General Decision Making Style (GDMS)

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. doi: 10.1177/0013164495055005017


Table of Contents

Description

History of Use

References

Description:

Purpose
The GDMS was designed to assess how individuals approach decision situations. It distinguishes between 5 decision styles.
  • A rational style emphasizes "a thorough search for and logical evaluation of alternatives."
  • An avoidant style emphasizes postponing and avoiding decisions.
  • A dependent style emphasizes "a search for advice and direction from others."
  • An intuitive style emphasizes "a reliance on hunches and feelings."
  • A spontaneous style emphasizes "a sense of immediacy and a desire to get through the decision-making process as soon as possible."
Questions
25 items using 5-point ratings (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree)
Sub-scales
5 sub-scales:
  • Rational
  • Avoidant
  • Dependent
  • Intuitive
  • Spontaneous
Domain

Psychometrics

Sample items
  • I make decisions in a logical and systematic way. (Rational)
  • I avoid making important decisions until the pressure is on. (Avoidant)
  • I rarely make important decisions without consulting other people. (Dependent)
  • When I make decisions, I tend to rely on my intuition. (Intuitive)
  • I generally make snap decisions. (Spontaneous)
  • I explore all of my options before making a decision. (Rational: This is the 25th itme that is missing from Scott and Bruce (1995).

History of Use:

Scale Validation:

Scale development and validation.
Scott & Bruce (1995)
Further scale validation.
Loo (2000)
Validation of the Italian GDMS.
Gambetti et al. (2008)
Scale Uses:

