

Specifically, we focus on affiliative humor in this study. This humor style is described as warm and charitable humor that is employed in social settings to support the development and improvement of interpersonal relationships in a way that is accepting and affirming of oneself and others (Martin et al., 2003; Martin, 2019). The affiliative humor style is characterized by jokes and witticisms that aim to build rapport and foster a sense of connection, creating a sense of fellowship, happiness, and well-being (Martin et al., 2003).

We chose to explore the effect of affiliative humor on decision-making because it can promote rational decision-making by creating a relaxed and comfortable environment that encourages open communication and collaboration (Chen et al., 2013). A jovial style said to create and a style that significantly enhances cognitive flexibility by encouraging candid dialogue, teamwork, and trust among decision-makers, all of which positively affect decision quality. For instance, affiliative humor can promote the sharing of different viewpoints by creating a pleasant and encouraging atmosphere, resulting in better-informed and well-rounded decisions (Martin et al., 2004).

We propose that affiliative humor is directly related to the quality of decision-making and mediates the relationship between CR and decision-making quality. Furthermore, we posit that creativity will moderate the relationship between cognitive reflection and decision-making quality. After Rahman et al.(2022) we investigate further the relationship between humor and creative thinking and, additionally, attend to the study of the complex interaction of intuition and rationality in effective decision-making (after Calabretta et al., 2017).

We identified a theoretical gap in the existing research, as prior studies have not fully investigated the intricate relationships between affiliative humor style, intuition or rationality, and creativity in decision-making. This study aims to clarify these relationships and to create a fresh framework that illuminates how these variables interact to affect the quality of decisions. This model would transcend the traditional, solely rational decision-making models.

While acknowledging that research on decision-making typically concentrates on logical and analytical procedures, we recognize that certain decision-making processes occasionally veer into less logical approaches, such as risky and spontaneous decision-making (Basu & Dixit, 2022); Castegnetti et al., 2020). However, by emphasizing the impact of humor - an emotional response - on cognitive processes, this study would enhance our understanding of the mechanisms underlying decision-making. In addition, by investigating how affiliative humor stimulates creativity, is investigation study may provide insights into how humor can result in more creative and successful decision-making paradigms, thus encouraging individuals, groups, and companies to develop a culture of (more) effective decision making. Finally, numerous academic fields could be impacted by this research, including psychology, business, management, and even artificial intelligence design (given how AI assistants might be designated to communicate with people while making decisions).

In sum, the present study’s focus is to determine how affiliative humor fosters cooperation, communication, and creativity, ultimately enhancing decision-making. We aim to develop a comprehensive model integrating affiliative humor, rational/intuitive decision-making, and creativity to promote high-quality decision-making. We propose that these variables interact through cognitive and psychological mechanisms, such as fostering open communication, enhancing mental flexibility, and creating a safe environment that encourages new ideas.

Theory and hypotheses

Rationality and decision-making

Rational vs. intuitive thinking

The relationship between rationality, intuition, and managerial decision-making is supported by decades of research (e.g., Akinci & Sandler-Smith, 2012; Doyle, 1999; Luoma & Martela, 2021) that indicates that a manager’s decision-making style is related to whether the individual leans towards intuitive or rational thinking, as well as many other aspects of their personality (Malewska, 2018).

In the context of the tension between rational vs. intuitive thinking, we observe that in cognitive and social psychology, there appear dual-process and dual-system theories that advance that for every cognitive task, two distinct processing modes operate that could generate conflicting outcomes (e.g., Frankish, 2010). Type 1 modes or processes are described as associative, heuristic or intuitive and characterized as fast, automatic, and non-conscious. Type 2 processes are rule-based, analytical or reflective and slow, controlled, and conscious. Evans and Stanovich (2013) observed that critics of these theories often erroneously treat the theories as monolithic categories, failing to recognize their diversity, and concluding that Type1/Type2 processes provide a rigorous theoretical framework.

