Cited by 13Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Trust Your Instincts: The Relationship Between Intuitive Decision Making And Happiness

Open access
Stevenson, Simone S., Hicks, Richard E.·2016·European Scientific Journal, ESJ

Abstract

Epstein (1994; 2003) proposed that there are two cognitive information processing systems that operate in parallel: the intuitive thinking style and the rational thinking style. Decisional fit occurs when the preferred thinking style is applied to making a decision and research has shown that this fit increases the value of the outcome of a decision. Additionally, decisional fit leads to less regret, even when post hoc evaluations show the decision to be incorrect. It has not yet been determined whether decisional fit correlates with greater happiness and hence, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the difference between styles of thinking, styles of decision making and the impact of decisional fit on happiness scores. Individual differences in thinking and decision style were measured using an online interactive questionnaire (N = 100), and an ANOVA, hierarchical multiple regression, and a series of t-tests, were used to investigate the relationship between thinking style, decision style, decisional fit, and happiness, thereby addressing a gap in the existing literature. The major findings from the current study show that intuitive thinking has a strong positive correlation with happiness; that intuitive thinkers are more likely to utilize intuitive decisional style, than rational thinkers; and that when both rational and intuitive thinkers experienced decisional fit, higher ratings of happiness were reported. Explanations and recommendations for future studies are outlined in the discussion.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n11p463

Cites

57 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Trust in instincts (intuitive decision-making style) has a strong positive correlation with global happiness and wellbeing.

    “Trust in instincts, or an intuitive decision-making style has a strong positive correlation with global happiness and wellbeing (Stevenson & Hicks, 2016).”

    From Investigating state and trait aspects of resilience using Generalizability theory (2024) · cites this paper as Stevenson & Hicks, 2016

    The Abstract and ‘Correlations to happiness’ section report a strong positive association between intuitive thinking and happiness. But ‘Decisional styles and happiness’ reports that intuitive decision-making style alone was not significantly associated with higher happiness. The claim conflates intuitive thinking with intuitive decision-making style. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Betsch, C. (2004). Preference for intuition and deliberation (PID): An inventory for assessing affect-and cognition-based decision-making. Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnosische Psychologie, 25, 179-197. doi:10.1002/bdm.600 · DOI
  2. Bram, J., Orr, J., & Rapaport, C. (2002). Measuring the effects of the September 11 attack on New York City. Economic Policy Review, 5-20.
  3. Milton, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 159-184).
  4. W. C. Glöckner A., Ed.) London.
  5. Kahneman, D. (1999). Experienced utility and obective happiness: A moment based approach. In D. Kahneman, & A. Tversky, Choices, Values and Frames ( Chapter 37). New York: Cambridge University Press and
  6. Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S. Messick (E.), Individuality in learning (pp. 261-293). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Stark, R., & Maier, J. (2008). Faith and happiness. Review of Religious Research, 50, 120-125. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447531

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevenson, S. S., & Hicks, R. E.
Affiliations
Bond University (AU)
Venue
European Scientific Journal, ESJ
Published
2016-04-27
Volume
12
Issue
11
Pages
463
ISSN
  • 1857-7431 (ISSN-L)
  • 1857-7881
OpenAlex
W2343037521
Cited by
13
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Scientific Journal ESJ (publishedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • e-publications@bond (Bond University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
intuitive decision making, happiness, intuitive thinking, rational thinking, thinking styles, decision-making styles, individual differences, regret, dual-process theory

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