Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2013, pp.

386–392

Validation of the Adult Decision-Making Competence in Slovak

students
Jozef Bavolar∗

Abstract

A study using a high school and college sample (age 18–26) was conducted to validate the Slovak version of the Adult
Decision-Making Competence. The results were similar to findings reported by Bruine de Bruin, Parker, and Fischhoff
(2007) on the adult population in America. The internal consistency of component subscales and whole measure was
confirmed as well as the factor structure. Gender differences in two of the six subscales were found. The results highlight
the usefulness of A-DMC in assessing decision-making competence in Slovak language, but non-student samples are
needed to enhance the generalisability of findings.
Keywords: decision-making competence, judgment, reliability, Slovak culture.

1 Introduction the ways they are assessed. DMC has often been stud-
ied using self-report data from respondents or judgments
Decisions in general are affected by three sets of from experts (Kim et al., 2001; Kitamura & Kitamura,
factors—decision features, situational factors and indi- 2000), but self-reports may not be valid indicators of
vidual differences (Einhorn, 1970; Hunt et al., 1989). The behavior (Barker et al., 2002). Assessing performance
normative approach in decision making tries to identify and comparing with norms seems to work better. Ap-
the best principles of making decisions taking into con- pelt et al. (2011) state three general measures of DMC
sideration basic rules, mainly statistical and logical ones, focusing on three age periods. Youth Decision-Making
and to assess decisions according to them. People need a Competence (Y-DMC, Parker & Fischhoff, 2005) and the
suite of generally applicable decision-making skills such adapted adult version—Adult Decision-Making Compe-
as extracting relevant information, applying general val- tence (A-DMC, Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007) are quite
ues in specific settings, and integrating these pieces with similar in structure (six and seven components, respec-
a coherent decision rule (Parker & Fischoff, 2005). A va- tively) whereas Older Adult Decision-Making Compe-
riety of general skills was identified. Stanovich and West tence (OADMC, Finucane & Gullion, 2010) focuses on
(1998, 2000, 2008) showed correlations among different quite a narrow age range and assesses DMC in health,
reasoning and decision-making skills. nutrition and finance domains. The other two measures
The view of decision-making competence (henceforth: in this category—Decision Outcome Inventory (Bruine
DMC) is very heterogeneous, with different DMC com- de Bruin et al., 2007) and Problem Solving Inventory
ponents identified: abilities to understand, appreciate, (Heppner & Petersen, 1982) are more specific and do not
reason, express a choice (Grisso & Appelbaum, 1998); provide a complex picture of DMC. (The Decision Out-
abilities to structure a decision problem, understand rele- come Inventory is focused more on outcomes of decision-
vant information, integrate information and reason about making than on DMC.) From widely used methods only
it, appreciate the personal significance of information A-DMC, Y-DMC and OADMC are performance-based
and the limits of one’s decision skills (Finucane & Lees, measures of DMC.
2005); and belief assessment, value assessment, inte-
gration, and metacognition (Parker & Fischhoff, 2005).
The ambiguity of DMC components is also manifest in
1.1 Adult Decision-Making Competence
Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007, see also Parker & Fischoff,
This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development 2005 for a study of 18–19 years old subjects) developed
Agency under the contract No. APVV–0253–1. The author would like
to thank Jozef Janovsky for help with statistical analysis and Jonathan a battery of decision tasks measuring decision-making
Baron and two anonymous reviewers for inspiring comments. competence divided into four abilities. Bruine de Bruin et
Copyright: © 2013. The authors license this article under the terms al. (2007) report appropriate psychometric characteristics
of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
∗ Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Safarik (Cronbach’s alphas, test-retest reliability, factor structure,
University in Kosice, Srobarova 2, 041 80 Kosice, Slovak Republic. correlations with fluid cognitive ability and real decision
Email: jozef.bavolar@upjs.sk. making outcomes) of the Adult Decision-Making Com-