Indeed, the extent to which a manager relies on intuition or utilizes rational thought can often predict the strength of their decision-making (Toplak et al., 2011), as demonstrated by the numerous scholarly studies revealing a strong correlation between a rational decision-making style and the quality of decisions made (e.g., Elgendy et al., 2023; Pavićević & Keil, 2021). Notably, the rational approach is frequently considered more objective and less prone to bias than intuitive decision-making (Riedl et al., 2013). In contrast to impulsive or intuitive approaches, rational decision-making consistently produces better results because it is a systematic, objective, and logical process that involves gathering information, analyzing options, and weighing the potential consequences of each choice (Acciarni et al., 2021).

Bounded rationality

It is important to mention that when discussing rationality, we refer to the model of Bounded Rationality (Simon, 1987). The concept of Bounded Rationality holds that people’s ability to think rationally is constrained when they make decisions; as a result, reasonable people will choose a satisfying option over an “ideal one” (Gigerenzer, 2020). Limitations include the complexity of the issue to be resolved, the mind’s capacity for cognition, and the amount of time available for decision-making. According to this perspective, decision-makers behave as “Satisficers,” looking for a workable solution using the resources at their disposal rather than reaching out for additional relevant data. In other words, instead of conducting a thorough cost-benefit analysis to find the best course of action, individuals select a solution to their issue that satisfies their adequacy criteria (Altman, 2016). Specifically, rational decision-makers are inclined to perform three specific actions: First, they collect and evaluate all pertinent data and carefully evaluate all relevant information when deciding. This guarantees their choices are founded on thoroughly comprehending the circumstances (Power et al., 2019). Second, they analyze alternatives impartially (Jonassen, 2012). Third, they anticipate potential consequences, a skill that aids them in choosing the course of action most likely to produce the most effective results and avoiding decisions that might have unfavorable unforeseen effects (Vecchiato, 2012).

The CRT measure

The CRT measure swiftly became popular for its exceptional effectiveness in forecasting individuals’ reasoning, judgment, decision-making abilities, and beliefs (Sirota et al., 2021). Higher CRT scores have been linked to a reduced susceptibility to biases in deductive reasoning, including belief bias in syllogistic reasoning (Toplak et al., 2011). However, it is significant to note that the CRT, as a measure of rationality and intuition, has faced criticism. In response, Sirota et al. (2021) developed a verbal version based on eight studies. While our study does not utilize the verbal version, we recognize its significance and value.

Sajid and Li (2019) found that individuals with higher CR (more rational than intuitive) demonstrated superior ability to make financial decisions involving uncertainty. Moreover, Pan et al. (2020) observed that individuals with higher-than-average CR scores made more money and selected better strategies for inventory control. Notably, Janis and Mann (1977) observed how those American foreign policy leaders who made decisions during the Cold War and employed more analytical and logical thinking techniques made objectively wiser choices than people who trusted their gut or intuition. Similarly, Tsai et al. (2020) investigated how perceived decision-making styles impacted assessments of competence and openness. They found that people who thought they had a logical decision-making approach were evaluated as more capable and cooperative. In sum, besides being a conscious and deliberate approach, a rational decision-making style, mainly devoid of absurdity and biases, leads to improved decision-making (Abubakar et al., 2019), increased productivity, and improved organizational performance (Smolka et al., 2018; Uzelac et al., 2016).

Arising from the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Rational (vs. intuitive) decision-makers (exhibiting a high CR score, see below) will be positively related to the quality of their decisions.

Rationality and humor style

As noted, this study further examines the relationship between humor and significant concepts in management, namely, rationality, intuitive thinking, and decision-making. Specifically, we address the affiliative humor style described by Martin et al. (2003, see above). Past research has demonstrated a positive correlation between affiliative humor style and intuitive decision-making. First, there is a neural similarity between intuitive decision-making and affiliative humor styles. The brain area known as the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) – linked to social cognition, empathy, and comprehending other people’s views – may be important for affiliative humor (Chan et al., 2018) and intuition. Due to their similar neural substrates, it is possible that “gut instincts” and the kind of humor that forges stronger relationships are both facilitated by similar mental processes, such as recognizing subtle cues, comprehending emotions, and forming fast connections (Ventis, 2015).

