پیش‌بینی تصمیم‌گیری تحلیلی توسط هیجان شادی و ابعاد سبک‌های شناختی با واسطه‌گری تمایلات فراشناختی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار روانشناسی دانشگاه یزد

2 دانشیار روانشناسی تربیتی دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

مقدمه: پژوهش حاضر در قالب یک مدل علّی، ساز و کار فرایند تصمیم‌گیری را با رویکرد شناخت داغ مورد بررسی قرار داد. در این راستا، مبتنی بر مدل پردازش دوگانه کلازینسکی (2004)، هیجان شادی و ابعاد سبک‌های شناختی (نیاز به شناخت، نیاز به ساختار و نیاز به قطعیت) به‌عنوان متغیر برون‌زاد، تمایلات فراشناختی متغیر واسطه‌ای و تصمیم‌گیری تحلیلی متغیر درون‌زاد مدل در نظر گرفته شدند. روش: شرکت‌کنندگان پژوهش، شامل 228 دانشجوی دختر و پسر مقطع کارشناسی دانشگاه شیراز بودند. مقیاس نیاز به شناخت (کاچیوپو و همکاران، 1996)، نیاز به ساختار و نیاز به قطعیت (تامپسون و همکاران، 1992)، به‌عنوان شاخص سبک‌های شناختی؛ مقیاس شادی (لیبومیرسکی و لپر، 1999)؛ مقیاس تفکر فعال روشنفکرانه (استانوویچ و وست، 2007) و مقیاس تصمیم‌گیری (کلازینسکی، 2001) مورداستفاده قرار گرفتند. پایایی ابزارهای پژوهش به روش آلفای کرونباخ و روایی آن‌ها به شیوه تحلیل عاملی مورد تأیید قرار گرفت.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهند که هیجان شادی، تصمیم‌گیری تحلیلی را به‌صورت منفی پیش‌بینی می‌کند؛ این پیش‌بینی هم به‌صورت مستقیم و هم به‌صورت غیرمستقیم (از طریق واسطه‌گری تفکر روشنفکرانه) صورت می‌گیرد؛ بدین شکل که هیجان شادی پیش‌بینی کننده منفی تفکر روشنفکرانه است و در ادامه تفکر روشنفکرانه، تصمیم‌گیری تحلیلی را به‌صورت مثبت پیش‌بینی می‌کند. در مقابل بعد نیاز به شناخت (از ابعاد سبک‌های شناختی) به‌صورت مستقیم و غیرمستقیم (با واسطه‌گری تفکر روشنفکرانه)، تصمیم‌ گیری تحلیلی را به‌صورت مثبت پیش‌بینی می‌کند. بعد دوم سبک‌های شناختی یعنی نیاز به ساختار پیش‌بینی کننده منفی تفکر روشنفکرانه است و بدین ترتیب با واسطه‌گری این متغیر، تصمیم‌ گیری تحلیلی را به‌صورت منفی پیش‌بینی می‌کند. درنهایت یافته‌ها حاکی از آن بود که بعد نیاز به قطعیت پیش‌بینی کننده تصمیم‌ گیری تحلیلی نیست.
نتیجه‌گیری: درمجموع نتایج پژوهش حاضر تائیدی است بر رویکرد شناخت داغ و به‌طور خاص مدل پردازش دوگانه کلازینسکی، مبنی بر اینکه فرایندهای شناختی، به‌ویژه تصمیم‌گیری تحلیلی، تحت تأثیر حالات هیجانی، وضعیت انگیزشی (سبک‌های شناختی) و تمایلات فراشناختی می‌باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Prediction of Analytic Decision Making by Happiness and Cognitive Styles Dimensions with the Mediational Role of Metacognitive Disposition

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahdi Rahimi 1
  • Bahram Jokar 2
1 Assistant Professor in Psychology, Yazd University
2 Associated Professor in Educational Psychology, Shiraz
چکیده [English]

