Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Next article
Original Article

The REIm-13

A Brief Measure of Thinking Style

Published Online:June 28, 2017https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000421

Abstract

Abstract. The Rational-Experiential Multimodal Inventory (REIm) is a recent tool showing promise in the measurement of self-reported thinking style – preference for rational or experiential processing – and offers three-faceted measurement of the latter. We present the first short form of the measure, the REIm-13, and test its factor structure, reliability, and validity in a large community sample. Participants were N = 920 Australian adults (502 females) who completed an online survey (N = 510 of whom participated in a follow-up survey). In addition to the REIm, participants completed a Big Five personality measure. The internal consistency of the REIm-13 was acceptable given the limited number of items (.52–.68). Furthermore, test-retest reliability was high (ρ = .64–.74) for the theorized four-factor and two-factor solutions. Construct validity was established by examining the relationship between short-form and full REIm factors (ρ = .65–.71), and the validity of composite scoring was confirmed against factor scoring. Relationship with age (a slight negative relationship to both main scales), gender (females reporting higher Experientiality, males higher Rationality), and Big Five variables largely followed previous findings, demonstrating concurrent validity. The study demonstrates that the REIm-13 provides sound measurement of thinking style.

References

  • Betsch, C. (2008). Chronic preferences for intuition and deliberation in decision making. In H. PlessnerC. BetschT. BetschEds., Intuition in judgement and decision making (pp. 231–248). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bland, J. M. & Altman, D. G. (1997). Cronbach’s alpha. British Medical Journal, 314, 572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Burisch, M. (1997). Test length and validity revisited. European Journal of Personality, 11, 303–315. doi: 10.1002/(Sici)1099-0984(199711)11:4<303::Aid-Per292>3.0.Co;2-# First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Conner, M., Perugini, M., O’Gorman, R., Ayres, K. & Prestwich, A. (2007). Relations between implicit and explicit measures of attitudes and measures of behavior: Evidence of moderation by individual difference variables. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1727–1740. doi: 10.1177/0146167207309194 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In I. B. WeinerEd., Handbook of psychology (pp. 159–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • 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, 390–405. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Evans, J. S. B. T. & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460685 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hofmann, W., Friese, M. & Wiers, R. W. (2008). Impulsive versus reflective influences on health behavior: A theoretical framework and empirical review. Health Psychology Review, 2, 111–137. doi: 10.1080/17437190802617668 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Norris, P. & Epstein, S. (2011). An experiential thinking style: Its facets and relations with objective and subjective criterion measures. Journal of Personality, 79, 1043–1079. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00718.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Novak, T. P. & Hoffman, D. L. (2009). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 56–72. doi: 10.1086/596026 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pachur, T. & Spaar, M. (2015). Domain-specific preferences for intuition and deliberation in decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.07.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pacini, R. & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972–987. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sladek, R. M., Bond, M. J. & Phillips, P. A. (2010). Age and gender differences in preferences for rational and experiential thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 907–911. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.028 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Snitz, B. E., Small, B. J., Wang, T. X., Chang, C. C. H., Hughes, T. F. & Ganguli, M. (2015). Do subjective memory complaints lead or follow objective cognitive change? A five-year population study of temporal influence. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 21, 732–742. doi: 10.1017/S1355617715000922 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Spicer, D. P. & Sadler-Smith, E. (2005). An examination of the general decision making style questionnaire in two UK samples. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 137–149. doi: 10.1108/02683940510579777 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., Kemper, C. J. & Kruyen, P. (2014). Short scales – Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 185–189. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000148 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar