Continuous norms for the Decision Styles Scale in a Brazilian Sample
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25118/2763-9037.2021.v11.211Keywords:
Decision-making, dual processing theory, cross-cultural adaptation, decision-making stylesAbstract
Introduction: The Decision Styles Scale (DSS) is an instrument developed to assess two distinct decisionmaking styles, the intuitive/heuristic vs. deliberate/ rational. Previous studies found that the Brazilian Portuguese adaptation of the DSS was adequate and had good psychometric properties. This study presents preliminary parameters in the format of continuous norms for the scale. Methods: 1218 Brazilian adults aged from 18 to 64 years participated in the study. Results: The scale results were not influenced by reported age or sex, and the results can be presented as continuous norms for the entire sample. Conclusion: The results presented constitute preliminary norms for interpretation of the Brazilian version of the DSS. Future studies are needed to derive Brazilian norms based on representative samples of the population.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Schiavon B, Sallum I, Grassi-Oliveira R, Malloy-Diniz L. Julgamento e tomada de decisão: conceitos gerais. In: Malloy-Diniz L, Klume-Schiavon B, Grassi-Oliveira R. Julgamento e tomada de decisão. São Paulo: Pearson; 2018. p. 25-46.
Arvai J, Campbell-Arvai V, Steel P. Decision-making for sustainability: a systematic review of the body of knowledge [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2021 Jul 19]. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d5156083138fd000193c11a/t/5f2efe6e0c19916a4256753a/1596915324664/NBS-Systematic-Review-Decision-Making.pdf
Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:6889-92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112190108 - PMid:21482790
Osgood JM. Ego-depletion increases selfish decision making, but may also increase self-conflict and regret about those decisions. J Soc Psychol. 2019;159:417-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1505706 - PMid:30142302
Gong X, Sanfey AG. Social rank and social cooperation: impact of social comparison processes on cooperative decision-making. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0175472. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175472 - PMid:28388684 PMCid:PMC5384784
Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zhao J. Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science. 2013;341:976-80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238041 - PMid:23990553
Ong Q, Theseira W, Ng IY. Reducing debt improves psychological functioning and changes decision-making in the poor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:7244-9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810901116 - PMid:30910964 PMCid:PMC6462060
Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University; 1982. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477
Howard JD, Kahnt T. Causal investigations into orbitofrontal control of human decision making. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2021;38:14-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.06.013 - PMid:32864400
Malloy-Diniz L, Fuentes D, Leite WB, Correa H, Bechara A. Impulsive behavior in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: characterization of attentional, motor and cognitive impulsiveness. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007;13:693-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617707070889 - PMid:17521490
Grassi G, Pallanti S, Righi L, Figee M, Mantione M, Denys D, et al. Think twice: impulsivity and decision making in obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Behav Addict. 2015;4:263-72. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.039 - PMid:26690621 PMCid:PMC4712760
Malloy-Diniz LF, Neves FS, Abrantes SS, Fuentes D, Corrêa H. Suicide behavior and neuropsychological assessment of type I bipolar patients. J Affect Disord. 2009;112:231-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2008.03.019 - PMid:18485487
Camchong J, Endres M, Fein G. Decision making, risky behavior, and alcoholism. Handb Clin Neurol. 2014;125:227-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62619-6.00014-8 - PMid:25307578
Svaldi J, Philipsen A, Matthies S. Risky decision-making in borderline personality disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2012;197:112-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2012.01.014 - PMid:22421066
Perrain R, Dardennes R, Jollant F. Risky decision-making in suicide attempters, and the choice of a violent suicidal means: an updated meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2021;280:241-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.052 - PMid:33220560
Bangma DF, Koerts J, Fuermaier AB, Mette C, Zimmermann M, Toussaint AK, et al. Financial decision-making in adults with ADHD. Neuropsychology. 2019;33:1065-77. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000571 - PMid:31343233
Cheng AS, Ting KH, Liu KP, Ba Y. Impulsivity and risky decision making among taxi drivers in Hong Kong: an event-related potential study. Accid Anal Prev. 2016;95:387-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.12.021 - PMid:26748873
Teichman JM, Matsumoto E, Smart M, Smith AE, Tongco W, Hosking DE, et al. Personal finances of residents at three Canadian universities. Can J Surg. 2005;48:27-32.
Medeiros W, Torro-Alves N, Malloy-Diniz LF, Minervino CM. Executive functions in children who experience bullying situations. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01197 - PMid:27616998 PMCid:PMC5000580
Bradshaw CP, O'Brennan LM, McNeely CA. Core competencies and the prevention of school failure and early school leaving. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2008;122:19-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.226 - PMid:19021248
Hamilton K, Shih SI, Mohammed S. The development and validation of the rational an intuitive decision styles scale. J Pers Assess. 2016;98:523-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1132426 - PMid:26967981
Cotrena C, Branco LD, Fonseca RP. Adaptation and validation of the Melbourne decision making questionnaire to Brazilian Portuguese. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2018;40:29-37. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0062 - PMid:29211117
Mouta GS, Pinto AL, Malloy-Diniz LF, Pasian RS. Cross-cultural adaptation, and factor structure of the decision styles scale for Brazil. Curr Res Behav Sci. 2021;2:100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100039
Wang X, Shi W, Kim R, Oh Y, Yang S, Zhang J, et al. Persuasion for good: towards a personalized persuasive dialogue system for social good. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics [Internet]. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. 2019 [cited 2021 Jul 29]. p. 5635-49. https://www.savethechildren.org/ - https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1566 - PMCid:PMC6507442
McClanahan W, van der Linden S, Ruggeri K. Decision-making style mediates the relationship between trait self-control and self-reported criminal behavior. Pers Individ Dif. 2019;151:109537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109537
Tzini K, Jain K. Unethical behavior under relative performance evaluation: evidence and remedy. Hum Resour Manage. 2018;57:1399-413. - https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21913
The jamovi project. Jamovi [Internet]. 2021. https://www.jamovi.org
Lenhard A, Lenhard W, Suggate S, Segerer R. A continuous solution to the norming problem. Assessment. 2018;25:112-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116656437 - PMid:27371826
Lenhard A, Lenhard W, Gary S. Continuous norming of psychometric tests: a simulation study of parametric and semi-parametric approaches. PLoS One. 2019;14: e0222279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222279 - PMid:31527877 PMCid:PMC6748442
Lenhard W, Lenhard A. Improvement of norm score quality via regression-based continuous norming. educational and psychological measurement. Educ Psychol Meas. 2021;81:229-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164420928457
Hamilton K, Shih SI, Mohammed S. The predictive validity of the decision styles scale: an evaluation across task types. Pers Individ Dif. 2017;119:333-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.009
Parsons K, Butavicius M, Delfabbro P, Lillie M. Predicting susceptibility to social influence in phishing emails. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2019;128:17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.02.007
Cheek NN, Goebel J. What does it mean to maximize? "Decision difficulty," indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing. Judgm Decis Mak. 2020;15:7-24.
Published
How to Cite
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 André Luiz de Carvalho Braule Pinto, Gabriel dos Santos Mouta, Sônia Regina Pasian, Leonardo Rodrigo Baldaçara, Antonio Geraldo da Silva, Leandro Fernandes Malloy-Diniz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Debates em Psiquiatria allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) - Debates em Psiquiatria is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
