Trust Your Instincts: The Relationship Between Intuitive Decision Making And Happiness

European Scientific Journal April 2016 edition vol.12, No.11 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 Trust Your Instincts: The Relationship Between Intuitive Decision Making And Happiness Simone S. Stevenson BPsychSc (Hons) Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia Richard E. Hicks PhD Psychology Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia. doi: 10.19044/esj.2016.v12n11p463 URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n11p463 Abstract Epstein (1994; 2003) proposed that there are two cognitive information processing systems that operate in parallel: the intuitive thinking style and the rational thinking style. Decisional fit occurs when the preferred thinking style is applied to making a decision and research has shown that this fit increases the value of the outcome of a decision. Additionally, decisional fit leads to less regret, even when post hoc evaluations show the decision to be incorrect. It has not yet been determined whether decisional fit correlates with greater happiness and hence, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the difference between styles of thinking, styles of decision making and the impact of decisional fit on happiness scores. Individual differences in thinking and decision style were measured using an online interactive questionnaire (N = 100), and an ANOVA, hierarchical multiple regression, and a series of t-tests, were used to investigate the relationship between thinking style, decision style, decisional fit, and happiness, thereby addressing a gap in the existing literature. The major findings from the current study show that intuitive thinking has a strong positive correlation with happiness; that intuitive thinkers are more likely to utilize intuitive decisional style, than rational thinkers; and that when both rational and intuitive thinkers experienced decisional fit, higher ratings of happiness were reported. Explanations and recommendations for future studies are outlined in the discussion. Keywords: Intuitive thinking; rational thinking; decisional fit; decisional style; happiness; satisfaction with choice Introduction Happiness has been described as an optimal state of being; not merely a fleeting emotional state, but more a deep and abiding sense of 463 European Scientific Journal April 2016 edition vol.12, No.11 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 flourishing (Ricard, 2007). Happiness does not occur automatically with acquisition or fortuitous circumstance, but through personal construction requiring patience, effort, and time (Peterson, Park, & Seligman, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005). As the most common answer to what people want from life is to be happy, happiness is still a relatively unexplored domain of research (Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & Dimatteo, 2006; Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2012). It may be that how individuals think, process information, and make decisions contributes to overall subjective happiness. Specifically, if there is an alignment between an individual’s dominant thinking style, either rational or intuitive, and this same thinking style is applied to making a choice, the congruence between thought and action may elevate subjective happiness ratings via the concept of regulatory fit (Betsch & Kunz, 2008; Higgins, 2005; Witterman, van den Berken, Claes, & Godoy, 2009). This aim of this paper is to explore the idea that differences in happiness ratings may occur in individuals as a consequence of decisional fit; a concept similar to person environment fit (Holland, 1997), but applied to thinking styles and decision making (Higgins, 2005). Betsch and Kunz (2008) found that when participants experienced decisional fit a higher perceived value was placed on the decision, and less regret was felt even if the decision was incorrect in hindsight (De Vries, Holland, & Witterman, 2008). What has not as yet been addressed in the previous literature is whether there is a correlation between decisional fit and happiness, as opposed to feelings of lower remorse associated with decisions made (De Vries et al., 2008; Diener, Fujita, Tay, & Biswas-Diener, 2012; Higgins, 2005). Happiness Currently, there is no universally agreed upon definition for the subjective state of happiness and words like life satisfaction, contentment and wellbeing are often used interchangeably to describe the state of being happy (Ryan & Deci, 2001). For the purposes of the current study the definition of happiness shall be derived from the three-fold concept of global happiness proposed by Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) and defined as a combination of pleasure, flow, engagement and meaningful purpose (Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & Dimatteo, 2006; Seligman et al., 2005). This global pathway to happiness minimises the heritability of personality attributes, and it has good cross cultural generalizability (Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & Dimatteo, 2006). In order to make the decision that one is happy, it must be evaluated cognitively (Kahneman, 1999). This means that in order to self-determine the answer, yes I am happy or no I am not happy a decision with regard to happiness must be made. There is however, a paucity of research as to whether happiness is determined rationally, where a list of 464 European Scientific Journal April 2016 edition vol.12, No.11 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857- 7431 particular attributes, circumstances and qualities are considered, or determined intuitively, as a deep gut level reaction that is an integrated pool of personal retrospectives and emotional attributions of experience. It is entirely possible that the rational and intuitive systems have bidirectional interplay and that the combination of both systems answers the question of perceived happiness (Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2012). Thinking styles Cognitive Experiential Self Theory (CEST) is a model designed to measure two distinct cognitive information processing styles, a rational system and an intuitive system within the context of a global theory of personality (Epstein, 1994). CEST is a paradigm that incorporates the conceptual principles of learning theory, cognitive theory and self-theory (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Epstein (1994, 2003) proposed that these two systems have different approaches to evaluating judgements, choices and for making decisions (Epstein & Meier, 1989; Kahneman, 2011). The rational system is the domain of new learning where information is encoded in numbers, words, symbols and concepts that allow for conscious reasoning and logical justification (Norris & Epstein, 2011). It is a conscious thought process which requires attention and effort to deliberate and problem solve information. Interacting, and operating in parallel, is a second system that is a fast, instinctual, emotionally driven cognitive aspect of self, known as the intuitive system (Kahneman, 2011; Norris & Epstein, 2011). The intuitive system is the domain of tacit and implicit knowledge, cognitive schemas, and e (...truncated)