Individual differences in need for cognition and decision-making competence among leaders

Abstract

When making decisions, people sometimes deviate from normative standards. While such deviations may appear to be alarmingly common, examining individual differences may reveal a more nuanced picture. Specifically, the personality factor of need for cognition (i.e., the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) may moderate decision makers' susceptibility to bias, as could personality factors associated with being a leader. As part of a large-scale assessment of high-level leaders, participants completed a battery of decision-making competence and personality scales. Leaders who scored higher on need for cognition performed better on two of four components of a decision-making competence measure: framing and honoring sunk costs. In addition, the leader sample performed better than published controls. Thus, both individual differences in need for cognition and leadership experience moderate susceptibility to decision biases. Implications for broader theories of individual differences and bias are discussed.

Exposure to acute stress enhances decision-making competence: Evidence for the role of DHEA

“…The magnitude of this effect was approximately moderate, Θ=0.41, and similarly the 95% HDI of the effect size did not include zero, 95% HDI Θ [.028, .789]. Thus, not only did stress enhance decision-making competence, this enhancement was approximately equivalent in magnitude to the difference observed between individuals in high-level leadership positions and healthy controls (Carnevale et al, 2011). As such, the effect of stress on decision-making competence could be relevant to success in one’s career or other aspects of everyday life.…”

“…For example, because greater decision-making competence predicts better decision-making in interpersonal and financial situations, greater decision-making competence is associated with a more positive social environment and higher socioeconomic status (Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007; Parker and Fischhoff, 2005), though it should be noted that many factors contribute to these circumstances. In addition, people with greater decision-making competence are more likely to hold high-level leadership positions (Carnevale et al, 2011). As such, improving decision-making competence could potentially enhance a person’s interpersonal quality of life and socioeconomic status.…”

Inter-rater reliability for movement pattern analysis (MPA): measuring patterning of behaviors versus discrete behavior counts as indicators of decision-making style

“…The unique leadership styles of world leaders are evident on the world stage and can be observed in real time and deciphered via analysis of videotape interaction and comparative analysis of different leaders who, for example, show differences in their inclination to implement action (Connors, 2006, unpublished). Individuals in professional capacities that demand decision-making expertise – such as local, state, and central government leaders – differ with respect to their need for cognition when faced with decision-making tasks (Carnevale et al, 2010). Given the recognized need for appreciating and assessing individual differences in decision-making style (Mohammed and Schwall, 2009; Del Missier et al, 2010; Weber and Morris, 2010; Appelt et al, 2011; Harman, 2011; Bruine de Bruin et al, 2012), a challenge for research is to establish methods that can be used reliably to gain insight into the range of decision-making propensities in those charged with making important decisions on a regular basis.…”

Decision-Making Style in Leaders: Uncovering Cognitive Motivation Using Signature Movement Patterns

“…Particular attention has been directed toward the notable differences in decision-making style that can be observed when studying a group of leaders (see Connors, Rende, & Colton, 2013;Connors, Rende, & Colton, 2014). For example, prior studies have shown notable variation in decision-making style in experienced leaders in general (Carnevale, Inbar, & Lerner, 2011), leaders across different types of professional background (Laureiro-Martinez et al, 2014), and military officers (Thunholm, 2004).…”