The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research

By Kirstin C Appelt, Kerry F. Milch, Michel J. J. Handgraaf, Elke U. Weber. Judgment and Decision Making, 2011

274 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Individual differences in decision making are a topic of longstanding interest, but often yield inconsistent and contradictory results. After providing an overview of individual difference measures that have commonly been used in judgment and decision-making (JDM) research, we suggest that our understanding of individual difference effects in JDM may be improved by amending our approach to studying them. We propose four recommendations for improving the pursuit of individual differences in JDM research: a more systematic approach; more theory-driven selection of measures; a reduced emphasis on main effects in favor of interactions between individual differences and decision features, situational factors, and other individual differences; and more extensive communication of results (whether significant or null, published or unpublished). As a first step, we offer our database—the Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory (DMIDI; http://html://www.sjdm.org/dmidi), a free, public resource that categorizes and describes the most common individual difference measures used in JDM research.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, General Decision Sciences, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1e15742ca23efe81ae7afc6e4d00f313b6d8e24c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In General Decision Sciences

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Decision-making styles and their associations with decision-making competencies and mental health (2015, background): “(Appelt et al. (2011) state that instruments originally constructed to measure cognitive styles are often used to measure decision-making styles.”
Individual Differences in Risky Decision Making: A Meta‐analysis of Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (2014, methodology): “Along with the excellent guidelines suggested in earlier literature reviews (Appelt et al., 2011; Mohammed & Schwall, 2009), as a final remark, we strongly recommend that decision researchers study the effects of individual differences on samples providing the appropriate statistical power to…”
On the meaning and measurement of maximization (2016, unknown): “In summary, then, taking a person x situation approach to the study of maximization will help answer pressing questions about when and why maximizers are less happy, in addition to adding important nuance to the study of individual differences in decision making goals and strategies (Appelt et al., ”