Cognitive and Affective Influences on Decision Quality
Main Article Content
Keywords
Decision-making, Profile Analysis, Age Differences, Age Differences
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive and affective factors influence decision outcomes, but few studies have examined both factors simultaneously. Study 1 used cluster analysis to test whether affective profiles related to decision domains could be identified as individual difference factors. Study 2 extended these findings to test whether such profiles can predict decision quality.
Methods: We analyzed importance and meaningfulness ratings from 1123 adults regarding four low-frequency but high-salience decisions. Profile analyses revealed three meaningful profiles. A subset (n = 56) of adults completed quasi-experimental decision tasks in two of these domains.
Results: Hierarchical regression examined the contributions of the affective cluster from Study 1 and executive functions to decision quality. We first regressed decision quality onto an index of executive function (F (1, 53) = 4.57, p = .037). At Step 2, affective cluster accounted for an additional 12.5% of the variance in decision quality, Fchange (2, 51) = 4.01, p = .024. The overall model retained its significance, F (3, 51) = 4.37, p = .008, R2 = .205.
Conclusions: Together, Study 1 and 2 demonstrate that affective components related to the decision domain can be used as individual difference factors and that these account for unique variance in decision outcomes.
References
2. Queen, T. L., Hess, T. M., Ennis, G. E., Dowd, K., & Gruhn, D. Information search and decision making: Effects of age and complexity on strategy use. Psychology and Aging, 2012; 27(4), 817-824. DOI: 10.1037/a0028744
3. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., Kassam, K. S. Emotion and decision making. Annual review of psychology, 2015; 66. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
4. Lerner, J. S., Keltner, D. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 2000; 14(4), 473-493. DOI: 10.1080/026999300402763
5. Salthouse, T. A. Relations between age and cognitive functioning, In: Major issues in cognitive aging, Oxford University Press; 2009: 3-34. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372151.003.0001
6. Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., Charles, S. T. Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 1999; 54(3), 165-181. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.54.3.165
7. Blanchard-Fields, F., Jahnke, H. C., Camp, C. Age differences in problem-solving style: The role of emotional salience. Psychology and aging, 1995; 10(2), 173. DOI: 10.1037/0882-7974.10.2.173
8. Mikels, J. A., Maglio, S. J., Reed, A. E., Kaplowitz, L. J. Should I go with my gut? Investigating the benefits of emotion-focused decision making. Emotion, 2011; 11(4), 743. DOI: 10.1037/a0023986
9. Delaney, R., Strough, J., Parker, A. M., de Bruin, W. B. Variations in decision-making profiles by age and gender: A cluster-analytic approach. Personality and individual differences, 2015; 85, 19-24. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.034
10. Plieger, T., Grünhage, T., Duke, É., & Reuter, M. Predicting stock market performance: The influence of gender and personality on financial decision making. Journal of Individual Differences, 2020. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000330
11. Knepple Carney, A. M., & Patrick, J. H. Time for a change: Temporal perspectives and health goals. Personality and Individual Differences, 2017; 109 (April), 220-224. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.015
12. Lachman, M. E., Weaver, S. L. The Midlife Development Inventory (MIDI) personality scales: Scale construction and scoring, 1997. Waltham, MA: Brandeis Uni., 1-9.
13. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. NEO personality inventory-revised (NEO PI-R), 1992. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
14. IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp
15. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C. Cluster Analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics, 2000; (pp. 147-205). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16. Kahneman, D. Thinking, fast and slow, 2011; Macmillan.
17. Mather, M., Knight, M., McCaffrey, M. The allure of the alignable: Younger and older adults’ false memories of choice features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2005; 134(1), 38-51. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.38
18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A. Statistical power analyses using g*power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 2009; 41(4), 1149-1160. DOI: 10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
19. Mueller, S. T., & Piper, B. J. The psychology experiment building language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 2014; 222, 250-259. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024
20. Buelow, M. T., Cayton, C. Relationships between the big five personality characteristics and performance on behavioral decision making tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020; 160, 109931. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109931
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright, 2025 by the authors. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.