386
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2013 Decision-making competence in Slovakia 387

petence (henceforth: A-DMC). A-DMC was classified subtracted from 5 in order to report higher values as better
as decision-making measure in a classification of Appelt performance (smaller framing effect). The next task mea-
et al. (2011). A-DMC tries to capture four fundamental suring insensitivity to irrelevant features is Resistance to
decision-making skills in six types of tasks. Decision- Sunk Costs, containing 10 situations where prior invest-
making skills include belief assessment (judging the like- ments were made (e.g., big dessert after a large meal
lihood of outcomes—one of the prominent areas in judg- when a person is full already). A choice between the
ment), value assessment (how we can evaluate outcomes sunk-cost option and normatively correct option is made
of a behaviour), integration (combining beliefs and val- on a six-point scale; performance is indicated as the aver-
ues as a crucial step in matching person and environment) age rating.
and metacognition (knowing the extent of one’s abilities Combining beliefs and values is called integration.
as a skill to evaluate not only decision tasks, but also our It is measured by one subscale in the present study—
potential to cope with them). Performance in these skills Applying Decision Rules. Subjects are asked for the best
can be evaluated as accuracy (relative to external crite- choice out of five DVD players for a hypothetical con-
rion) or as consistency (related judgments or choices). sumer with certain preferences regarding five characteris-
Bruine de Bruin et al., (2007) used seven components to tics (e.g. picture quality, brand reliability). Performance
identify decision-making skills, but one of them (Path In- is indicated by the percentage of correct DVD players
dependence) was later eliminated because of low factor chosen.
loadings and correlations with other subscales, and only Metacognition as the view of one’s competence is
six tasks are used (e.g., Del Missier et al., 2010). A de- measured in the Over/underconfidence component in-
scription of decision-making skills and scoring follows. volving 34 knowledge questions. Subjects indicate the
Belief assessment involves judging the probabilities correctness of each statement (true/false—e.g. alcohol
of events. Probability judgments are one of most ana- causes dehydration) and their confidence in that answer.
lyzed topics in judgment and decision making (Kahne- The resulting score is computed as one minus absolute
man & Tversky, 1972, Gigerenzer et al., 1991), often with difference between the mean confidence and percentage
emphasis on perception of risk (Slovic, 1987; Sjőberg, of correct knowledge answers.
2000). Belief assessment is operationalized in two tasks.
The first of them, Consistency in Risk Perception, con-
sists of 20 events, and subjects have to judge the probabil-
1.2 Use of the A-DMC
ity of a given event (e.g., car accident) in a specified time In the first version of the DMC (as Youth Decision-
period (one year, five years) on a linear scale from 0% Making Competence, Parker & Fischhoff, 2005) two of
(no chance) to 100% (certainty). Twenty pairs of events seven subscales (Resistance to Framing, Resistance to
were identified and compared: a) probability in one and Sunk Costs) had low reliability in terms of Cronbach’s
five years (10 pairs), b) probability of subset and super- alpha. Correlations among the subscales were weak;
set events (6 pairs—e.g. to die in a terrorist attack and a one-factor model was proposed as the best solution.
to die from any cause), and c) probability of complemen- The tasks in the adult version were partly changed—this
tary events (4 pairs—e.g. to get or not to get into a car change resulted in better psychometric characteristics of
accident). The resulting score is the percentage of correct the A-DMC (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007). A two fac-
item pairs. The second task tapping belief assessment is tor model was proposed as the best solution with Resis-
Recognizing Social Norms. Subjects answer 16 questions tance to Framing, Under/Overconfidence, Applying De-
about whether they think it is sometimes OK to engage in cision Rules and Consistency in Risk Perception loaded
different kinds of negative behavior (e.g., drink and drive, onto Factor 1 and Recognizing Social Norms, Resis-
smoke cigarettes) and their answers serve to compute the tance to Sunk Costs and Path Independence loaded onto
actual proportion of people that would engage in this be- Factor 2. This factor structure does not correspond to
havior. They also estimate how many out of 100 people any of the task characteristics (response mode, criterion,
their age behave like this. Spearman rank-order correla- decision-making skill). The authors present correlations
tion is computed between the estimated and actual social of A-DMC components with cognitive ability and expe-
norms. rienced decision outcomes. The correlations between A-
Value assessment is also operationalized in two tasks. DMC components and decision-making styles were weak
The first of them, Resistance to Framing, detects the vul- (from -0.28 to 0.29). In a subsequent analysis, Bruine
nerability to be affected by the framing effect—the way de Bruin et al. (2010) reported a weak relationship of
a situation is described. Seven valence framing problems component scores with age controlling for demographic
and seven attribute framing items are presented twice— variables (gender, education, SES). While performance in
as gains and as losses. The absolute differences between Resistance to Framing and Applying Decision Rules de-
ratings for the loss and the gain versions of each item are creased with age, Under/Overconfidence and Resistance
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2013 Decision-making competence in Slovakia 388