Additionally, following Amania and Mansuria (2020), affiliative humor style is negatively correlated with risk perception. Risk perception is people’s intuitive assessments of the risks to which they are or may be exposed. These assessments can include a wide range of unfavorable outcomes that people link to specific causes. This correlation explains why people characterized by affiliative humor style are less likely to engage in a detailed process of assessing risks for a decision and decide more intuitively. It is also interesting to note in this context that sensation-seeking and affiliative humor styles are also related (Kennison & Messer, 2019). Indeed, studies have suggested that affiliative humor and intuitive decision-making may involve similar cognitive processes: Both depend on the ability to recognize patterns, spot contradictions, and form impromptu connections (Martin, 2019). These abilities enable us to identify subliminal social cues that confirm our intuition and formulate clever and quick-witted comments that are well-received by others (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006).

Intuitive decision-making style and affiliative humor style also share a common personality similarity. Individuals with affiliative humor style tend to have high agreeableness (Bochantin, 2012) and high extraversion (Plessen et al., 2020), akin to the other three personality attributes associated with the Big Five Traits, namely, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism (McCrae & Costa, 1987). In that context, Bayram and Aydemir (2017) found that an intuitive decision-making style correlated with agreeableness and that extroverts tend to make spontaneous decisions.

Another explanation of the link between intuitive reasoning and affiliative humor may be emotional intelligence (EQ) or the capacity to recognize and regulate emotions. For instance, Ogurlu (2015) indicated that individuals with high EQ characterize an affiliative humor style. High EQ individuals are skilled at creating humor that connects with others and fosters a sense of shared amusement, as well as recognizing subtle emotional cues that inform intuition (Leavitt et al., 2016).

Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2

Rational (vs. intuitive) decision-making will be negatively related to the level of affiliative humor style.

Humor style and decision-making quality

As indicated, past research has shown that affiliative humor can promote open communication and a diversity of viewpoints by fostering a positive and cooperative environment (Kucharski & Rutkowska, 2019), both of which are essential for quality decision-making (Politi, & Street, 2011). According to Isen (2001), positive affect improves decision-making and problem-solving skills, resulting in flexible, inventive, and creative cognitive processing that is also thorough and effective. Past studies have also shown that that affiliative humor can reduce stress, enhance creativity, and increase trust among individuals, all of which contribute to more effective decision-making (Romero & Cruthirds, 2006; Tjosvold et al., 2004).

Additionally, affiliative humor can account for enhanced quality in decision-making through heightening psychological safety (e.g., Potipiroon & Ford, 2021; Romero & Pescosolido, 2008). This construct embodies a team member’s capacity for taking chances, feeling safe in a demanding situation, and feeling assured when a member questions a popular belief. Furthermore, groups that cultivate a psychologically safe environment exhibit decreased defensiveness, an increased capacity to make decisions based on facts rather than politics, and an increased willingness to try out novel behaviors to improve outcomes (Tjosvold et al., 2004; Turner & Harder, 2018). The connection between humor and psychological safety stems from humor’s capacity to foster trust, open communication, and personal rapport at the individual level, which, in turn, significantly affects psychological safety at the group level (Romero & Pescosolido, 2008).

Humor has also been found to be correlated with effective problem-solving (Zhou et al., 2021). In addition to directly assisting with insight problem-solving, humor may also positively impact insight problem-solving indirectly by promoting cognitive flexibility (Robert, 2016). Following Moore and Malinowski (2009), cognitive flexibility is the capacity of humans to modify their cognitive processing techniques in novel and unexpected situations. For instance, comprehension can enhance cognitive flexibility, which involves a schema shift (Esterhuyse et al., 2013). Additionally, prior research has demonstrated that people with greater cognitive flexibility are more likely to think “outside the box,” approach problems in novel ways, develop fresh concepts, and excel at creative tasks (De Dreu et al., 2011).

