| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Description | The Ambiguous Decisions Task (van Mulukom et al., 2024) was developed to assess metacognitive trust in thinking styles. This 12-item instrument incorporates commonly used measures of analytical and intuitive thinking, including the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; Frederick, 2005) and the Rational Experiential Inventory (REI; Epstein et al., 1996). The instrument was tested with participants recruited via online social media, predominantly from American platforms, and included individuals from Brazil, Canada, and the United States. Factor analysis, reliability, and validity findings were provided. |
| Author | Van Mulukom, Valerie; Baimel, Adam; Maraldi, Everton; Farias, Miguel |
| Author Identifier | Valerie van Mulukom: ORCID Miguel Farias: ORCID |
| Affiliation | Valerie van Mulukom: Coventry University, Brain, Belief & Behaviour Lab Adam Baimel: Center for Psychological Research, Oxford Brookes University Everton Maraldi: Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo Miguel Farias: Coventry University, Brain, Belief & Behaviour Lab |
| [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 |
| Purpose | This task is designed to provide independent scores on analytical and intuitive thinking without making normative statements or characterizations of personality traits. |
| Construct | Thinking Style Trust |
| Instrument Type | Task |
| Test Type | Original |
| Test Year | 2024 |
| Format | Participants evaluate 12 ambiguous scenarios where one person is described as using an analytical thinking style and another as using an intuitive thinking style. They rate their support for each decision-making approach on a horizontal bar ranging from 0 (“Not at all”) to 100 (“Completely”), with increments of 10 for guidance. |
| Administration Method | Electronic |
| Number of Items | 12 |
| Factors and Subscales | Subscales: Analytical Decisions, Intuitive Decisions |
| Reliability | Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.83 (analytical decisions) and 0.87 (intuitive decisions) indicate high reliability, with no significant improvement from item elimination. |
| Validity | Convergent and Discriminant Validity: Analytical responses correlated positively with other analytical measures and negatively with intuitive measures, while intuitive responses showed the opposite pattern. Findings suggest the task captures metacognitive thinking styles distinct from object-level thinking styles. |
| Factor Analysis | Exploratory Factor Analysis: Separate analyses were conducted for analytical and intuitive choices using common principal axis factor analysis. The first unrotated factor accounted for 36.9% of variance in analytical decisions (Eigenvalue = 4.42; factor loadings = 0.40 to 0.69) and 42.2% in intuitive decisions (Eigenvalue = 5.06; factor loadings = 0.44 to 0.72). No additional factors were examined due to scree plot tapering. |
| Test Methodology | Test Validity, Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis |
| Age Group | Adulthood (18+ years) |
| Population Group | Human; Male; Female |
| Population Details | Respondents: Online adult participants Locations: Brazil, Canada, United States |
| Keywords | Analytical Decisions, Intuitive Decisions, Metacognitive Trust, Thinking Styles, Decision-Making Processes |
| Index Terms | Cognitive Style, Decision Making, Metacognition, Thinking, Cognitive Measures |
| Files | No file available for download. |
| Web Site | OSF Repository |
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). Ambiguous Decisions Task. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-decisions-task/
Mohammed looti. "Ambiguous Decisions Task." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 4 Apr. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-decisions-task/.
Mohammed looti. "Ambiguous Decisions Task." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-decisions-task/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'Ambiguous Decisions Task', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/ambiguous-decisions-task/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Ambiguous Decisions Task," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, April, 2026.
Mohammed looti. Ambiguous Decisions Task. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.