Correlations of GDMS styles with Adult Decision-Making Competence (ADMC) and Decision Outcome Inventory (DOI)
  • with ADMC (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007), which assesses how well individuals make decisions
    • rational style: r = .22, p < .001
    • avoidant style: r = -.21, p < .001
    • dependent style: n.s.
    • intuitive style: n.s.
    • spontaneous style: r = -.29, p < .001
  • with DOI (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007), which assesses whether individuals tend to have satisfactory decision outcomes
    • rational style: r = .21, p < .001
    • avoidant style: r = -.29, p < .001
    • dependent style: n.s.
    • intuitive style: r = .16, p < .001
    • spontaneous style: r = -.33, p < .001
Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007)
Used adapted GDMS (only rational and intuitive styles reported) as predictors in regressions looking at job satisfaction and process (job search) satisfaction.
  • Job satisfaction (adapted Job In General scale; Balzer et al., 1997) & job search process satisfaction
    • rational style:
      • job satisfaction: β = .13, p < .001
      • process satisfaction: β = .15, p< .001
    • intuitive style:
      • job satisfaction: β = .20, p< .001
      • process satisfaction: β = .11, p< .001
Crossley & Highhouse (2005)
Adapted GDMS to look at correlations with other scales and with decision process variables for undergraduates approaching real-life decision of choosing college major.
  • Correlations with Attitudes Toward Thinking and Learning Scale (ATTLS; Galotti et al., 1999)
    • rational style:
      • connected knowing: r = .30, p < .001
      • separate knowing: r = .31, p < .001
    • intuitive scale
      • connected knowing: r = .22, p < .05
    • avoidant, dependent, and intuitive styles: n.s.
  • Correlations with Planning Survey (Simons & Galotti, 1992)
    • rational style: r = .49, p < .001
    • avoidant style: r = -.35, p < .001
    • spontaneous style: r = -.27, p < .01
    • dependent and intuitive styles: n.s.
  • The authors also created factors from the various scales and performed further analyses on these factors.
Galotti et al. (2006)
Adapted GDMS & ACDM (Harren, 1979) to increase specificity. Looked at relationship between decision style (rational, intuitive and dependent styles only) and person-job fit for pharmaceutical professionals who had changed job roles within the last 2 years.
  • Only rational style & person-job fit were related (β = .24, p < .001). The relationship was fully mediated by increased self-awareness and environment awareness.
  • Rational x intuitive interaction & person-job fit (β = .13, p < .05). The positive effect of rational strategy was stronger for high (vs. low) use of intuitive strategy. The relationship was fully mediated by increased self-awareness and environment awareness.
  • Rational x dependent interaction & person-job fit (β = .11, p < .05). The negative effect of dependent strategy was eliminated with high use of rational strategy. The relationship was fully mediated by increased self-awareness.
  • Dependent x intuitive interaction & person-job fit (β = .12, p < .05). The negative effect of dependent strategy was eliminated with high use of intuitive strategy. The relationship was fully mediated by increased self-awareness.
Singh & Greenhaus (2004)
Correlations of GDMS with other scales in military officers.
  • Action State Orientation (PD, HI & VP sub-scales; Kuhl & Beckman, 1994)
    • rational style: & ASO: preoccupation v. disengagement (r = -.22, p < .01)
    • avoidant style: & ASO: hesitation v. initiative (r = -.34, p < .01)
  • Self-Esteem Scales (Basic Self-esteem (Libido and Aggression) & Earning Self-esteem (Conditional, Hard Work & Power) sub-scales; Forsman & Johnson, 1996)
    • rational style: & ESE: hard work (r = .31, p < .01)
    • avoidant style: & BSE: libido (r = -.30, p < .01); & BSE: aggression (r = -.33, p <.01); & ESE: hard work (r = -.31, p < .01); & ESE: power (r = -.15, p < .05)
    • dependent style: & BSE: libido (r = -.15, p < .05); & BSE: aggression (r = -.30, p < .01); & ESE: conditional (r = .17, p < .05); & ESE: power (r = -.15, p < .05)
    • intuitive style: & ESE: power (r = .17, p < .05)
    • spontaneous style: & ESE: power (r = .15, p < .05)
  • Social Desirability (MC-SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960)
    • rational style: & MC-SDS (r = .20, p < .01)
    • avoidant style: & MC-SDS (r = -.15, p < .05)
    • intuitive style: & MC-SDS (r = -.15, p < .05)
    • spontaneous style: & MC-SDS (r = -.18, p < .01)
  • Cognitive ability (Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices; Raven et al., 1998)
Thunholm (2004)
Correlations of GDMS with negative stress (as measured by saliva cortisol) in military officers.
  • avoidant style correlated with cortisol (baseline am: r = .48, p < .05; test 1: r = .53, p < .05; test 2: r = .61, p < .01). Suggests that Ps using avoidant style always have elevated cortisol or were already nervous about exam at baseline.
  • spontaneous style correlated with cortisol (test 1: r = -.51, p < .05). Suggests that Ps using spontaneous style are not stressed about DM.
  • rational, intuitive, and dependent styles (n.s.)
Thunholm (2008)


References:

Scale:
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. doi: 10.1177/0013164495055005017

Selected Uses:
  • Baiocco, R., Laghi, F., & D'Alessio, M. (2009). Decision-making style among adolescents: Relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 963-976. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.08.003
  • 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
  • Crossley, C. D., & Highhouse, S. (2005). Relation of job search and choice process with subsequent satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(2), 255-268. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2004.04.001
  • Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (2010). What types of advice do decision-makers prefer? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 11-23. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.007
  • Gati, I., Landman, S., Davidovitch, S., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Gadassi, R. (2010). From career decision-making styles to career decision-making profiles: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 277-291. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.11.001
  • Galotti, K. M., Ciner, E., Altenbaumer, H. E., Geerts, H. J., Rupp, A., & Woulfe, J. (2006). Decision-making styles in a real-life decision: Choosing a college major. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(4), 629-639. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.003
  • Gambetti, E., Fabbri, M., Bensi, L., & Tonetti, L. (2008). A contribution to the Italian validation of the General Decision-making Style Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 842-852. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.017
  • Loo, R. (2000). A psychometric evaluation of the General Decision-Making Style Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(5), 895-905. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00241-X
  • Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making strategies and person-job fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(1), 198-221. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00034-4
  • Thunholm, P. (2008). Decision-making styles and physiological correlates of negative stress: Is there a relation? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 213-219. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00640.x

*