Studies also indicate that when leaders express humor, they can effectively motivate their staff to develop original and creative solutions to challenging issues (Lee, 2015; Yang et al., 2021). According to several studies, employees in environments where humor is accepted and encouraged are generally more creative (e.g., Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Slattenet al., 2011). Additionally, following Xu et al. (2024), affiliative humor leads to positive emotion in teams, thus facilitating knowledge-sharing, which is a key aspect for quality decision-making. Similarly, Xu et al. (2024) observed that negative emotion mediates the relationship between aggressive humor and employee knowledge sharing. Thus, we hypothesize that affiliative humor establishes the framework for enhanced decision-making.

Hypothesis 3

The level of affiliative humor style will be positively related to decision-making quality.

Humor, rationality, and decision-making quality

The relationship between cognitive reflection and decision-making quality has been extensively studied, with a consensus that individuals who score higher on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) tend to make higher-quality decisions (Brañas-Garza et al., 2019). This is because CRT measures the tendency to override an incorrect ‘gut’ response and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer, a process indicative of rational thinking. However, recent research suggests that affiliative humor may mediate this relationship, enhancing decision-making by providing additional cognitive and social benefits (Bochantin, 2012).

Cognitive reflection is crucial to rational thinking, allowing individuals to engage in deliberate and analytical thought processes rather than relying on intuitive judgments. High CRT scores reflect an individual’s propensity to question initial responses and consider alternative solutions, leading to more accurate and higher-quality decisions (Toplak et al., 2011). This rational approach ensures that decisions are based on thorough analysis and logical reasoning, reducing the likelihood of errors and biases. We suggest affiliative humor mediates this relationship (Bonelli & Liu, 2023). Affiliative humor, characterized by a friendly, inclusive, and non-hostile form of humor, can mediate the relationship between cognitive reflection and decision-making quality by fostering a positive social and cognitive environment.

We propose that there are three fundamental mechanisms through which affiliative humor operates. First, affiliative humor encourages cognitive flexibility and creativity, allowing individuals to view problems from multiple perspectives and think outside the box. This expanded cognitive framework enables individuals with high CRT scores to generate a broader range of solutions and evaluate them more effectively, leading to better decision outcomes (De Dreu et al., 2008).

Second, affiliative humor can reduce stress and promote positive affect (Isen, 2015; Schwarz & Clore, 2007), creating a conducive environment for decision-making, helping individuals maintain cognitive clarity and focus (Channawar, 2023), and enhancing their ability to process information and make well-reasoned decisions. Positive affect, in turn, can increase motivation and cognitive engagement, further improving decision quality (Rowe et al., 2007).

Third, affiliative humor strengthens social bonds and facilitates open communication among team members or within decision-making groups (Kim et al., 2016; Klein, 2013). High CRT individuals who employ affiliative humor can foster a collaborative atmosphere where ideas are freely shared and critically evaluated (Looney & Kim, 2018). This collaborative process ensures that decisions are based on diverse inputs and thorough deliberation, improving overall decision quality (Torretta, 2014).

Following Ventis (2015), perception of humor is based on unique functions associated with intuitive and reflective thinking. Invoking the differences between affiliative-style humor and aggressive humor (see above), people endowed with affiliative humor more successfully induce convergent thinking (Rahman et al., 2022). Moreover, affiliative humor more effectively fosters creativity than aggressive humor in three components of divergent thinking: fluency (the number of ideas), flexibility (the number of different categories), and elaboration (the number of detailed ideas) (Rahman et al., 2022). Thus, the reflective-rational individual will ostensibly achieve more effective quality decisions.

In sum, while cognitive reflection directly enhances decision-making quality by promoting rational and analytical thinking, affiliative humor mediates this relationship by providing cognitive, emotional, and social benefits. By fostering cognitive flexibility, reducing stress, promoting positive affect, and enhancing social cohesion, affiliative humor creates an environment that amplifies the decision-making capabilities of individuals with high CRT scores. Consequently, integrating affiliative humor into decision-making processes can lead to more effective and higher-quality decisions, highlighting its importance as a mediating factor in the relationship between cognitive reflection and decision-making quality.

Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4

The level of affiliative humor style will mediate the relationship between the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) score (level of rational decision-making) and decision-making quality.

