Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects

By S. Shiloh, Efrat Salton, Dana Sharabi. 2002

238 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df376ee3fc2e85d00fd1908781abaa22768b07c3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

1. Elke U. Weber

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Michel J. J. Handgraaf
2. Elke U. Weber
3. Kirstin C Appelt

In General Decision Sciences

1. Michel J. J. Handgraaf
2. Elke U. Weber
3. Kirstin C Appelt
4. Kerry F. Milch
5. S. van der Linden
6. Dan Kahan
7. P. Stern
8. Paul Slovic

Citations in the corpus

• How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. (2009, unknown): “Shiloh, Salton, and Sharabi (2002) presented framing problems to college students and analyzed the data using three factors as independent variables: high or low analytical, high or low intuitive, and positive or negative frame.”
• Geographic Profiling: The Fast, Frugal, and Accurate Way (2004, background): “A wealth of research has associated individual differences in the availability of particular heuristics to factors such as gender (Epstein, Pacini, Denes- Raj, & Heier, 1996) and personality traits (Shiloh et al., 2002).”
• The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research (2011, result): “…cursory review reveals a constellation of confusing and often contradictory results for many individual differences (for example, see Levin et al., 2002, and Shiloh et al., 2002, for contradictory results regarding cognitive style and framing effects; see Mohammed and Schwall, 2009, for a review).”