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

Kurzer Entscheidungs-Test Online (KETO) zur Erfassung des Entscheidungsverhaltens unter Unsicherheit und der Höhe der angestrebten Urteilssicherheit (HAUS)

Published Online:September 25, 2018https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000209

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Viele Menschen treffen ihre Entscheidungen, wenn sie sich subjektiv sicher genug sind. Der Kurze Entscheidungs-Test Online (KETO) wurde als attraktives, komplexes und für die Teilnehmenden nicht einfach zu durchschauendes Verhaltensspiel im Sinne eines objektiven Persönlichkeitstests entwickelt, um die individuelle Höhe der angestrebten Urteilssicherheit (HAUS) prozentgenau zu erfassen. In 22 vergleichbaren Durchgängen soll eine von vier zur Auswahl stehenden Optionen gewählt werden. Dabei können auf einem Information Board 0 bis maximal 5 probabilistische Cue-Informationen aufgedeckt werden. Die individuelle HAUS wird aufgrund der probabilistischen Erstinformation und dem weiteren Suchverhalten experimentell eingegrenzt und anhand des vollständigen Informationssuchmusters post-hoc nachberechnet. Mehrere Validierungschritte wurden mit 1 008 Versuchspersonen durchgeführt und umfassten die konvergente und divergente Validität, eine Extremgruppen- und Kriteriumsvalidierung, sowie Retest-Reliabilität und Stabilität. Die HAUS korrelierte positiv mit der Risikoeinstellung und negativ mit dem Risikoverhalten (kleine Effektstärke). Die HAUS ist unter anderem unabhängig von der Teilnahmemotivation, von der Maximierungstendenz und den 5 Faktoren des NEO-FFI.


Short Decision-Making Online Test for Assessing Decision-Making Behavior Under Uncertainty and the Desired Level of Confidence (DLC)

Abstract. Many people make a decision at the time they have reached enough certainty. A short decision-making online test (SDMOT) was created to accurately detect the desired level of confidence (DLC) on an individual level. SDMOT is an attractive and complex virtual game in the sense of an objective personality test – not easy to decode for participants. SDMOT includes 22 comparable decision-making trials, in which one of four options has to be chosen with the help of zero to maximal five probabilistic cues on an information board. For every individual, the DLC is experimentally detected according to a constraining procedure and is calculated ex post on the basis of the complete behavioral pattern of searched information. Several steps of validation were processed with 1,008 participants including divergent and convergent validity, between-group comparison, criterion validity, as well as retest reliability, and stability. The DLC is positively correlated with risk attitude and negatively correlated with risk behavior, showing small effect sizes overall. The DLC is independent of motivation of participation, maximization, and the Big Five.