Creativity as a moderator of CR and decision-making quality

Creativity is an important aspect of decision-making propensity. Decision-making is a creative process that requires the decision-maker to think of appropriate choices and ways to fit those choices to the problem at hand (Brito & Thomaz, 2022). To utilize creativity to improve decision-making, individuals must possess innate resourceful abilities and be willing to use those skills to develop alternatives in decision-making (Forgionne & Newman, 2007).

The relationship between rationality and creativity depends on the aptitude for creativity. For instance, creativity is helpful in decision-making and may involve lateral thinking and divergence, or require a methodological review of alternative solutions (Shneiderman, 2000). The first type of creativity is more impulsive, while the latter requires thinking that is more rational. Furthermore, Creativity is often related to being intuitive, which is considered preferable in decision-making when the problem at hand is characterized by time pressure, complexity, and uncertainty (Calabretta et al., 2017). In addition to assisting decision-makers in navigating uncertainty, intuition fosters the creative thinking necessary for developing and investigating original ideas, solutions to problems, and associated business prospects (Hodgkinson et al., 2009).

However, most teaching and procedures for implementing creativity tend to be methodological and structured. One such method is Systematic Inventive Thinking (SIT) (Saygı & Şahin, 2023), which is a structured approach to generating ideas through orderly manipulations of a product or system’s attributes, such as shape, size, or color. Many of the most significant inventions in history have been credited to the highly structured and technical SIT method.

One way to explain the relationship between rationality and creativity is by one of invoking McCrae and Costa’s (1987) Big Five personality dimensions, namely openness to experience. Individuals with a high level of openness to experience tend to be more rational but also more creative (Kaufman et al., 2022; Jokić & Purić, 2019).

However, there are two sides to rationality. In contrast to the benefits of being rational described above, rational individuals may be inflexible and closed off to alternative ideas. For example, Butler et al. (2014) found that intuitive people, compared to rational individuals, are more adept at handling ambiguity in complex situations. While we suggest that rationality will lead to more effective decision-making, we also propose that that advantage depends on the creative nature of the individual. People who are unimaginative and rigidly rational will not make effective decisions.

Consequent to this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5

Creativity level will moderate the relationship between the CRT score (level of rationality) and decision-making quality.

Specifically, we hypothesize that for high CRT scores, the quality of decision-making will be higher when creativity is high and lower when creativity is low. For individuals with low CRT scores (i.e., intuitive individuals), decision-making quality will be lower, regardless of the creativity level.

Materials & methods

Participants

Full-time employees responded to objective and self-report measures (Data available online). The sample included 998 employees in different fields, as follows: academic (non-technological) − 22.1%, professions, human resources − 13.5%, technological professions − 20.7%, general officials and office workers − 15.8%, sales and service employees − 13.5%, professional workers in industry and construction and other professional workers − 9.4%, and unprofessional workers − 4.8%. Participants gave informed consent, were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, were explicitly told that their responses had no right or wrong answers, and were encouraged to respond honestly.

The respondents’ mean age was 33.1 (SD 9.78), and the mean job tenure was 7.88 (SD 7.8). 50% of the respondents were female. Network respondent-driven sampling was implemented, and all participants were from one country (Heckathorn, 2011).

Due to the complexity of the CRT, we included only participants in their last year of college or above. 8% of the participants were in their last year of college, 66.8% had a bachelor’s degree, and 25.2% had a master’s degree or above. 23% were low-level managers, 17% were mid-level managers, 9.8% were senior managers, and the remainder were non-managerial employees.

Procedure and measures

The testing and survey procedures were conducted individually on personal computers and included three phases. In the first phase, participants’ cognitive reflection (CR) was measured using the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) (Frederick, 2005). This test was timed digitally. In the second phase, participants made decision judgments based on three scenarios adapted from Callanan and Perri (2006). In the third phase, participants responded to two scales measuring creativity and affiliative humor style, followed by demographic questions.

