Intuitive and analytical style

Tab. 3.30– Distribution of right and wrong identifications (frequencies are reported in brackets in the “photo identification" column), mean offers given to each responder by participants who matched the right or wrong photos to the verbal description under the two modes of thinking, and ANOVAs’ results

Next, we investigated whether the offers varied depending on both the participants’ individual style and the mode of thinking employed. Prior to the application of the analysis of variance, Levene's test was used to verify the assumption that variances were equal across samples. For each variable the resulting p-value of Levene’s test were not statistically significant (p =.981 as for intuitive and p =.105 for analytical).Then two one-way ANOVAs were carried out assuming the individual style as independent variable and the total amount of offer made under the two modes of thinking as dependent variables.

Results are reported in Table 3.32.

Individual style Mode of thinking Mean SD F p η² Intuitive 41.36 16.17

Intuitive

Analytical 45.13 21.61

.144 .707 .059

Intuitive 43.15 15.05 Analytical

Analytical 47.00 10.29 .132 .718 .060 Tab. 3.32 - One-way ANOVAs comparing mean offers given by intuitive and analytical participants under the two modes of thinking

No significant differences emerged, thus highlighting that intuitive or analytical people did not make different offers when they process information about the responders in an intuitive or analytical way.

Then, we verified whether the offers varied as a function of both the participants’ individual style and the type of responder to whom the offers were made.

Before running the analyses of variance, the assumption of homogeneous variances was tested by using Levene’s test. Since p-value were not significant (p = .452 as for the acceptors and p =.132 for the rejecters), the analysis of variance was possible. Two one-way ANOVAs were carried out assuming the individual style as independent factor and the amount of offers given to acceptors and rejecters as dependent factors. Results are reported in Table 3.33.

Type of responder Individual style Mean SD F P η² Intuitive 33.18 9.55

Acceptors

Analytical 37.93 11.77

1.231 .278 .047

Intuitive 53.31 20.55 Rejecters

Analytical 52.21 9.64 .035 .853 .010 Tab. 3.33 - One-way ANOVAs comparing mean offers given by intuitive and analytical participants to the

different types of responder

The analysis showed that no significant differences emerged. However, in line with what we found in Study 4, it turned out that intuitive people showed a greater differentiation of the offers than analytical people depending of the other players’ features. These results suggested that, rather than being influential on the offers per sè, the participants’ individual style probably interacted with the other variables, such as the type of responder, in modulating the amount of money offered by participants.

As a consequence, in order to verify the existence of possible interaction effects among the variables considered, a mixed ANOVA was carried out by assuming the participants’ individual style as between-subject variable, the type of responder and the mode of thinking as within-subject variables. Prior to the ANOVA, the Mauchly’s test was used to assess the assumption of sphericity.

Since it was not significant (Mauchly’s W = 0.587, p = .121), the sphericity could be assumed. Table 3.34 reports the mean values of money offered by intuitive and analytical participants under the two modes of thinking to the different types of responder.

Type of responder Individual style Mode of thinking Mean SD

Intuitive 33.75 5.68

Intuitive

Analytical 32.50 10.15

Intuitive 33.12 8.18

Acceptors

Analytical

Analytical 42.75 4.11

Intuitive 51.31 12.39

Intuitive

Analytical 52.59 14.07

Intuitive 52.69 16.55

Rejecters

Analytical

Analytical 47.12 15.11

Tab. 3.34 - Mean offers by intuitive and analytical participants under the two modes of thinking to the different types of responder

The mixed ANOVA’s results are reported in Table 3.35.

Effects F(1,26) p η²

Type of responder 86.449 <.001 .776

Mode of thinking 0.661 .424 .026

Type of responder * mode of thinking 2.989 <.05 .074 Type of responder * individual style 1.766 .196 .066 Mode of thinking * individual style 0.059 .811 .020 Type of responder * mode of thinking *

individual style 1.561 .223 .059

Tab. 3.35 - Mixed ANOVA comparing mean offers given by intuitive and analytical participants under the two modes of thinking to the different types of responder

Results confirmed the main effect of the type of responder and the interaction effect between the type of responder and the mode of thinking on the offers, whereas no other significant effects emerged. Nevertheless, comparing the mean offers made by intuitive and analytical people under the two modes of thinking, it came out that intuitive people offered almost the same amount of money to either acceptors or rejecters when they think intuitively or analytically.

Conversely, analytical people offered the same money as the intuitive people only when they think intuitively, whereas they offered sums of money which slightly diverged from all the other offers when they think analytically.

Specifically, when analytical people were induced to think analytically they offered less money to the rejecters and more money to the acceptors as compared to all the other experimental conditions. This behaviour can be defined as inadequate, since it leads people to make the choices that do not allow them to gain as much as possible given the psychological portraits of the responders. Figure 3.5 and 3.6 visually represents the mean offers to acceptors and rejecters under the “match” condition (intuitive people thinking intuitively;

analytical people thinking analytically) and the “mismatch” condition (intuitive people thinking analytically; analytical people thinking intuitively). The

“match” condition scheme shows that in the analytical case (style and thinking)

the difference between offers made to acceptors and rejecters are less prominent as compared to the intuitive one. In both “mismatch” conditions, conversely, offers are exactly the same, and, in addition, they are similar to the intuitive-match condition. It seems that the combination of analytical style and analytical thinking leads to the least functional behaviour as compared to all the other conditions.

0 60

intuitive (thinking) -intuitive (style) analytical (thinking) -analytical (style)

Fig. 3.5. “Match condition”: correspondence between individual style and mode of thinking

0 60

intuitive (thinking) -analytical (style) analytical (thinking) -intuitive (style)

Fig. 3.6. “Mismatch condition”: non-correspondence between individual style and mode of thinking Acceptors Rejecters

Acceptors Rejecters