The Fit of Thinking Style and Situation: New Measures of Situation-Specific Experiential and Rational Cognition
Open accessAbstract
Decades of theoretical and empirical research in social and cognitive psychology provide strong evidence that consumers process information in two distinct and qualitatively different ways: rational and experiential. However, there has been surprisingly little research attention devoted to explicitly measuring how situational influences directly impact thinking style. Further, attempts to simultaneously measure the two dimensions of thinking style as either situation-specific or as an enduring state are even fewer and lack validation in a broad context. In five studies, we develop and validate a new instrument for measuring experiential and rational situation-specific thinking style in the context of a range of performance tasks designed to induce primarily rational or experiential cognition, as well as in the context of differing motivations toward the same task. We establish congruence effects related to the fit of situation-specific thinking style and the nature of the task on performance outcomes; also, we show that the prediction of task performance and related outcomes from dispositional thinking style is completely mediated by situation-specific thinking style.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The cognitive style of decision-making during risk-benefit calculations is both analytical and conscious and can be described as logical, cause and effect, rule-based, hierarchical, sequential, process-oriented, slower to implement but quicker to change, high effort, oriented toward delayed action, conscious, and experienced actively with the individual aware of and in control of the process.
“The cognitive style of decision-making during risk-benefit calculations is both analytical and conscious and can be described as 'logical, cause and effect, rule-based, hierarchical, sequential, process-oriented, slower to implement but quicker to change, high effort, oriented toward delayed action, conscious, and experienced actively with the individual aware of and in control of the process' (p.”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Novak and Hoffman, 2008
The experiential processes are associative, emotional, low effort, rapid to implement but slow to change, parallel, immediate, outcome-oriented, holistic, preconscious and experienced passively with the process opaque to the individual.
“The experiential processes are 'associative, emotional, low effort, rapid to implement but slow to change, parallel, immediate, outcome-oriented, holistic, preconscious and experienced passively with the process opaque to the individual' (p.57, Novak and Hoffman, 2008).”
From The privacy paradox – investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – a systematic literature review (2017) · cites this paper as Novak and Hoffman, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 104 · Cited by 200
- Authors
- Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L.
- ORCID
- Hoffman, Donna L.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-72
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2149246289
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 4.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Consumer Research (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Retail Behavior Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
- Keywords
- thinking styles, rational cognition, dual-process theory, System 1 and System 2, consumer information processing, situational influences, consumer motivation, performance tasks, scale development
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
