THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFORMATION-

SEEKING SCALE FOR DIFFERENT DOMAINS

Brock Brothers & Jennifer Vonk, Oakland UniversityIntroduction

Proponents of the dual process model suggest that there are two underlying and contrasting cognitive systems responsible for how we make decisions, rationalize and seek information. System one encompasses our automatic and implicit processes and system two comprises our analytic and deductive processes (Evans, 2003). Psychometrically valid measures assessing individual information-seeking behavior patterns relative to these cognitive systems have yet to be examined in an array of specific domains. Thus, we developed a novel scale - the Information-Seeking Strategy Scale (ISSS) to assess the consistency of information-seeking behavior in seven different domains (philosophical beliefs and traditions, mating and child care, social relationships, finance and business, and health). The ISSS is comprised of 12 items in each of the seven domains- each with three to four sub categories (60 items total)- introducing hypothetical situations to which the participant responds on a five-point Likert scale format (strongly agree/ disagree). An item example in the philosophical beliefs category is, “I need to seek real-world evidence to be certain that my religious beliefs are true .” Eventually the ISSS scale can be used to evaluate the relationship between information processing and other psychological variables, such as degree of religiosity, personality, IQ, etc… The use of this scale can shed further light on the cognitive mechanisms responsible for the potential differences in our information- seeking tendencies in different domains.

Discussion The data from the ISSS suggests the possibility that information seeking strategies tend to be less domain specific and more domain general. However, other reliability tests are needed and underway to validate this and to continue strengthening the reliability of the scale. Future directions involve testing with more samples and additional analyses of consistency with other valid measures, especially with the Rational Experiential Inventory. Because the ISSS already corresponds to some aspects of the GDMS, this may indicate the strong potential it has in the near future to contribute to the list of measures reflecting rationally and intuitively based cognitive behavior patterns.

ReferencesBruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938-956.

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 390-405.

Evans, J. St. B.T. (2003) In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (10) 454-459

Glöckner, A & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorization of processesn underlying intuitive judgment & decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 16, 1-25.

MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional ntelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8, 540–551.

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

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.

Contact: bbrothe@oakland.edu

MethodsTwo online studies were conducted to confirm the ISSS’s psychometric reliability:

1. Validation of items to domains: 100 Participants categorized each of the ISSS’s potential items into the domain that the

item most clearly belonged to (either philosophical beliefs and traditions, mating and child care, social relationships, finance, or health). Items with less than 80% agreement were discarded, which eventually led to 60 final items (12 per domain).

2. Validation of the ISSS scale:60 participants thus far completed the ISSS along with the following measures:

- General Decision Making Style (GDMS) (Scott & Bruce, 1995) - Rational Experiential Inventory (REI) (Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier, 1996) - Need for Closure Scale (NFC) (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) - Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM) (MacCann & Roberts, 2008)

These additional measures were used along with a demographic survey to determine associations with personality and cognitive styles.

ResultsISSS Consistency with the GDMS

Individuals engaging in higher empirical information seeking strategies on the ISSS across all domains were more likely to score significantly higher on the rational GDMS subscale (β = .424, t = 3.067, p = .004). Those who demonstrated less empirical information seeking on the ISSS tended to show more avoidant decision making strategies on the GDMS (β = -.368, t = -2.596, p = .013). However, the ISSS scores did not predict scores on the GDMS intuitive, dependent, and spontaneous subscales.

ISSS Consistency with the NFCS

Interestingly, individuals with less empirical information seeking strategies on the ISSS tend to show more close-minded traits based on the NFC close-minded sub scale (β = -.489, t = -3.674, p = .001). All other NFC subscales did not show any significant consistency with the ISSS.

ISSS Internal Reliability

Cronbach’s alpha for the ISSS scale = .809; Cronbach’s alpha of information-seeking strategies in each specific domain were as follows: philosophical beliefs and traditions= .64; mating and child care= .50; social relationships= .40; finance= .41; and health= .64