Adaptation of the Preference for Intuition and Deliberation Scale into Turkish and investigating its psychometric properties

Year 2024, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 384 - 404, 25.12.2024

Elif Yüvrük , Aycan Kapucu

https://doi.org/10.57127/kpd.26024438.1324651

Abstract

The human mind is assumed to process environmental information through two distinct cognitive systems, intuitive and deliberative. The present study aimed to adapt the Preference for Intuition and Deliberation Scale (PID), a scale evaluating individual differences in the tendency to use both information processing systems, into Turkish and to test its psychometric properties. Participants were recruited via the convenient sampling method. Results from confirmatory factor analyses (n = 255) verified the original 2-factor structure of the PID. Correlations between the scores from two subscales and the related psychological constructs such as experiential and rational thinking, perfectionism, impulsivity, and intolerance of uncertainty were in the expected direction, which in turn supported the scale’s concurrent and convergent validity. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses supported the incremental validity of the PID over the Rational-Experiential Inventory that measures similar psychological constructs. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the PID were acceptable. Besides, following the original study of PID, several group comparisons were conducted on scores from two subscales. In sum, the present study confirmed the use of the Turkish version of PID as a reliable and valid measure in studies that may focus on evaluating individual differences in the tendency to information processing styles.

Keywords

intuition, deliberation, thinking style, decision making, reliability, validity

Ethical Statement

Ethics Committee Approval: This study was approved by Ege University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee at its meeting dated 25.11.2020 with the Decision Number 14/09 and Protocol Number 706 as being in compliance with ethical principles and rules. Conflict of Interest Statement: All authors of this article declare that there is no conflict of interest related to the article. Informed Consent Form: Consent forms were obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Sezgisel ve Ayrıntılayıcı Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeğinin (SADE) Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi

Abstract

İnsan zihninin çevresel problemden gelen bilgiyi, sezgisel ve ayrıntılayıcı olmak üzere iki farklı bilişsel sistem aracılığıyla işlediği varsayılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, söz konusu iki bilişsel sisteme dair eğilimdeki bireysel farklılıkları değerlendirmek üzere geliştirilen Sezgisel ve Ayrıntılayıcı Düşünme Eğilimi Ölçeğinin (SADE; Preference for Intuition and Deliberation Scale; Betsch, 2004) Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesidir. Uygun (kolay ulaşılabilir) örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan 255 kişi üzerinden gerçekleştirilen doğrulayıcı faktör analizi bulguları SADE’nin iki faktörlü orijinal yapısını doğrulamıştır. Eş zamanlı ve birleştirici geçerliğe dair analizler, alt boyutlardan elde edilen puanların, mantıksal ve deneyimsel düşünme, mükemmeliyetçilik, dürtüsellik ve belirsizliğe tahammülsüzlük olmak üzere çeşitli psikolojik yapılarla beklenen yönde korelasyonları olduğunu göstermiştir. Hiyerarşik doğrusal regresyon analizleri, SADE’nin benzer yapıları ölçen Mantıksal ve Deneyimsel Düşünme Ölçeğine kıyasla artımlı geçerliğini desteklemiştir. SADE’nin iç tutarlılığının ve test-tekrar test güvenirliğinin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ek olarak, alt boyutlardan elde edilen puanlar orijinal çalışmada olduğu gibi bazı gruplar arası karşılaştırmalarda sınanmıştır. Tüm bu bulgular, SADE’nin Türkçe versiyonun bilgi işleme stillerindeki bireysel farklılıkları ölçmeyi hedefleyen çalışmalarda geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olarak kullanılabileceğini göstermiştir.

Keywords

sezgisel, ayrıntılayıcı, düşünme stilleri, karar verme, geçerlik, güvenirlik

Ethical Statement

Etik Kurul Onayı: Bu çalışma, Ege Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırmalar ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu’nun 25.11.2020 tarihli toplantısında 14/09 Karar Sayısı ve 706 Protokol Numarası ile etik ilke ve kurallara uygun olduğu yö-nünde onaylanmıştır. Çıkar Çatışması Beyanı: Bu makalenin tüm yazarları, makaleye ilişkin herhangi bir çıkar çatışması olmadığı-nı beyan ederler. Onam Formu: Çalışmaya katılan tüm katılımcılardan onam formu alınmıştır.

