HOW INTUITIVE AND ANALYTICAL STYLES ARE RELATED: COGNITIVE AND DECISION PROFILES
2.1 STUDY 1
2.1.3 Results
2.1.3.3 Differences between subsamples
In order to investigate the existence of differences in terms of decision-making styles, maximization tendencies and thinking styles depending on the participants’ occupational status (students and workers), mean scores obtained on each instrument by the two different subsamples were compared.
Furthermore, since the mean age of the two occupation subsamples are substantially different (18.8 years for the student group and 36.8 for the worker
MAXIMIZATION SCALE
Summed scale Search for optino Difficulty in choice High standard Second best Right style .066 .182* .058 -.076 -.086
Left style .130* .042 .120* -.063 .104 SOLAT
Integrated style -.148* -.224** -.112 .129 -.014
one) the effect of age was controlled in order to exclude that any effect due to occupation could have been due to the age instead.
General Decision Making Style
The assumption of homogeneous variances was tested by using Levene’s test. P-values were not statistically significant (P-values ranged from p = .094 to p = .896), thus indicating that the analysis of variance was possible.
In order to compare scores obtained on GDMS by students and workers, a one-way ANOVA was computed. Results are reported in Table 2.6.
Subscales Occupation Mean SD F(1,171), P η2 Students 3.70 0.58
1. Rational
Workers 3.86 0.65 2.643 .074 .030 Students 3.53 0.59
2. Intuitive
Workers 3.39 0.73 0.992 .373 .011 Students 3.34 0.72
3. Dependent
Workers 3.45 0.61 2.571 .087 .023 Students 2.79 0.82
4. Avoidant
Workers 2.32 0.81 6.615 <.005 .070 Students 3.08 0.71
5. Spontaneous
Workers 2.92 0.70 1.164 .315 .013 Tab. 2.6 – GDMS: One-way ANOVA comparing scores obtained by occupation subsamples
Statistical mean differences were found only on the avoidant style subscale in which students obtained significantly higher scores than workers. Nevertheless, even though differences on the other style subscales did not reach the statistical significance, students reported higher scores than workers also on the spontaneous and intuitive style subscales and lower scores on the rational and dependent ones.
Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA was computed in order to compare scores obtained on each subscale by the different age groups. Subdividing the experimental sample into regular intervals (decades) with respect to age, five different age groups were identified (18-19; 20-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-60).
Results are reported in Table 2.7. Statistical mean differences were found on the rational, intuitive and avoidant styles. Specifically, post-hoc tests (LSD and Newman-Keuls tests) showed that 18-19 and 20-29 years people obtained
significantly lower scores as compared to the older groups on the rational style scale and, conversely, they obtained higher scores on the avoidant style scale.
As for the intuitive style scale, 40-49 years people scored lower as compared to all other age groups.
Subscales Age Mean SD F(4,168), P η2 18-19 3.51 0.53
20-29 3.60 0.51 30-39 3.85 0.66
40-49 3.87 0.61 1. Rational
50-59 3.90 0.61
3.286 <.05 .084
18-19 3.57 0.58 20-29 3.52 0.60 30-39 3.42 0.77 40-49 3.05 0.71 2. Intuitive
50-59 3.51 0.72
3.007 <.05 .065
18-19 3.23 0.76 20-29 3.66 0.84 30-39 3.20 0.77 40-49 3.44 0.79 3. Dependent
50-59 3.27 0.66
2.325 .059 .060
18-19 2.80 0.79 20-29 2.53 0.76 30-39 2.35 0.88 40-49 2.08 0.80 4. Avoidant
50-59 2.33 0.88
4.223 <.005 .094
18-19 3.16 0.68 20-29 2.98 0.67 30-39 2.89 0.78 40-49 2.71 0.56 5. Spontaneous
50-59 3.10 0.73
2.228 .068 .047
Tab. 2.7 – GDMS: One-way ANOVA comparing scores obtained by age subsamples
Maximization Scale
Prior to the application of the analysis of variance, Levene's test (Levene, 1960) was used to verify the assumption that variances were equal across samples. For each component the resulting p-value of Levene’s test was not statistically significant (p-values ranged from p = .084 to p = .990, thus allowing to conclude that no differences between variances in samples exist. A one-way ANOVA was performed to compare the factorial scores of the Maximization Scale
obtained by the two different subsamples (students and workers). Results are reported in Table 2.8.
Components Occupation Mean SD F(1,171), P η2 Students 4.27 0.85
1. Summed scale
Workers 3.42 0.85 41.648 <.001 .200 Students 3.92 1.35
2. Search for options
Workers 2.94 1.19 38.127 <.001 .186 Students 4.46 1.02
3. Difficulty in
choice Workers 3.25 1.20 21.569 <.001 .177 Students 4.36 1.00
4. High standard
Workers 4.36 1.08 0.131 .718 .001 Students 3.32 1.73
5. Second best
Workers 3.54 1.73 0.127 .722 .001 Tab. 2.8 - Maximization Scale: One-way ANOVA comparing scores obtained by occupation subsamples
Statistical mean differences emerged on the summed maximization scale and on the two subscales representing behavioural examples of maximizing tendencies:
the one which includes being open to different options and actively searching for them and the one which refers to the difficulties encountered in choosing among different alternatives. In particular, students obtained significantly higher scores than workers in these three subscales. On the contrary, statistical differences between scores obtained by students and workers did not emerged on the third component, which concerns having high standards and on the last component which refers to the claim “Never settling for the second best”.
To verify the effect of age on the maximization scores, a one-way ANOVA was computed on the scores obtained by the different age groups on the maximization subscales. Results are reported in Table 2.9. Statistical mean differences were found on the same subscales. In particular, LSD and Newman-Kreuls post-hoc tests highlighted that 18-19 and 20-29 years groups obtained significant higher scores than the other groups on both the summed scale and the subscale concerning the difficulties in choosing among alternatives. On the search-for-option subscale 18-19 years group scored higher than all other age groups.
Components Age Mean SD F(4,168), p η2
18-19 4.26 0.87
20-29 3.97 1.05
30-39 3.49 0.76
40-49 3.15 0.87
1. Summed scale
50-59 3.29 1.02
9.841 <.001 .185
18-19 3.95 1.32
20-29 3.25 1.26 30-39 2.87 1.49 40-49 2.82 1.11 2. Search for options
50-59 2.70 0.63
6.607 <.001 .135
18-19 4.48 1.07
20-29 4.20 1.84 30-39 3.32 1.11 40-49 2.80 1.14 3.Difficulty in choice
50-59 2.52 0.87
13.629 <.001 .247
18-19 4.25 0.95
20-29 4.48 0.93
30-39 4.66 1.11
40-49 4.29 1.15 4. High standard
50-59 4.06 1.31
1.299 .272 .030
18-19 3.16 1.69 20-29 3.31 1.52 30-39 3.76 2.01 40-49 3.60 1.57 5. Second best
50-59 3.86 2.09
0.981 .420 .023
Tab. 2.9 – Maximization Scale: One-way ANOVA comparing scores obtained by age subsamples
Style of Learning and Thinking
To assess the equality of variance in different samples Levene’s test was used.
The results confirmed that the samples met the criteria for the analysis (p-values ranged from p=.339 to p=.923)
Three one-way ANOVA were carried out to compare scores in the subscales of SOLAT obtained by the students and workers. Results are shown in Table 2.10.
Subscales Subsamples Mean SD F(1,171) p η2 Students 9.32 4.98
1. Left
Workers 8.28 4.83 1.924 .167 .011 Students 13.14 5.18
2. Right
Workers 12.53 5.29 0.560 .455 .003 Students 5.52 5.28
3. Integrated
Workers 7.17 5.28 4.117 <.05 .023 Tab. 2.10 - SOLAT: One-way ANOVA comparing scores obtained by occupation subsamples
Statistical differences came out only on the integrated style subscale on which workers obtained higher scores than students. As for the left and right style subscales students obtained higher scores than workers, even though in both subscales the difference did not reach the statistical significance.
A one-way ANOVA was computed to verify the effect of age variable on SOLAT scores. Results are reported in Table 2.11. Results showed that statistical mean differences emerged on the left and integrated style subscales. LSD and Newman-Keuls post-hoc tests highlighted that 20-29 and 30-39 years groups scored lower than 40-49 and 50-59 years groups on the left style subscale whereas 30-39 years group obtained higher scores than younger people on the integrated style subscale.
Subscales Age Mean SD F(4,168), p η2
18-19 8.30 4.73
20-29 7.30 4.75 30-39 7.30 4.60 40-49 9.46 5.19 1. Left
50-59 10.94 4.90
2.878 <.05 .063
18-19 13.40 4.79 20-29 13.90 5.65
30-39 12.20 4.88 40-49 11.07 5.96 2. Right
50-59 11.83 4.69
1.672 .159 .038
18-19 5.30 4.73
20-29 6.80 4.63 30-39 8.50 5.21 40-49 7.46 5.99 3. Integrated
50-59 7.10 4.88
2.411 <.05 .053
Tab. 2.11 – SOLAT: One-way ANOVA comparing scores obtained by age subsamples