7/28/2019 73342112

1/24

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVEDISSONANCE AND DECISION-MAKING STYLES

IN A SAMPLE OF FEMALE STUDENTSAT THE UNIVERSITY OF UM M AL OURAD R . M ARIAM HAM EED AHM ED ALLAHYANI

Department of PsychologyUniversity of U MM Al QuraMakkah Al MukarramahKsaStudy summary: The aim of this study is to determine the mag-nitude of cognitive dissonance present in a sample of femalestudents at Umm Al Qura University, and clarifying the rela-tionship between the cognitive dissonance and decision-makingstyles. It also aimed to identify differences between female stu-dents with high cognitive dissonance and those with lowcognitive dissonance in decision-making styles. The study alsoaimed to unveil the most common styles for decision-making(intuitive, rational, spontaneous, dependent & avoidant) with thef'emale students at Umm A l Qura U niversity. The sample is com-posed of (263) subjects; all of them were female students atUmm Al-Qura University. Instruments used by the study werethe cognitive dissonance scale (Cassel, Chow & Reiger, 2001)and the Scott and Bruce (Bruce Scott &, 1995) scale for deci-sion-making styles. The most eminent result of the study, as ofmagnitude of cognitive dissonance, is that (40.3) of the totalsample size reflect cognitive dissonance which suggests that thetotal cognitive dissonance present is below the average. Theresults of the study also showed a positive relationship of statis-tical function between the internal personal dimension in thecognitive dissonance scale and the overall and sub scores for thefollowing decision-making styles (the intuitive, the spontaneous,& the avoidant style). The results also showed a negative rela-tionship of statistical function between the cognitive dissonancein the internal personal dimension and the rational style. Theresults also showed a positive relation of statistical functionbetween the cognitive dissonance in the external-social dimen-sion (impersonal) and the scores of the followingdecision-making styles (intuitive style, the spontaneous style &the avoidant style). The results showed a negative relation of sta-tistical function in the external dimension and the rational style.The results also showed a positive correlation of statistical func-tion between the cognitive dissonance and in the external-socialdimension and the independent style. The results showed thepresence of statistical function differences between the subjectsof high and low cognitive dissonance in the score of the sponta-neous style dimension for the subjects of high cognitivedissonan ce. There also found statistical function differencesbetween the subjects of high and low cognitive dissonance in thescore of the avoidant style dimension for the subjects of highcognitive dissonance.

7/28/2019 73342112

2/24

642 / E ducation V ol. 132 No. 3

Introduction:People strive to get their opinions andattitudes intem ally match with each other,i.e. there is some sort of harmony betweenwhat the individual knows and what hebelieves and does; but sometimes the indi-vidual behavior may com e in contrast withhis believes. For exam ple, the person m ayknow that smoking is harmful to his health,but still he continues to smoke. This typeof contradiction is what is called byFestinger "the cognitive dissonance" (Fes-tinger, 1957). This concept has been widely& repeatedly deal t wi th s ince i t wasreached that dissonance could affect thedec i s ion -mak ing p roces s (Sou ta r &Sweeney, 2003).

The Cognitive Dissonance suggests thatsome cognitions of the individual are notconsistent w ith each other. Such cognitionmay represent any type of notion, opinion,or believe on the environmen t, self or per-sonal conduct. People sometimes findthemse lves doing actions that are not suit-able or consistent to their knowledge, orthey may express opinions that are not con-s i s ten t wi th the i r o r ig ina l op in ions(Festinger, 1957). Ehot & Devine (1994)observed tha t Cogni t ive Dissonanceappears through the psychological dis-com for t (Souta r & Sw eeney , 2003 ) .Fesfinger sees the cognitive dissonance asa motivational tension as any other type oftension that needs to be reduced. This def-inite state of dissonance, wh ich directs thecognitive activity, can be seen as a previ-ous state which leads to an activity d irectedto minimize the dissonance same as hunger

Cognitive dissonance, according to Fes-tinger (1957), is considered a continuousprocess because the individual canno t con-trol the information and the events thatoccur in his environment which may beconsonan t to each other. Disson ance has anature that motivate individuals to seek formore information and opinions that supporttheir attitudes and believes against theinformation that support the reversed direc-tion in a trial to minimize the dissonance.

Dissonance is considered as an impor-tan t resu l t o f the cho ice be tweenaltematives, or selection of the link to somecontradictory types of behavior, and theamount of dissonance and subsequentattempts to resolve are consistent w ith thevariables, such as importance, attractive-ness , and so on . Th is appe ars mo repronounced when the individual takes a"wrong decision" (i.e., whenever disso-nance is greater), and thus he may morewish to search support to his original deci-sion, where dissonance arrived its higherlevel, and will invalidate its decision orchange i ts behavior (Brehm & Cohen,1962). Som etimes the process of fear fromdissonance could lead to make the indi-vidual fearful or reluctant to behaviorallycommit himself. Also fearfi^om dissonancemay lead the person to decide or to com-mit himself to take a decision or to obligehimself to do so, and when it is not poss i-ble to delay decision-mak ing and conduct,the conduct may be accompanied by denialof knowledge to the action (Festinger,1957).