Literatur

  • Andresen, B. (1995). Risikobereitschaft (R) – der sechste Basisfaktor der Persönlichkeit: Konvergenz multivariater Studien und Konstruktexplikation. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 16, 210 – 236. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Appelt, K. C., Milch, K. F., Handgraaf, M. J. J. & Weber, E. U. (2011). The decision making individual differences inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 252 – 262. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Aven, T. & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12, 1 – 11. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baumert, A., Schlösser, T. & Schmitt, M. (2014). Economic games: A performance-based assessment of fairness and altruism. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 178 – 192. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Betsch, C. (2004). Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID). Zeitschrift für Differenzielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 25, 179 – 197. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Borkenau, P. & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae (Handanweisung). Göttingen: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Brocklebank, S., Lewis, G. J. & Bates, T. C. (2011). Personality accounts for stable preferences and expectations across a range of simple games. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 881 – 886. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bröder, A. (2003). Decision making with the “adaptive toolbox“: Influence of environmental structure, intelligence, and working memory load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 611 – 625. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Busemeyer, J. R. & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432 – 459. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C. & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk-taking: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367 – 383. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chuang, W.-I. & Susmel, R. (2011). Who is the more overconfident trader? Individual versus institutional investors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35, 1626 – 1644. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Delling, P. (2010). Risikoverhalten von Aktienfondsmanagern: Eine spieltheoretische und empirische Analyse. Wiesbaden: Gabler. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gigerenzer, G. & Goldstein, D. G. (1999). Betting on one good reason: The take the best heuristic. In G. GigerenzeP. M. Toddthe ABC Research Group (Eds.). Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 75 – 95). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Greifeneder, R. & Betsch, C. (2006). Lieber die Taube auf dem Dach! Eine Skala zur Erfassung interindividueller Unterschiede in der Maximierungstendenz. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 233 – 243. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Hausmann, D. (2004). Informationssuche im Entscheidungsprozess: Die Nützlichkeit von Hinweis-Cues und der Anspruch an Urteilssicherheit. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation, Universität Zürich. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hausmann, D. & Läge, D. (2008). Sequential evidence accumulation in decision making: The individual desired level of confidence can explain the extent of information acquisition. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 229 – 243. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hausmann, D., Zulian, C., Battegay, E. & Zimmerli, L. (2016). Tracing the decision-making process of physicians with a decision process matrix. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16, 133. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Huber, C. (2015). Diagnostisches Entscheiden im medizinischen Setting – Modelltestung anhand des Entscheidungsspiels „Dr. Tweak“. Unveröffentlichte Masterarbeit, Universität Zürich. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Huber, O., Wider, R. & Huber, O. W. (1997). Active information search and complete information presentation in naturalistic risky decision tasks. Acta Psychologica, 95, 15 – 29. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hung, K.-T. & Tangpong, C. (2010). General risk propensity in multifaceted business decisions: Scale development. Journal of Managerial Issues, XXII, 88 – 106. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Jasper, F. & Ortner, T. M. (2014). The tendency to fall for distracting information while making judgments development and validation of the objective heuristic thinking test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 193 – 207. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Jekel, M. (2012). Validierung des Desired Level of Confidence. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Killgore, W. D. S., Grugle, N. L., Killgore, D. B. & Balkin, T. J. (2010). Sex differences in self-reported risk-taking propensity on the evaluation of risks scale. Psychological Reports, 106, 3, 1 – 12. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kostopoulou, O. (2010). Uncertainty in medical decisions. In M. W. Kattan (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Medical Decision Making (pp. 1157 – 1160). Los Angeles, LA: SAGE. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L. et al. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioural measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8‍, 2, 75 – 84. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Musch, J., Brockhaus, R. & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit. Diagnostica, 48, 121 – 129. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Newell, B. R. (2005). Re-visions of rationality? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 11 – 15. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Newell, B. R., Weston, N. J. & Shanks, D. R. (2003). Empirical tests of a fast-and frugal heuristic: Not everyone “takes-the-best“. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 82 – 96. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ortner, T. M. & Proyer, R. T. (2015). Objective Personality Tests. In T. M. OrtnerF. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.). Behavior-Based Assessment in Psychology. Going beyond self-report in the personality, affective, motivation, and social domains (pp. 133 – 149). Boston: Hogrefe Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ortner, T. M. & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2015). Assessment beyond self-reports. In T. M. Ortner & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Behavior-Based Assessment in Psychology. Going beyond self-report in the personality, affective, motivation, and social domains (pp. 3 – 11). Boston: Hogrefe Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pak, O. & Mahmood, M. (2015). Impact of personality on risk tolerance and investment decisions. A study on potential investors of Kazakhstan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 25, 370 – 384. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. & Luce, M. F. (1998). Behavioral decision research: An overview. In M.H. Birnbaum (Eds.). Measurement, judgment, and decision making (pp. 303 – 359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pfister, H.-R., Jungermann, H. & Fischer, K. (2017). Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine Einführung (4. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sade, R. M., Stroud, M. R., Levine, J. H. & Fleming, G. A. (1985). Criteria for selection of future physicians. Annals of Surgery, 201, 225 – 230. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A. & Ranyard, R. (2011). A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research. A critical review and user’s guide. New York, NY: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99 – 118. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161 – 188. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Thiele, T. (2009). Risikoverhalten von Investmentfondsmanagern. Wiesbaden: Gabler. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wang, X., Pan, Y., Zhang, K., Sui, Y., Lv, T., Xu, S. et al. (2017). Emotional experience and personality traits influence individual and joint risk-based decision making. Social Behavior and Personality, 45, 881 – 892. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Weber, E. U., Blais, A.-R. & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263 – 290. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar