Cited by 906Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCognitive Abilities and TestingPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Individual differences in adult decision-making competence.

Open access
Bruine de Bruin, Wändi, Parker, Andrew M., Fischhoff, Baruch·2007·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

The authors evaluated the reliability and validity of a set of 7 behavioral decision-making tasks, measuring different aspects of the decision-making process. The tasks were administered to individuals from diverse populations. Participants showed relatively consistent performance within and across the 7 tasks, which were then aggregated into an Adult Decision-Making Competence (A-DMC) index that showed good reliability. The validity of the 7 tasks and of overall A-DMC emerges in significant relationships with measures of socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, and decision-making styles. Participants who performed better on the A-DMC were less likely to report negative life events indicative of poor decision making, as measured by the Decision Outcomes Inventory. Significant predictive validity remains when controlling for demographic measures, measures of cognitive ability, and constructive decision-making styles. Thus, A-DMC appears to be a distinct construct relevant to adults' real-world decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Previous research has indicated some degree of common variance among heuristics-and-biases tasks.

    “Nevertheless, previous research has indicated some degree of common variance among them (Bruine de Bruin, Parker, & Fischhoff, 2007;Finucane & Gullion, 2010;Klaczynski, 2001;Parker & Fischhoff, 2005;Slugoski, Shields, & Dawson, 1993;Stanovich & West, 1998c, 2000;West, Toplak, & Stanovich, 2008).”

    From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Bruine de Bruin, Parker, & Fischhoff, 2007

  • These results converge with a body of other work indicating that susceptibility to these biases varies considerably.

    “These results converge with a body of other work indicating that the susceptibility to these biases varies considerably (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007;Cokely & Kelley, 2009;Del Missier, Mantyla, & Bruine de Bruine, 2010;Dohmen, Falk, Huffman, Marklein, & Sunde, 2009;Klaczynski, 2001;Oechssler et al., 2009;Stanovich & West, 1998a, 1998c, 1999, 2000, 2008b;West et al., 2008).”

    From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007

  • Recent work on individual differences in cognitive function has begun to challenge the assumption that intelligence tests encompass most of what is important cognitively.

    “Recent work on individual differences in cognitive function has begun to challenge this assumption (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007;Oechssler et al., 2009;Stanovich, 2009bStanovich, , 2011;;Stanovich & West, 2007, 2008a, 2008b).”

    From The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks (2011) · cites this paper as Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B.
Affiliations
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2007-05
Volume
92
Issue
5
Pages
938-956
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2039223548
Cited by
906
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 34
FWCI
12.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KiltHub Repository
Funders
National Science Foundation (SES-0213782)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
individual differences, construct validity, predictive validity, socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, decision-making styles, negative life events
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aptitude, Culture, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Individuality, Intelligence, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Problem Solving, Psychometrics, Self Concept, Social Values, Socioeconomic Factors, Reproducibility of Results

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