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of nonstandardized A-DMC components. The first row for each component is from the
present study; the second row is from the original A-DMC study by Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007).
A-DMC component Range Median Mean SD Cronbach’s α
Resistance to Framing 1.79–5.00 4.00 3.95 0.55 .72
1.00–4.92 3.83 3.72 0.61 .62
Recognizing Social Norms −.65–.99 0.52 0.49 0.28 .54
−.59–.84 0.34 0.33 0.26 .64
Under/Overconfidence .50–1.00 0.91 0.89 0.09 .56
.50–1.00 0.93 0.91 0.08 .77
Applying Decision Rules 0.00–1.00 0.60 0.59 0.24 .79
0.00–1.00 0.44 0.44 0.24 .73
Consistency in Risk Perception .25–1.00 0.80 0.79 0.16 .76
.20–1.00 0.70 0.70 0.16 .72
Resistance to Sunk Costs 1.00–6.00 4.30 4.25 0.84 .72
1.00–6.00 4.50 4.40 0.77 .54

to Sunk Costs improved and Consistency in Risk Percep- erties of the measure reported in its first use (Bruine de
tion and Recognizing Social Norms did not correlate with Bruin et al., 2007), it has been used in only the three pre-
age. Carnevale, Inbar, and Lerner (2011) reported a posi- viously mentioned countries (the USA, Italy, Sweden),
tive correlation of two subscales (Resistance to Framing, and no European version provides complete psychome-
Resistance to Sunk Costs) with need for cognition, but tric characteristics. Here, I present descriptive statistics
no relationship with the other two used components— and Cronbach’s alpha, as well as exploratory and con-
Under/Overconfidence and Consistency in Risk Percep- firmatory factor analysis, correlations among component
tion. In a subsequent comparison, leaders performed bet- scores, and gender differences. Data of the original study
ter in all components except for Under/Overconfidence. by Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007) are provided for compar-
There was a tendency to maximize correlates negatively ison, but no inferential comparisons are made, because of
with the overall A-DMC score (Bruine de Bruin et al., age and cultural differences.
2007; Parker et al., 2007).
Besides the USA, the whole measure or some compo-
nents of the A-DMC has been used in only two European 2 Method
countries—Italy (Del Missier et al., 2010; Del Missier et
al., 2012) and Sweden (Marklund, 2008; Mäntylä et al., 2.1 Subjects and procedure
2012), where it was also standardized. Del Missier et al.,
(2010) found a different contribution of executive func- The subjects were 508 high school and university stu-
tions (updating, shifting, and inhibition) on performance dents (318 females, 62.6%), 54.9% in the high-school
in Applying Decision Rules (mainly inhibition) and Con- sample and 68.8% in the college sample), from Eastern
sistency in Risk Perception (mainly shifting). These Slovakia (Central Europe). The average age of the sample
results were supplemented in a consequent study (Del was 20.71 years (SD = 2.38, range = 18 to 26)—a lower
Missier et al., 2012), where the monitoring/inhibition di- level of original study. As 18 old subjects are considered
mension of the executive functions was significantly re- adult in Slovakia, no parental consent was needed. The
lated to the performance in Resistance to Framing and complete English version of A-DMC was translated into
Applying Decision Rules and shifting component to Con- Slovak by a professional translator and translated back
sistency in Risk Perception. Mäntylä et al. (2012) found by another one to ensure the fidelity of the tasks. The
no difference between adults with ADHD and the con- items from six components were in the original order—if
trol group in Under/Overconfidence and the control group a component consists of two parts, they are separated by
was significantly better in Applying Decision Rules. items from another component. Data were collected in
The main aim of the present study is to examine the years 2011 and 2012 in a series of studies investigating
cross-cultural validity of A-DMC, namely characteristics a relation of the A-DMC with other cognitive and social
of its Slovak version. In spite of good psychometric prop- characteristics. Each subject also provided demographic
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2013 Decision-making competence in Slovakia 389

Table 2: Pearson correlations among A-DMC components and aggregate z-score. The first row for each measure is
from the present study; the second row is from the original A-DMC study by Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007).
RtF RSN UOC ADR CiRP RtSC OS
RSN .248***
.15**
UOC .124** .081
.23*** .17**
ADR .420*** .333*** .066
.39*** .28*** .31***
CiRP .360*** .224*** .146** .384***
.25*** .25*** .17** .43***
RtSC .353*** .250*** .137** .421*** .430***
−.01 .23 −.01 .20*** .18**
Overall score .670*** .572*** .416*** .703*** .681*** .693***
Age .182*** .054 .220*** .234*** .356*** .245*** .346***
−.20*** .12* .07* −.18** −.01 .28** −.03
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
RtF—Resistance to Framing, RSN—Recognizing Social Norms, UOC—Under/Overconfidence, ADR—Applying
Decision Rules, CiRP—Consistency in Risk Perception, RtSC—Resistance to Sunk Costs. OS—Overall score (not
available for original study).

