The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decision-Making Style: The Development and Assessment of a New Measure
Abstract
A multistage, four sample study was conducted to develop a conceptually consistent and psychometrically sound measure of decision-making style. Construct definitions were developed from prior theory, and items were written to assess rational, avoidant, intuitive, and dependent decision-making styles. A series of principal-axis factor analyses with varimax rotation and subsequent item analyses were conducted to develop four conceptually distinct scales with acceptable internal consistency (alpha ranging from .68 to .94) and a stable factor structure. In the process of scale development, a fifth style (spontaneous) was identified. Tests for independence among the five decision-making style scales and concurrent validity analyses were conducted. Finally, discussion of the new instrument with reference to the extant literature is provided.
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
Pearlin, L. I., Menaghan, E. G., Lieberman, M. A., & Mullan, J. T. (1981) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.2307/2136676 · Cited by 6,289
Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes
Campbell, D. T. (1960) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0040373 · Cited by 2,329
Cited by
Individual differences in adult decision-making competence.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 · Cited by 906
“…maladaptive decision-making styles, including tendencies to experience regret and maximize needlessly (Schwartz et al., 2002); to engage in behavioral coping (Epstein & Meier, 1989; Katz & Epstein, 1991); and to engage in avoidant, rational, and spontaneous decision making (Scott & Bruce, 1985).”
BackgroundThe effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: An exploratory investigation
Mencl, J., & May, D. R. (2009) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9765-5 · Cited by 246
Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures.
Patil, I., Zucchelli, M. M., Kool, W., Campbell, S., Fornasier, F., Calò, M., Silani, G., Cikara, M., & Cushman, F. (2021) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000281 · Cited by 133
From Career Decision-Making Styles to Career Decision-Making Profiles: A Multidimensional Approach
Gati, I., Landman, S., Davidovitch, S., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Gadassi, R. (2010) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.11.001 · Cited by 122
Luebbe, A. M., Mancini, K. J., Kiel, E. J., Spangler, B. R., Semlak, J. L., & Fussner, L. M. (2018) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191116665907 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-10
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 818-831
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W1977959244
- Cited by
- 1,166
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 0.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Decision-Making Style: The Development and Assessment of a New Measure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0013164495055005017
- The paper
- Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-Making Style: The Development and Assessment of a New Measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055005017
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.
