Abstract
AbstractPeople often make life choices that will affect their future (e.g. getting married). However, research on decision making focuses more on abstract dilemmas than on decision making. The aim of this study is threefold: to analyze (1) whether people rely mainly on intuitive or rational processing (System 1 or 2) when making life choices; (2) whether some characteristics of recalled life choices (e.g., difficulty in making the decision) differ between life areas (sentimental and work contexts); (3) whether personality traits and System 1 or 2 utilization may predict final satisfaction in life choices. By conducting a cross-sectional study on 188 participants’ recall of selected life decisions (in the sentimental and work life areas) we found that System 1 is more involved than System 2 in sentimental choices while the opposite happens for work ones. Lastly, satisfaction in life choices is partially predicted by the involvement of cognitive systems and individual differences, with different predictors emerging across life areas. Discussion suggests directions for future research on naturalistic decision making.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference141 articles.
1. Abbey, E., & Valsiner, J. (2005). Emergence of meanings through ambivalence. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), 1–18.
2. Akpan, U. I., & Ottu, I. F. (2011). Predicting marital satisfaction from the attachment styles and gender of a culturally and religiously homogeneous population. Gender and Behaviour, 9(1), 3656–3679.
3. Ash, M. A., & Badgett, M. V. L. (2006). Separate and unequal: The effect of unequal access to employment-based health insurance on same-sex and unmarried different-sex couples. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(4), 582–599.
4. Back, M. D., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., Sachse, K., Borkenau, P., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). Why mate choices are not as reciprocal as we assume: The role of personality, flirting and physical attractiveness. European Journal of Personality, 25(2), 120–132.
5. Bailo, L., Vergani, L., & Pravettoni, G. (2019). Patient preferences as guidance for information framing in a medical shared decision-making approach: The bridge between nudging and patient preferences. Patient Preference and Adherence, 13, 2225.