information. As well as the six component scores, the slightly lower in comparison with the original A-DMC
overall score was computed as the unweighted average of study (αs = .75 and .93).
standardized z scores. Table 2 presents bivariate correlations between the A-
DMC component scores as well as correlations of com-
ponent scores with the aggregate score—unweighted av-
2.2 Results erage of z scores of component scores. All of the corre-
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the six A-DMC lations between component scores are positive and (with
component measures—higher scores in each component two exceptions) statistically significant (M = .26, Mdn =
represent better performance. The observed range cov- .24). The strongest correlations are found in Applying
ers the majority of the potential range and covers most Decision Rules, Consistency in Risk Perception and Re-
the original study. The biggest differences in mean score sistance to Framing. In spite of narrow age range, cor-
are in Applying Decision Rules (15% of the potential relations with age were computed. Scores in five of six
range), Consistency in Risk Perception (9% of the po- of A-DMC components as well as overall score increased
tential range) and Recognizing Social Norms (8% of the with age.
potential range). The statistical significance of the mean Exploratory factor analyses on z scores was used to as-
differences was not investigated, mainly because age dif- sess the inner structure of A-DMC because of expected
ferences were confounded with possible cultural differ- cultural differences (Table 3). A one-factor model was
ences. obtained with the principal factors method explaining
Cronbach’s alpha was used as a measure of internal 40.3% of variance (compared with 30.1 % in Bruine de
consistency. It is above .70 in four of six component mea- Bruin et al., 2007). Factor loadings are at least .537 ex-
sures and in the range .50–.60 in two component mea- cept for Under/Overconfidence, which suggests the exis-
sures. The Slovak version yields better internal consis- tence of an underlying construct of decision-making abil-
tency in four of six component measures. Reliability in ity. The principal factors method with oblimin rotation
Recognizing Social Norms is assessed in two ways. Be- allowing nonorthogonal factors was used to find a solu-
sides the joint measure, two independent Cronbach’s al- tion with more factors. Exploratory factor analysis as-
phas were computed: for personal social norms (α =.69) suming found only one factor fulfilling of eigenvalues ≥
and predicted peer social norms (α = .87). They were 1 criterion; scree plot also identified only one factor. The
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2013 Decision-making competence in Slovakia 390

Table 3: Loadings for the one- and two-factor A-DMC models. The first row for each component is from the present
study; the second row is from the original A-DMC study by Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007).
Two-factor model (oblimin
A-DMC component One-factor model
rotation)
Resistance to Framing .69 .69 .04
.48 .51 .15
Recognizing Social Norms .55 .56 −.11
.40 .35 .38
Under/Overconfidence .27 .01 .98
.35 .41 .01
Applying Decision Rules .75 .78 −.12
.80 .79 .35
Consistency in Risk Perception .71 .68 .15
.49 .46 .30
Resistance to Sunk Costs .72 .70 .01
.23 .14 .50
Eigenvalue 2.43 2.42 .98
2.11 2.11 1.13
Variance explained 40.5% 40.5% 16.2%
30.1% 30.1% 16.1%