The aim of present study was investigating the mechanism of decision making process from the hot cognition view. So, the effect of happiness as an emotion and cognitive styles dimensions (need for cognition, need for structure and need for decisiveness) as a motivation index on analytic decision making (based on Klaczynski (2004) dual processes model) were checked. In this model, metacognitive disposition was the mediator variable. Actively open-minded thinking checked as an index of metacognitive disposition.
The sample group included 228 bachelor girl and boy students of Shiraz University. Need for cognition (Cacioppo, et. al., 1996), need for structure and need for decisiveness (Thompson et. al., 1992), happiness (lyubomirski & Lepper, 1999), actively open-minded thinking (Stanovich & West, 2007) and decision making (Klaczynski, 2001) scales were performed. Validity and reliability of the scales confirmed.
Result showed the negative direct and indirect (from open-minded thinking) prediction of analytic decision making by happiness. This result repeated for need for cognition, but positively. Need for structure predicted decision making negatively and only trough open-minded thinking variable. Need for decisiveness did not predict decision making.
Therefore, this study confirmed dual processes model of decision making and the role of emotion, motivation and metacognition disposition in decision making process.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • happiness
  • cognitive styles dimensions
  • actively open-minded thinking
  • analytic decision making
- Angie, A.D. (2008). The influence of discrete emotions on judgment and decision making: a meta analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Unive -rsity of Oklahoma, United States.

- Briñol, P.; Petty, R.E.and Barden, J. (2007). “Happiness versus sadness as a determinant of thought confidence in persuasion: A self-validation analysis”. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 5, 711-727.

- Cacioppo, J.T.and Petty, R.E. (1982). “The need for cognition”.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1, 116-131.

- Cacioppo, J.T.; Petty, R.E.F.; einstein, J.A.and Jarvis, W.B.G. (1996). “Dispos -itional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition”. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 2, 197-253.

 - Cacioppo, J.T.; Petty, R.E.and Morris, K. (1983).­“Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.

- Chen, S.andChaiken, S. (1999).The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context.In S. Chaikenand Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology(pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.

- Clore, G.L. Schwarz, N.and Conway, M. (1994).Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In R.S. Wyerand T.K. Srull (Eds.). Handbook of social cognition: Basic processes(Vol. 1, pp. 323-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

- Clow, K.A.andEsses, V.M.­(2005). “The development of group stereotypes from descriptions of group members: An individual difference approach”. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 429- 445.

- D' Agostino, A.L. (2009). An investing - ation of the role of cognitive style in dynamic decision making.Unpublished Ph.­D. dissertation.university of Connec -ticut, United States.

- Epstein, S. (1994). “Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic uncon -scious”.American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.

- Epstein, S.andPacini, R. (1999).Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory.In S. Chaikenand Y. Trope (Eds.). Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp.462-482). NewYork, NY: The Gilford Press.

- Evans, J.St.B.T. and Over, D.E. (1996). Reasoning and rationality. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

- Fiske, S.T. andTaylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed). New York: McGraw- Hill.

- Forgas, J.P. (Ed.) (2000). Feeling and thinking: Affective influences on social cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

- Frijda, N.H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge:­Cambridge­University Press.

- Gigerenzer, G. (1996). “On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A reply to Kahneman and Tversky”. Psychological Review, 103, 592-596.

- Haugtvedt, C.P.; Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1992). “Need for Cognition and Advertising: Understanding the Role of Personality Variables in Consumer Behavior”. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3, 1, 239-260.

- Hogan, K. and Maglienti, M. (2001). “Comparing the epistemological under -pinnings of students’ and scientists’ reasoning about conclusions”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663-687.

- Judice, T.N. (1997). “Cognitive style: A three-dimensional model”. Dissertation Abstracts International.B, the Sciences and Engineering, 58, 6, 3368.

- Kaplan, M.F.; Wanshula, L.T. and Zanna, M.P. (1991). Time pressure and information integration in social judgment: the effect of need for structure. In O. Svensonand J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp.225-267). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

- Kassin, S.M.; Reddy, M.E. and Tulloch, W.F. (1990). “Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, presentation order, and persuasion”. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 1, 43- 55.

- Keating, D.P. and Sasse, D.K. (1996). Cognitive socialization in adolescence: Critical period for a critical habit of mind. In G. R. Adams, R. Montemayor, and T. P. Gullotta (Eds.),Psychosocial development ­during adolescence: Prog -ress in developmental contextualism(pp. 232-258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

- Klaczynski, P.A. (2001). “Analytic and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and decision making”. Child Development, 72, 844-861.

- Klaczynski, P.A. (2004). A dual-process model of adolescent development: Implications for decision making, reasoning, and identity. In R. V. Kail (Ed.). Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 73-123). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

 - Klaczynski, P.A. (2005). Metacognition and cognitive variability: A two-process model of decision making and its development. In J.E. Jacobs and P.A. Klaczynski (Eds.). The development of decision making in children and adolescents (pp. 39-76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

- Kruglanski, A.W. and Freund, T. (1983). “The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448-468.

- Kuhn, D. (2000). “Metacognitive development”. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178-181.

- Kuhn, D. (2001). “How do people know?”. Psychological Science, 12, 1-8.

- Kunda, Z. (2002). Social cognition: making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

- Lee, K. and Allen, J.N. (2002). “Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Affect and Cognitions”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.

- Lerner, J.S.andKeltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 4, 473- 493.

- Lerner, J.S. and Tiedens, L.Z. (2006). “Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger's influence on cognition”. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115-137.

- Lewis, K. (2000). “When Leaders Display Emotion: How Followers Respond to Negative Emotional Expression of Male and Female Leaders”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 221–234.

 - Lyubomirsky, S. and Lepper, H.S. (1999). “A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation”. Social Indicators Research, 46, 2, 137-155.

- Mittal, B. and Ross, W.T. (1998). “The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Framing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 298-324.

- Moskowitz, G.B. (1993). “Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 132-142.

- Moshman, D. (1990). The development of metalogical understanding. In W.F. Overton (Ed.). Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives (pp. 205 - 225). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

- Moshman, D. (1999). Adolescent psychological development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

- Nair, K.U. and Ramnarayan, S. (2000). “Individual Differences in Need for Cognition and Complex Problem Solving”. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 305-328.

- Neuberg, S.L. and Newsom, J.T. (1993). “Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.

- Osberg, T.M. (1987). “The convergent and discriminant validity of the Need for Cognition Scale”. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 441-450.

- Pekrun, R. (1992). “The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive motivational mediators”. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 359-376.

- Perkins, D.N.; Jay, E.andTishman, S. (1993). Beyond abilities: A dispose -tional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 1-21.

- Petty, R.E.; Briñol, P.; Loersch, C. and McCaslin, M.J. (2009). The need for cognition. In M. R. Leary and R. H. Hoyle (Eds.). Handbook of individual differe-nces in social behavior (pp.318-329). New York: Guilford Press.

- Petty, R.E.; De Marree, K.G.; Briñol, P.; Horcajo, J. and Strathman, A.J. (2008). “Need for cognition can magnify or attenuate priming effects in social judgment”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 900-912.

- Petty, R.E.; Brinol, P. and Tormala, Z.L. (2002). “Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: the self-validation hypothesis”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.

- Petty, R.E.; Brinol, P.; Tormala, Z.L. and Wegener, D.T. (2007). The role of metacognition in social judgment. In A. W. Kruglanskiand E.T. Higgins (Eds.).Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed. pp. 254-284). New York: Guilford Press.

- Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.

- Pintrich, P.R.; Marx, R.W. and Boyle, R.A. (1993). “Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change”. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.

- Plutchik, R. (1991). The emotions. Landham, MD: University Press of America.

- Reber, A.S. (1992). “An evolutionary contexts for the cognitive unconscious”. Philosophical Psychology, 5, 33-51.

- Russell, D.W. (1980). Causal attributions and emotional experience: Towards a cognitive model of emotion in achievement settings. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1-314.

- Schaller, M.; Boyd, C.; Yohannes, B. and O'Brien, M. (1995). “The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 3, 544-555.

- Shestowsky, D.; Wegener, D.T. and Fabrigar, L.R. (1998). “Need for cognition and interpersonal influence: Individual differences in impact on dyadic decisions”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1317-1328.

- Small, D.A. and Lerner, J.S. (2008). “Emotional policy: Personal sadness and anger shape judgments about a welfare case”. Political Psychology, 29, 2, 149-168.

- Smith, C.A. and Ellsworth, P.C. (1985). “Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 4, 813-838.

- Somers, M. and Lefcourt, H. (1991). Getting around to it, eventually: Work attitudes and behaviors of student procrastinators. Unpublished manuscript.

 - Stanovich, K.E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

- Stanovich, K.E. and West, R.F. (2000). “Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645 - 665.

- Stanovich, K.E. and West, R.F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 225.247.

- Thompson, M.M.; Naccarato, M.E. and Parker, K. (1992). Measuring cognitive needs: The development and validation of the Personal Need for Structure (PNS) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI) measures.Manuscript submitted for publication.

- Thompson, M.M.; Naccarato, M.E.; Parker, K. and Moskowitz, G. (2001). The personal need for structure and personal fear of invalidity measures: Historical perspectives, current applications, and future directions. L. Erlbaum.

- Tiedens, L.Z. and Linton, S. (2001). “Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 6, 973-988.

- Watson, D. and Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.

- Weiss, H.M. Suckow, K. and Cropanzano, R. (1999). “Effects of Justice Conditions on Discrete Emotions”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786-794.

- Zimmerman, C. (2000). “The development of scientific reasoning skills”. Developmental Review, 20, 99-149.

- Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172-223.