Thanks

Yazarlar olarak, analizlerdeki katkısı ve makalenin geliştirilmesine yönelik geri bildirimleri için Dr. Ceren Gökdağ’a teşekkür ederiz.

References

• Anderson, E. C., Carleton, R. N., Diefenbach, M. ve Han, P. K. (2019). The relationship between uncertainty and affect. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2504.
• Arıkan İyilikci, E. ve Amado, S. (2018). The uncertainty appraisal enhances the prominent deck B effect in the Iowa gambling task. Motivation & Emotion, 42, 1-16.
• Barratt, E. S. (1959). Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomotor efficiency. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 9(3), 191-198.
• Betsch, C. (2004). Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation. Inventar zur erfassung von affekt- und kognitionsbasiertem entscheiden. [Preference for Intuition and Deliberation (PID): An inventory for assessing affect- and cognition-based decision-making]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 25, 179-197.
• Betsch, T. (2008). The nature of intuition and its neglect in research on judgment and decision making. H. Plessner, C. Betsch ve T. Betsch (Ed.), Intuition in judgment and decision making içinde (s. 3-22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Betsch, C. ve Iannello, P. (2009). Measuring individual differences in intuitive and deliberate decision-making styles: A comparison of different measures. Foundations for tracing intuition içinde (s. 259-279). Psychology Press.
• Betsch, C. ve Kunz, J. J. (2008). Individual strategy preferences and decisional fit. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), 532-555.
• Birrell, J., Meares, K., Wilkinson, A. ve Freeston, M. (2011). Toward a definition of intolerance of uncertainty: A review of factor analytical studies of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(7), 1198-1208.
• Björklund, F. ve Bäckström, M. (2008). Individual differences in processing styles: Validity of the Rational-Experiential Inventory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(5), 439-446.
• Blanchette, I. ve Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on higher level cognition: A review of research on interpretation, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition & Emotion, 24(4), 561-595.
• Buchtel, E. E. ve Norenzayan, A. (2008). Which should you use, intuition or logic? Cultural differences in injunctive norms about reasoning. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(4), 264-273.
• Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J. ve Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21(1), 105-117.
• Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55) içinde. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284-290.
• Cosentino, A. C., Azzara, S. H., Grinhauz, A. S. ve Azzollini, S. C. (2020). Urgent decision-making in extreme circumstances: Associations with cognitive reflection and with responses to moral dilemmas. Análise Psicológica, 38(1), 65-74.
• Cosentino, A. C. ve Azzollini, S. C. (2022). Latent mean differences between men and women: The case of the Preference for the Intuition and Deliberation Scale. Psicologia, 1-12.
• De Neys, W. (Ed.). (2017). Dual process theory 2.0. Routledge.
• Epstein, S. (2008). Intuition from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. H. Plessner, C. Betsch ve T. Betsch (Ed.), Intuition in judgment and decision making içinde (s. 23-39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V. ve Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71(2), 390-405.
• Evans, J. S. B. (2019). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Psychology Press.
• Evans, J. S. B. ve Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
• Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454-459.
• Feher, A., Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Plouffe, R. A., Wilson, C. A. ve Sherry, S. B. (2020). The Big Three Perfectionism Scale–Short Form (BTPS-SF): Development of a brief self-report measure of multidimensional perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(1), 37-52.
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.
• Freeston, M., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J. ve Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality & Individual Differences, 17, 791-802.
• Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(6), 787-794.
• Güngör, D. (2016). Psikolojide ölçme araçlarının geliştirilmesi ve uyarlanması kılavuzu. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 19(38), 104-112.
• Iannello, P. (2008). Intuitive and analytical thinking in decision making: The role of mind reading and cognitive style in a strategic interactive context (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Università Cattolicadel Sacro Cuore, Milan, İtalya.
• Kaçar-Başaran, S., Gökdağ, C., Erdoğan-Yıldırım, Z. ve Yorulmaz, O. (2022). A different view to perfectionism: An investigation of the psychometric properties of the Big Three Perfectionism Scale in a Turkish community sample. Current Psychology, 41(9), 6511-6521.
• Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403-422.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kazdin, A. E. (2021). Research design in clinical psychology. Cambridge University Press.
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4. baskı). The Guilford Press.
• Ko, C. H., Wang, P. W., Liu, T. L., Chen, C. S., Yen, C. F. ve Yen, J. Y. (2017). The adaptive decision-making, risky decision, and decision-making style of internet gaming disorder. European Psychiatry, 44, 189-197.
• Laborde, S., Dosseville, F. ve Scelles, N. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence and preference for intuition and deliberation: Respective influence on academic performance. Personality & Individual Differences, 49(7), 784-788.
• Leiner, D. J. (2014). Convenience samples from online respondent pools: A case study of the SoSci Panel. International Journal of Internet Science, 20(5), 1-18.
• Mackie, D. M., Asuncion, A. G. ve Rosselli, F. (1992). The impact of positive affect on persuasion processes. M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion & social behavior (s. 201-220) içinde. Sage.
• Ma-Kellams, C. (2020). Cultural variation and similarities in cognitive thinking styles versus judgment biases: Areview of environmental factors and evolutionary forces. Review of General Psychology, 24(3), 238-253.
• Marks, A. D., Hine, D. W., Blore, R. L. ve Phillips, W. J. (2008). Assessing individual differences in adolescents’ preference for rational and experiential cognition. Personality & Individual Differences, 44(1), 42-52.
• Mikuskova, E. B., Hanák, R. ve Cavojova, V. (2015). Appropriateness of two inventories measuring intuition (the PID and the REI) for Slovak population. Studia Psychologica, 57(1), 63-82.
• Monacis, L., de Palo, V., Di Nuovo, S. ve Sinatra, M. (2016). Validation of the Rational and Experiential Multimodal Inventory in the Italian context. Psychological Reports, 119(1), 242-262.
• Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought. The Free Press.
• Nisbett, R. E. ve Masuda, T. (2003). Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(19), 11163-11170.
• Pacini, R. ve Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76(6), 972-987.
• Plessner, H., Betsch, C. ve Betsch, T. (2011). Intuition in judgment and decision making. Psychology Press.
• Pretz, J. E. ve Totz, K. S. (2007). Measuring individual differences in affective, heuristic, and holistic intuition. Personality & Individual Differences, 43(5), 1247-1257.
• Richetin, J., Perugini, M., Adjali, I. ve Hurling, R. (2007). The moderator role of intuitive versus deliberative decision making for the predictive validity of implicit and explicit measures. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 21(4), 529-546.
• Rieskamp, J. ve Otto, P. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(2), 207-236.
• Sarıçam, H., Erguvan, F., Akın, A. ve Akça, M. (2014). Belirsizliğe Tahammülsüzlük Ölçeği BTÖ 12 Türkçe formu geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 1(3), 148-157.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. ve Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74.
• Sertel-Berk, Ö. (2020). Dil uyarlamasından psikometrik sınamalara tüm basamakları ile ölçek uyarlama çalışmaları-1 [Çevrim-içi seminer]. İstanbul Üniversitesi İstatistik Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi.
• Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
• Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J. ve Sherry, S. B. (2016). The Big Three Perfectionism Scale: A new measure of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 670-687.
• Sousa, V. D. ve Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation, and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: A clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-274.
• Spinella, M. (2007). Normative data and a short form of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117(3), 359-368.
• Sörbom, D. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54(3), 371-384.
• Tabachnick, B. G. ve Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6. baskı). Pearson.
• Tamam, L., Güleç, H. ve Karatas, G. (2013). Barratt Dürtüsellik Ölçeği Kısa Formu (BIS-11-KF) Türkçe uyarlama çalışması/Short Form of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11-SF) Turkish adaptation study. Nöro-Psikyatri Arsivi, 50(2), 130-134.
• Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.
• Tiedens, L. Z. ve Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81(6), 973-988.
• Türk, E. G. ve Artar, M. (2014). Adaptation of the Rational Experiential Inventory: Study of reliability and validity. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 47(1), 1-18.
• Türk, E. G. ve Gülleroğlu, D. (2014) Mantıksal Deneyimsel Düşünme Ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(2), 555-571.
• Witteman, C., Van den Bercken, J., Claes, L. ve Godoy, A. (2009). Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 39-47.
• Yorulmaz, O. (2020). Klinik psikolojide araştırma yöntemleri. M. Eskin, Ç. G. Dereboy ve N. Karancı (Ed.), Klinik psikoloji bilim ve uygulama içinde (s. 113-137). Türk Psikologlar Derneği.