two factors are correlated (r = .116, p = .009). differences were found in the other four components or
With the exception of Under/Overconfidence, all fac- the overall score.
tors have loadings at least .563 on the first factor. This
factor solution does not correspond to that reported by
Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007) and also not to task char- 3 Discussion
acteristics like response mode (judgment or choice), cri-
terion (consistency and accuracy) and general decision- The main aim of the present study was to validate a
making skill. measure for assessing decision-making competence—A-
In order to confirm the factor structure found in the DMC. The results in general replicate characteristics of
study by Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007), a confirmatory A-DMC in a different culture. The descriptive statistics
factor analysis was performed on six component scores are very close to data by Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007),
(Factor 1: Resistance to Framing, Under/Overconfidence, and so are the correlations among component scores and
Applying Decision Rules, Consistency in Risk Percep- measure’s factor structure. Small differences can be ex-
tion; Factor 2: Recognizing Social Norms, Resistance to plained by the age structure of the sample (age 18–26
Sunk Costs). As presented in Table 4, a number of in- (M=20.7) versus 18–88 (M=47.7)), but the influence of
dexes were used to determine the goodness of fit. The fac- a different culture is also very likely. The proportion of
tor structure was similar to hypothesized (χ2 (8)=12.64, p females was higher in original study (73.8%) than in the
= 0.125). The comparative fix index (CFI), non-normed present research (62.6%).
fit index (NNFI) and normed fit index (NFI) were above Gender comparison in our results found minor signifi-
0.95, which indicates a good fit of data. In addition, cant differences in component scores. The apparent better
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA— performance in four of the six components in the Slovak
lower than 0.08) confirms adequate fit to the data. version compared to the original study can be ascribed
Gender differences were found using a MANOVA (V to the student population and relationship of performance
= 0.06, F(6,501) = 5.18, p < 0.001). As shown in Ta- scores to education.
ble 5, separate univariate ANOVAs revealed that males The A-DMC provides a broad view on decision-
have a higher score in Applying Decision Rules and Re- making skills, including assessing belief, assessing val-
sistance to Sunk Costs. No statistically significant gender ues, their integration and metacognition. In spite of this
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2013 Decision-making competence in Slovakia 391

Table 4: Fit Indices for the two-factor structure of A-DMC.

χ2 df p χ2 /df NNFI CFI NFI RMSEA
12.641 8 0.125 1.580 0.976 0.990 0.973 0.034

Table 5: Means (and standard deviations) of A-DMC components and overall score by gender.
Subscale Males mean (SD) Females mean (SD) F df1 df2 p
Resistance to Framing 3.95 (0.61) 3.95 (0.52) 0.003 1 506 .958
Recognizing Social Norms 0.48 (0.31) 0.49 (0.26) 0.489 1 506 .485
Under/Overconfidence 0.89 (0.09) 0.89 (0.08) 0.240 1 506 .624
Applying Decision Rules 0.64 (0.25) 0.56 (0.23) 13.318 1 506 .000
Consistency in Risk Perception 0.79 (0.18) 0.79 (0.14) 0.008 1 506 .931
Resistance to Sunk Costs 4.41 (0.89) 4.16 (0.80) 10.947 1 506 .001
Overall score 0.05 (0.72) −0.03 (0.55) 2.215 1 506 .137

variety in skills and tasks, correlations and factor anal- lowing general rules of judgment (Consistency in Risk
ysis show that general decision-making competence can Perception) and choice (Applying Decision Rules).
be in the background (a positive manifold). Each correla- Applications the A-DMC in the previously mentioned
tion except for two among component scores was positive domains, and the generalisability of results from present
and statistically significant. One of the main factors in the and previous studies are partially limited by length of
background can be general cognitive ability, which had a the A-DMC. Administering the whole measure lasts ap-
positive relationship with all of the used A-DMC compo- proximately one hour and raises concerns about attention,
nents (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007). Medium or weaker concentration and the ability to resist fatigue. These fac-
correlations indicate usefulness of each component tap- tors can affect components or their parts located closer
ping different aspects of judgment and decision mak- to the end of the scale. However, this limitation is dis-
ing. Bruine de Bruin et al. (2007) name consistency in confirmed by studies using only some of the available
judgments and choice over time and resistance to biases tasks and reporting very similar results (Del Missier et
arising from heuristics as possible skills. Correlations al., 2010; Carnevale et al., 2011), so it seems reasonable
among A-DMC components further support the proposal to treat all component scores as reliable and not affected
that performance on conventional behavioral decision- by task order. While this limitation seems not to be rele-
making tasks reflects a positive manifold rather than ran- vant, it could be useful to develop a shorter version using
dom performance errors (Stanovich & West, 2000). all six subscales. Validation of such a scale could lead
The A-DMC, using real-life situations, tries to be a to more extensive use in psychological research and in
valid predictor of real behavior. Although the paper- applied fields of psychology.
pencil form can raise questions about the validity of ob- Another possible limitation of the present study, one
tained scores in relation to real behavior, previous re- that is frequent in academic research, is the use of stu-
search indicates positive correlations of five of the six dents as research sample. Firstly, this practice reduces
used components (except of Resistance to Framing) with the age range. Previous research (Bruine de Bruin et al.,
the occurrence of negative decision outcomes (Bruine de 2010) indicates a mixed pattern of changes in decision-
Bruin et al., 2007). Using the whole measure or certain making competence related to age. When controlling
components seems appropriate particularly in the selec- demographic variables and fluid cognitive capacity, age
tion process of managers and other positions with de- was either in a positive or neutral relationship with A-
cision making as a core responsibility. The variety of DMC component scores. Furthermore, a student sample
tasks allows capturing competencies specific for different (mainly college students) is relatively consistent in edu-
occupations demanding assessing ourselves (Uner/Over- cation level, but variability of the A-DMC components is
confidence) or groups (Recognizing Social Norms), re- similar across high-school and college sample. Bruine de
lease from task description (Resistance to Framing) and Bruin et al. (2007) report positive correlations between
previous investments (Resistance to Sunk Costs) or fol- five of the six used tasks (all except for Resistance to
Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 3, May 2013 Decision-making competence in Slovakia 392

