Adult - Decision Making Competence (ADMC)

Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938-956. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938
The measure in pdf format, html format. Scoring key in text format.

Note: See also Parker & FIschhoff's (2005) Youth Decision Making Competence (YDMC). See also Bruine de Bruin et al.'s (2007) Decision Outcome Inventory (DOI).

 Table of Contents

Description

History of Use

References

Description:

Purpose
The ADMC was designed to assess how well individuals make decisions. It is a close relative of the Youth Decision Making Competence (YDMC) measure developed by Parker & Fischhoff (2005). It was developed with the Decision Outcome Inventory (DOI) (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007), which assesses whether individuals reach satisfactory outcomes.
Questions
7 assorted tasks groups, described below, for a combined total of 87 items.
Sub-scales
7 sub-scales, which may be used individually or in combination:
  • Resistance to Framing (RC1 & A1 as positive item set, RC2 & A2 as negative item set) assesses whether choices are affected by irrelevant differences in problem description, specifically framing the options in terms of gains or losses. (7 items)
  • Recognizing Social Norms (SN1) assesses understanding of the social norms of the peer group. (16 items)
  • Under/Overconfidence (CAL) assesses how well calibrated individuals are in terms of recognizing the extent of their own knowledge. (34 items)
  • Applying Decision Rules (DR) assesses how well individuals are able to use different described decisions rules, such as equal weighting of attributes.
  • Consistency in Risk Perception (RP) assesses probability numeracy, specifically how well individuals understand probability rules. (10 items)
  • Resistance to Sunk Costs (SC) assesses the ability to ignore prior investments when making decisions. (10 items)
  • Path Independence assesses whether choices are affected by irrelevant differences in problem description, specifically presentation as a single-stage or two-stage gamble. (6 items) [This component has been removed from the ADMC due to low reliability and validity.]
Domain

Psychometrics

Sample items
  • Resistance to Framing:
    • Imagine that recent evidence has shown that a pesticide is threatening the lives of 1,200 endangered animals. Two response options have been suggested. If Option A is used, 600 animals will be saved for sure. If Option B is used, there is a 75% chance that 800 animals will be saved and a 25% chance that no animals will be saved. Which option do you recommend to use? (1 = definitely would choose A to 6 = definitely would choose B)
  • Recognizing Social Norms:
    • Do you think it is sometimes OK to steal under certain circumstances? (yes/no)
    • Out of 100 people your age, how many would say it is sometimes OK to steal under certain circumstances? (0 = no one to 100 = everyone)
  • Under/Overconfidence:
    • Alcohol causes dehydration. This statement is (true/false). (50% = just guessing to 100% = absolutely sure)
  • Applying Decision Rules:
    • LaToya only wants a DVD player that got a "Very High" rating on Reliability of Brand. Which one of the presented DVD players would LaToya prefer? (Select one of the 5 DVD players presented.)
  • Consistency in Risk Perception: (Mark the percent chance (0-100%) for each on separate scales.)
    • What is the probability that you will get into a car accident while driving during the next year?
    • What is the probability that your driving will be accident-free during the next year?
  • Resistance to Sunk Costs
    • After a large meal at a restaurant, you order a big dessert with chocolate and ice cream. After a few bites, you find you are full and you would rather not eat any more of it. Would you be more likely to eat more or to stop eating it? (1 = most likely to eat more to 6 = most likely to stop eating)
  • Path Independence: [This component has been removed from the ADMC due to low reliability and validity.]
    • Which do you like best, 1, 2, or 3?
      • 1) Flip a coin. If heads, win $100.
      • 2) Sure win. Win $50 for sure.
      • 3) Doesn't matter to me. If tails, win $0.
    • If you had already flipped once and it came up heads, which do you like best, 1, 2, or 3?
      • 1) Flip a coin. If heads, win $100.
      • 2) Sure win. Win $50 for sure.
      • 3) Doesn't matter to me. If tails, win $0.

History of Use:

Scale Development & Validation:

Scale Validation. Correlations of the overall ADMC with other measures.
The authors also report the correlations between the 7 components of the ADMC and the various measures mentioned above.
Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007)


References:

Scale:
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938-956. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938
Uses:
  • Del Missier, F., Mantyla, T., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010). Executive functions in decision making: An individual differences approach. Thinking and Reasoning, 16(2), 69-97. doi: 10.1080/13546781003630117

*