The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research
Open accessAbstract
Individual differences in decision making are a topic of longstanding interest, but often yield inconsistent and contradictory results. After providing an overview of individual difference measures that have commonly been used in judgment and decision-making (JDM) research, we suggest that our understanding of individual difference effects in JDM may be improved by amending our approach to studying them. We propose four recommendations for improving the pursuit of individual differences in JDM research: a more systematic approach; more theory-driven selection of measures; a reduced emphasis on main effects in favor of interactions between individual differences and decision features, situational factors, and other individual differences; and more extensive communication of results (whether significant or null, published or unpublished). As a first step, we offer our database—the Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory (DMIDI;http://html://www.sjdm.org/dmidi), a free, public resource that categorizes and describes the most common individual difference measures used in JDM research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047358 · Cited by 8,686
A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1 · Cited by 8,307
Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 · Cited by 6,128
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure
Goldberg, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 · Cited by 5,530
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 · Cited by 2,592
Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049 · Cited by 2,494
Accounting for the effects of accountability.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · Cited by 2,383
A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
Leary, M. R. (1983) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167283093007 · Cited by 2,178 · cited 2×
“(4) Lastly, there are measures assessing psychological needs and fears as motivations; these include Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE; Leary, 1983), Need to Evaluate (Jarvis & Petty, 1996), and Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness (short form by Ruvio et al.”
Background
Cited by
Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on
Djulbegovic, B., & Guyatt, G. H. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31592-6 · Cited by 1,022
Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test
Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S., & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500001819 · Cited by 745
Risk preference shares the psychometric structure of major psychological traits
Frey, R., Pedroni, A., Mata, R., Rieskamp, J., & Hertwig, R. (2017) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1701381 · Cited by 526
Hoque, Z. (2014) · The British Accounting Review · doi:10.1016/j.bar.2013.10.003 · Cited by 490
Stability and change in risk-taking propensity across the adult life span.
Josef, A. K., Richter, D., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Wagner, G. G., Hertwig, R., & Mata, R. (2016) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000090 · Cited by 305
Metadata
- Authors
- Appelt, K. C., Milch, K. F., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & Weber, E. U.
- Venue
- Judgment and Decision Making
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 252-262
- ISSN
- 1930-2975 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2126231009
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 9.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1930297500001455
- The paper
- Appelt, K. C., Milch, K. F., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & Weber, E. U. (2011). The Decision Making Individual Differences Inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgment and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500001455
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
