Ambiguous Decisions Task

Abstract

The Ambiguous Decisions Task (ADT), developed by van Mulukom et al. in 2024, is a specialized 12-item instrument designed to quantitatively assess metacognitive trust in different thinking styles. Specifically, the task measures the degree to which individuals trust their own analytical thinking and intuitive thinking processes when faced with ambiguous scenarios.

The ADT integrates conceptual elements found in established cognitive measures such as the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005) and the Rational Experiential Inventory (REI; Epstein et al., 1996). Initial validation studies included online participants primarily from American platforms, alongside individuals from Brazil and Canada, confirming strong reliability and validity evidence for the instrument’s two distinct subscales: Analytical Decisions and Intuitive Decisions.

Keywords

Analytical Decisions, Intuitive Decisions, Metacognitive Trust, Thinking Styles, Decision-Making Processes, Cognitive Style, Metacognition, Cognitive Measures

Authors

Van Mulukom, Valerie, Baimel, Adam, Maraldi, Everton, Farias, Miguel

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ambiguous Decisions Task is to yield independent and quantifiable scores for an individual’s trust in their analytical thinking and intuitive thinking approaches. Unlike traditional personality inventories, the ADT is specifically structured to avoid making normative judgments about which thinking style is superior or characterizing these approaches as fixed personality traits.

Instead, the instrument focuses on the metacognitive evaluation—the extent to which a participant endorses or supports the use of either the analytical or the intuitive decision-making strategy in situations lacking clear optimal answers. This distinction allows researchers to study the dynamics of trust in cognitive processes rather than just performance on cognitive tasks.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the ADT is Thinking Style Trust. This construct reflects an individual’s propensity to rely on, or express confidence in, either a highly structured, deliberate (analytical) approach or a rapid, gut-feeling (intuitive) approach when solving ambiguous problems.

The ADT operationalizes this construct by presenting participants with scenarios that force an evaluation of both approaches simultaneously, thereby capturing the participant’s underlying metacognitive trust in these two fundamental systems of thought.

Validity

Validity evidence for the ADT was established through both Convergent and Discriminant Validity analyses. These findings demonstrated that the scores derived from the task successfully captured the intended construct, showing clear differentiation between the subscales.

Specifically, scores on the Analytical Decisions subscale exhibited strong positive correlations with established analytical measures and significant negative correlations with intuitive measures. Conversely, scores on the Intuitive Decisions subscale showed the opposite pattern. These results strongly support the claim that the task captures metacognitive thinking styles distinct from object-level cognitive performance.

Reliability

The Ambiguous Decisions Task demonstrated high levels of internal consistency reliability across both of its subscales. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.

• For the Analytical Decisions subscale, the internal consistency was high, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.83.
• For the Intuitive Decisions subscale, reliability was even higher, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.87.

These values indicate robust reliability, confirming that the items within each subscale consistently measure the same underlying dimension. Further analysis confirmed that the elimination of any single item would not significantly improve the overall reliability of either subscale.

Factor Analysis

Separate Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) procedures were conducted for the analytical choices and the intuitive choices using common principal axis factor analysis. The analysis aimed to confirm the unidimensionality of each separate domain of decision-making trust.

• For Analytical Decisions, the first unrotated factor accounted for 36.9% of the total variance (Eigenvalue = 4.42), with factor loadings ranging from 0.40 to 0.69.
• For Intuitive Decisions, the first unrotated factor accounted for 42.2% of the total variance (Eigenvalue = 5.06), with factor loadings ranging from 0.44 to 0.72.

The results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis supported a two-factor structure (Analytical and Intuitive decisions), with no additional factors examined due to the clear tapering observed in the scree plot analysis. This confirms the utility of treating these two types of trust independently.

Instrument

Test Type: Original Task

Format: The instrument consists of 12 ambiguous scenarios presented electronically. Participants evaluate two opposing decision-making approaches within each scenario—one utilizing an analytical thinking style and the other an intuitive thinking style. Participants rate their degree of support for each approach independently on a horizontal bar scale ranging from 0 (“Not at all”) to 100 (“Completely”), utilizing increments of 10 for guidance.

Language Available: English (Tested in populations including Brazil, Canada, and the United States)

Population Group: Human; Male; Female

Age Group: Adulthood (18+ years)

Population Details: Respondents were online adult participants recruited via social media platforms, with samples drawn from Brazil, Canada, and the United States.

Test Methodology: Test Validity, Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis

Keywords

Cognitive Style, Decision Making, Metacognition, Thinking, Cognitive Measures, Analytical Decisions, Intuitive Decisions

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Valerie van Mulukom: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0549-7365; Miguel Farias: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5925-795X

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Valerie van Mulukom: Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Brain, Belief & Behaviour Lab, Innovation Village IV5, Cheetah Road, Coventry, United Kingdom, CV1 2TL

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2024

Administration Method: Electronic

Access and Repository: The scale details and resources are hosted in an open repository. The OSF Repository can be accessed here: https://osf.io/m4eky/

Files: No specific original PDF scale file is available for download at this time based on the source data.

Reference’s

The development of the Ambiguous Decisions Task relies on foundational research in dual-process theories of cognition, specifically incorporating concepts from the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) and the Rational Experiential Inventory (REI).

• Van Mulukom, V., Baimel, A., Maraldi, E., & Farias, M. (2024). The Ambiguous Decisions Task: Assessing metacognitive trust in thinking styles.
• Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–47. (Pertaining to the Cognitive Reflection Test)
• Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive and analytical-experiential thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. (Pertaining to the Rational Experiential Inventory)

Items of the Ambiguous Decisions Task

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The specific 12 scenarios (items) used in the Ambiguous Decisions Task were not provided in the source content table. Researchers interested in the exact wording and structure of the items should consult the authors or the publicly accessible OSF repository linked above.