|
Study of the predictive capacity of Rational-Experiential Inventory with written verbal protocols, an indicator of disposition to reason analytically, and promoters of analytical or experiential reasoning| old_uid | 7521 |
|---|
| title | Study of the predictive capacity of Rational-Experiential Inventory with written verbal protocols, an indicator of disposition to reason analytically, and promoters of analytical or experiential reasoning |
|---|
| start_date | 2009/10/29 |
|---|
| schedule | 10h-12h |
|---|
| online | no |
|---|
| summary | In this study, under the framework of the theories of two systems of reasoning, the predictive capacity of the individual differences of the Rational Experiential Inventory (REI) was studied. The REI is a psychometric questionnaire that was designed to detect individual differences in reasoning. The tasks used to test REI's predictive capacity were two different groups of versions of the Monty Hall Dilemma (MHD), one of them framed in a context of competition (Burns and Wieth, 2004). Additionally, in this study the REI was studied comparing it with three new elements. First, written verbal protocols (justification for the answers), as an additional element to infer the kind of reasoning used. Second, a self-report indicator to measure the intention/disposition to reason analytically (instead of using this kind of reasoning) And third, in order to envisage better the individual differences, elements were introduced characteristic of people with an analytical-cognitive profile, and others characteristic of people with an experiential-cognitive profile. In some of the cases information was added to the tasks. In others, the tasks were completely framed in favor of one profile or the other. As in previous studies, REI showed consistently good psychometric features. However, the predictive capacity is limited, unstable, and seems to reveal the intention and/or disposition to analytical reasoning more than the actual style of reasoning. It was found also Burns and Wieth's versions of the MHD, not only not promote analytical reasoning, they promote the experiential one. Finally two issues are discussed. Firstly, deficiencies and causes of the limitations of the REI's predictive capacity. Secondly, the elements that were used to envisage better the individual differences, in particular why Burns and Wieth's versions of the MHD promote experiential reasoning. |
|---|
| responsibles | Carchon |
|---|
| |
|