Measures

CRT

We used the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), introduced by Frederick in 2005, to measure each participant’s cognitive reflection score. The test comprises three items and serves as a tool in psychological literature to measure intuition and cognitive reflection (rationality). The test assesses an individual’s inclination to resist a dominant but incorrect response and instead encourages additional contemplation, ultimately guiding them toward the (most) accurate answer.

Decision-making quality

Following Callanan and Perri (2006)Footnote 1, we used three scenarios that asked for a managerial decision. The authors indicated the preferred choice for each scenario. The scenarios had five action choices. Participants received one point for choosing the most preferred action. There were three scenarios, so the decision-making quality variable ranged from 0 to 3. Participants receive a score of 0 (for not choosing any preferred action) through a score of 3 (for selecting all three preferred actions).

Creativity

Creativity was gauged via the 4-item scale by Baer and Oldham (2006), with respondents asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “1” (Not at all) to “5” (Very much). Sample item: “I offer many creative ideas to improve performance at work.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.90.

Affiliative humor

Affiliative humor was measured using three items from the short work-related Humor Styles Questionnaire (swHSQ) adapted by Scheel et al. (2016), with respondents asked to rate each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “1” (Totally disagree) to “7” (Totally agree). Sample item: “I don´t have to work very hard at making my colleagues laugh – I seem to be a naturally humorous person.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.74.

To uphold the validity of each of the two scales, we employed the original scales crafted and published by the authors. Introducing diverse scale endpoints and formats was advantageous and aligned with recommended practices to mitigate common method biases, as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). To ensure accuracy, a “back-translation” process was implemented for scales other than Hebrew.

Results

The analysis of the data revealed several key findings. First, rational (vs. intuitive) decision-making, indicated by a high CRT score, was positively related to the quality of decisions. Second, rational decision-making was negatively related to an affiliative humor style. Third, the level of affiliative humor style was positively related to decision-making quality and mediated the relationship between cognitive reflection and decision-making quality. Finally, the level of creativity moderated the relationship between cognitive reflection and decision-making quality.

We begin by presenting basic information regarding the research variables.

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables involved in our study.

Table 1 Mean, standard deviation, and correlations among research variables
Full size table

Primary analysis and hypotheses test

Hypotheses were tested via linear regression. We ran the analysis using the SPSS macro-PROCESS 4.2. For Hypotheses 1–3 we used Hayes’ model 4. For hypotheses 4 and 5 we used model 5 to test the mediated-moderated model. To address concerns related to nonessential multicollinearity (Enders & Tofighi, 2007), we mean-centered the independent variables before calculating product terms. All results were controlled for age, gender and time of CRT completion (phase 1).

Hypothesis 1 proposed that rational (vs. intuitive) decision-making (i.e., high CRT score) will be positively related to the quality of the decision (the dependent variable). This hypothesis was tested using linear regression. H1 was supported (b = 0.16, t (998) = 6.46, p < .001).

Hypothesis 2 proposed that rational (vs. intuitive) decision-making will be negatively related to affiliative humor style (two independent variables). Results indicate a negative relationship; supporting H2 (b=-0.07, t(998)= -2.3, p = .03).

Hypothesis 3 proposed that the level of affiliative humor style will be positively related to the decision-making quality (the dependent variable). Results support H3, and show a significant positive relationship (b = 0.13, t(998) = 5.17, p < .01).

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the level of affiliative style would mediate the relationship between CRT score and decision-making quality. Results showed partial mediation (indirect effect=-.01, SE=.0037, 95% CI [-.0149, -.001]) (Table 2).  The representation of the mediated-moderation model is shown in Fig. 1 below, which displays regression results that combine all variables and unveil their interconnected relationships.

Table 2 Meditation and moderation effects for humor and creativity on decision-making quality
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The mediated-moderation model of humor creativity CRT and decision-making quality with unstandardized coefficients. Analysis was controlled for age gender and time of CRT completion Note: N = 998. *p < .05, *** p < .001

Full size image

Hypothesis 5 proposed that creativity level will moderate the relationship between the CRT score and decision-making quality. Specifically, we hypothesized that for high CRT scores (i.e., rational individuals), the quality of decision-making will be higher when creativity is high and lower when creativity is low. For individuals with low CRT scores (i.e., intuitive individuals), decision-making quality will be low, regardless of the creativity level. H5 was supported (Interaction effect b = 0.06, t(991) = 2.45, F = 5.97, p = .02) (Table 3). The interaction effect is depicted in Fig. 2 below.

Table 3 Conditional direct effects of creativity on decision-making quality
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

The interaction between CRT score and level of creativity on decision-making quality

Full size image

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to examine the role of rationality versus intuition on the quality of decision-making in the presence of humor and creativity. The study yielded several findings. We demonstrated that CR is positively related to decision-making quality while negatively associated with affiliative humor. The study adds a layer to the core established relationship of rationality and quality of decision-making by introducing the mediation of affiliative humor and the moderation of creativity to this relationship. Our findings are based on objective and self-report measures in which we use an actual test and scales with the participation of a large sample.

Our findings revealed that being rational can have a positive impact on decision-making. Rational individuals can process information more effectively than those low on CT, leading to more informed choices (Andrews, 2017). They exhibit reduced susceptibility to biases, employing logical reasoning and deduction, leading to more effective resolutions for complex problems (Power et al., 2019). Lastly, rationality promotes thinking through long-term effects and refraining from making choices that put short-term gains ahead of long-term advantages (Jackson, 2021).

The range of rationality and intuitiveness (as measured in the CRT) is demonstrated in the study. On the one hand, we see an ascertainable positive relationship between cognitive reflection and decision-making quality. On the other hand, we show a negative relationship between rationality and affiliative humor, which is positively related to decision-making quality. Given the growing centrality of humor in managerial conduct (e.g., Bitterly & Schweitzer, 2019; Hu, 2023; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012), we show that affiliative humor plays a role in coupling CR and decision-making quality by mediating this relationship. We demonstrate that affiliative humor can have a positive effect on decision-making. This style of humor is characterized by its warmth, inclusivity, and focus on building relationships. Affiliative humor can contribute to more effective decision-making by enhancing communication and exchange of information, improving problem-solving (Karahan et al., 2019) and creativity, strengthening intergroup harmony and cooperation, and reducing stress and anxiety, which can impair cognitive function and decision-making ability (Booth-Butterfield & Wanzer, 2016; Romero & Cruthirds, 2006). By challenging ingrained beliefs and norms, humor can also increase people’s openness to change and new ideas (Di Fabio & Duradoni, 2020). All in all, rational individuals do make better decisions. However, intuitive thinking strengthens individuals’ humor skills, which positively affects their decision-making quality as described above. A further significant finding of this study is the moderation of creativity in the relationship between CR and decision-making quality. The results emphasize the duality of intuitiveness. On the one hand, we have seen that rationalism is positively correlated with decision-making quality. Additionally, we demonstrate that the correlation between CR and decision-making depends on the person’s creativity. It follows that rational individuals exhibiting both high CRT and high creativity levels reveal the most productive decision-making quality. However, for individuals with low creativity, decision-making quality is low to moderate for rational individuals (high CRT) and low for intuitive individuals (low CRT). We, therefore, conclude that creativity strengthens rational individuals in decision-making.

This study makes significant theoretical contributions to the existing body of decision-making literature. It introduces an additional dimension to the discourse on rationality, bounded rationality, intuitiveness, and the quality of decision-making. Furthermore, by answering the calls of Rahman et al. (2022) and Calabretta et al. (2017), the study explores alternative approaches to evaluating decision-making quality and managerial interactions with employees and thus enhances humor theory and creativity theory.

Managerial and practical implications

The study yields several practical implications. First, in the world of leadership and management, the conclusions could be incorporated into managerial training. Managers who learn to employ affiliative humor effectively can make better decisions, create a psychologically safe environment, and reduce team anxiety and stress. Organizations can provide training courses or workshops to assist team members in identifying and making effective use of affiliative humor and to encourage joyfulness and uplifting interactions among team members. This can entail, for instance, introducing quick, humorous icebreakers or team-building activities into meetings.

Second, the results of this study may help to enhance artificial intelligence instruments intended to bolster platforms for decision-making. For instance, including an affiliative humor interphase in the prompts could enhance the quality of decision-making.

Third, this study’s findings can help employees enrich their communication skills and personal growth. Individuals aware of how humor affects other people can forge closer bonds with one another, establish rapport and trust with others, and project a more upbeat and appealing social presence (Booth-Butterfield & Wanzer, 2010). Humor can also positively affect employees’ willingness to work with managers (Brender-Ilan & Reizer, 2021) and help people control their emotions, deal with stress, and maintain a positive attitude in life (Booth-Butterfield & Wanzer, 2016; Reizer et al., 2022). Finally, our results contribute to decision-making processes whereby individuals apply a rational approach while monitoring their creative thinking.

Limitations and directions for future research

First, in this study, we focused solely on affiliative humor due to its specific characteristics. While this allowed for a targeted analysis, it limits the generalizability of our findings to other humor styles (Marin et al., 2003). Thus, our results may not fully capture the relationship between cognitive reflection, creativity, and decision-making quality across all humor styles. The effects observed might be specific to affiliative humor, potentially overestimating or underestimating the general impact of humor on these variables. In that vein and regarding future direction, investigating the relationship between cognitive reflection, creativity, and decision-making quality with the other three styles of humor (self-enhancing, aggressive, and self-defeating) could provide a more comprehensive understanding of humor’s role in decision-making processes.

Second, we used the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to measure rationality, which has known limitations, including its focus on numerical reasoning [Source? ]. This constraint impacts the inferences of our study in the sense that the CRT’s focus on numerical reasoning might not capture all aspects of rationality, potentially leading to an incomplete assessment of participants’ rational thinking abilities. This could result in either over- or underestimation of the relationship between rationality and other variables in our study. Considering the effect of this limitation on future direction, we encourage future studies to employ the verbal version of the CRT, developed and validated by Sirota et al. (2021), alongside the traditional CRT. This could add complexity and depth to the assessment of rationality in behavioral decision-making studies.

Third, our study used conflict scenarios to measure decision-making quality, avoiding subjective self-reporting scales. This impacts on estimates that can be drawn from our research. While our approach offers a more rigorous measurement than self-reporting, it may not capture all aspects of decision-making quality. The scenarios used might not perfectly align with real-world decision-making contexts, potentially limiting the ecological validity of our findings. Thus, we encourage future research to continue using scenario-based measures while ensuring they are well-matched to the study context. Additionally, exploring the precise circumstances where intuitive versus rational decision-making styles are preferable could offer valuable insights.

Fourth, the creativity variable was assessed using multiple items relying on subjective evaluation. Subjective measures of creativity may introduce bias and reduce the reliability of our creativity assessments. This could lead to either over- or underestimation of the relationship between creativity and other variables in our study. We suggest that future research incorporate more objective measures for evaluating creativity to complement subjective assessments. This could provide a more robust and comprehensive evaluation of participants’ creative abilities.

Finally, our study identified correlations between humor, cognitive reflection, creativity, and decision-making quality but did not explore the underlying mechanisms. Without understanding the causal mechanisms, our ability to infer how humor enhances decision-making abilities is limited. This gap in knowledge affects the practical implications that can be drawn from our findings. When considering the effect of this limitation on future directions, we suggest that subsequent studies explore the mechanisms underlying the correlation between humor and decision-making, offering significant perspectives on how humor can enhance decision-making abilities. By addressing these limitations in future research, we can gain a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the relationships between humor, cognitive reflection, creativity, and decision-making quality.

Conclusions

This research highlights the importance of the rationality-intuitiveness range in shaping decision-making effectiveness. It emphasizes the pivotal role managers with a positive and humoristic outlook could employ during their primary managerial task—decision-making—while considering employees’ creative aptitude and blend of rational and intuitive thinking. Contrary to conventional wisdom advocating solely for rational decision-making, our study proposes an enhancement by introducing humor and fostering creativity to enrich the decision-making process. Decisions grounded solely in rationality or intuition are seemingly destined to be of inferior quality.