Sunk Costs) and education. Further studies with the Slo- older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25, 271–288.
vak version should incorporate other age and education Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991).
groups to verify obtained results. Relations with cogni- Probalistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of
tive ability or real-life decision outcomes should also be confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528.
investigated. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1998). Assessing compe-
In spite of the possible limitations of the measure and tence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians
of the present study, A-DMC seems to be appropriate to and other health care professionals. New York: Ox-
assess basic decision-making competence. As well as ford University Press.
for research purposes, its use is also possible in work Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The develop-
psychology (selection, promotion), clinical psychology ment and implications of a personal problem solving
(higher scores are correlated with fewer life negative out- inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 66–
comes) or in the prevention of excessive risk taking. 75.
Hunt, R., Krzystofiak, F., Meindl, J., & Yousry, A.
(1989). Cognitive style and decision making. Orga-
References nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
44, 436–453.
Appelt, K. C., Milch, K. F., Handgraaf, M. J. J., & Weber, Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972) Subjective prob-
E. U. (2011). The Decision Making Individual Dif- ability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive
ferences Inventory and guidelines for the study of in- Psychology, 3, 430–454.
dividual differences in judgment and decision-making Kim, S. Y. H., Caine, E. D., Currier, G. W., Leibovici,
research. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 252–262. A., & Ryan, J. M. (2001). Assessing the competence
Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliott, R. (2002). Research of persons with Alzheimer’s disease in providing in-
methods in clinical psychology: An introduction for formed consent for participation in research. American
students and practitioners, 2nd ed. Chichester, Eng- Journal of Psychiatry. 158, 712–717.
land: John Wiley & Sons. Kitamura T., & Kitamura F. (2000). Reliability of clini-
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. cal judgment of patients’ competency to give informed
(2007). Individual differences in adult decision making consent: A case vignette study. Psychiatry and Clini-
competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- cal Neurosciences, 54, 245–247.
chology, 92, 938–956. Marklund, M. (2008). An evaluation of the Swedish
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. Decision-Making Competence Battery. Technical Re-
(2010). Explaining adult age differences in decision port, Umeå University.
making competence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Parker, A. M., Bruine de Bruin, W., & Fischhoff, B.
Making, 24, 1–14. (2007). Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-
Carnevale, J., Inbar, Y., & Lerner, J. S. (2011). Indi- making styles, competence, and outcomes. Judgment
vidual differences in need for cognition and decision and Decision Making, 2, 342–350.
making competence among leaders. Personality As- Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2005). Decision-
sessment and Individual Differences, 51, 274–278. making competence: External validation through an
Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & Bruine de Bruin, W. individual-differences approach. Journal of Behav-
(2010). Executive functions in decision making: An ioral Decision Making, 18, 1–27.
individual differences approach. Thinking and Reason- Sjoberg, L. (2000) Factors in Risk Perception. Risk Anal-
ing, 16, 69–97. ysis, 20, 1–11.
Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & Bruine de Bruin, W. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236, 280–
(2012). Decision-making competence, executive func- 285.
tioning, and general cognitive abilities. Journal of Be- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual dif-
havioral Decision Making, 25, 331–351. ferences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental
Einhorn, H. J. (1970). The use of nonlinear noncompen- Psychology: General, 127, 161–188.
satory models in decision making. Psychological Bul- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual dif-
letin, 73, 221–230. ferences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality
Finucane, M. L., & Lees, N. B. (2005). Decision-making debate? Behavioral and Brain Science, 23, 645–726.
competence of older adults: Models and methods. Re- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative
port for the national research council workshop on independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability.
decision-making by older adults, Washington, D. C. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672–
Finucane, M. L., & Gullion, C. M. (2010). Developing a 695.
tool for measuring the decision-making competence of