Salovic (1990) considers that the deci-

7/28/2019 73342112

3/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /643as "the process by which a choice betweenalternatives in order to achieve the objec-tives of the Organization". Weiss (1983)mentioned that the decision-making is afunction of the individual information andhis persona l ideo logy and concerns .Petrides & G uiney (2000) believe that deci-sion-making is an authoritarian effectiveprocess where individual values and beliefsare the base for the decis ion-makingprocess. These researchers, in addition toothers, recognize that decision-making isa cognitive process (Jacoby, 2007).

The study on decision-making and deci-sion styles originated and developed duringthe last century. In the 1960s, researchesbegan to focus in particular on individualdecision-making and decision-makingstyles. Driver & Streufert (1969) havedeveloped a model for styles to check theinformation processing of the person andhis capabilities for problem solving.As studies have shown the importanceof personal qualities in decision-makingunder the so-called decision-making styles,or the cognitive styles which refer to dif-f e r ences be tween ind iv idua l s i ninformation processing when solving prob-lems and making decisions (Thunholm,2004; Gambetti et al., 2008).Leonard et al. (1999) believe that theterm "cogn itive style" refers m ostly to thebehavior and conduct of oneself whenreflecting his abilities for the decision mak-ing, and i t does not refer to thedecision-making process. Due to com-plexity and variation in the use of this term,Rowe and Mason (1987) suggest the termof decision style to mean the way in w hich

sion. He also pointed out that the decisionstyle is still a cognitive process includingthe individual personality in regards to hisneeds, values and self-concept.In the early 1990s some theorists triedto find a definition for the decision-mak-ing style; where the decision-making stylewas defined as a normal style used by theindividual in decision-making process.

Harren (1979) presented another defini-tion as he defined the decision-makingstyle for the individual was an individualcharacteristic to understand the decision-making task and to respond to it (Jacoby,2007; 7-8). Driver defined the decision-mak ing style as "the normal form used bythe individual when taking a decision"(Scott & B ruce, 1995; 818).Nutt (1990) found that the decisionmaking style depicts the individual's beliefsystem, including data classification which might be taken as something rec-ognized and/or applied without consciousto decision-making process.Eriedman believes that individuals 'decision-making styles can be divided intothree different sections (prudence, rush,

and indecision) based on different levels ofreflection and commitment dimensions(Eriedman, 1996).The decision making styles defined asa normal and learned form of response con-veyed by the individual in the state ofdecision making. It is not one of the per-sonality traits; but a tendency based onhabit to interact in a certain w ay (Sco tt &Bruce, 1995; 820).Scott & Bruce (1995) identified four

7/28/2019 73342112

4/24

644 / E ducation VoL 132 No. 3

altematives and rational evaluation; 2. anintuitive style which is characterized byusing the intem al sensations and emotionsin decision making; 3. a dependent stylewhich is characterized by depending onthe advice and tips from others; and 4. theavoidant style which is characterized byattempts to avoid the decision-making.Depending on their results of factor analy-sis they added afifthstyle, the spontaneousstyle, which is characterized by a sense ofimmediacy and the desire to complete thedecision-making process as soon as pos-sible (Scott & Bmce , 1995; Loo, 2000,896).

A number of experts, especially KurtLewin, recognized the fact that the deci-sion, once taken, gives impetus to theprocess that tends to strengthen and stabi-lize the decision.In the same context, Treffinger, et al.(2008) stated that individuals, when under-stand their style in decision-making andproblem-solving, they becom e capable forleaming and application of processing toolsmore effectively, and that differencesbetween individuals in the styles of deci-s ion-making and problem solving areconsidered a key to understand the inter-ac t ion of the ind iv idua l wi th thedecision-making process. Rabbie et al.(1959) see that the decision to take anopposite stand on a certain issue is suffi-cient to cause dissonance and subsequentchang e of attitude towards the taken posi-tion or situation.

Soutar & Sweeney (2003) prepared astudy focusing on differences in dissonance

ple included (636) con sumers. They useda scale composed of (22) items, developedby Sweeney et al. (2000) and includes threedimensions of cognitive dissonance (theemotional dimension, the wisdom of buy-ing and the interest of transaction). Thestudy found that some dissonance dimen-sions are correlated to each other, rangingbe tween (0 .31 , and 0.68). The higherdimensions were the emotional dissonanceand the interest in transaction.

To understand why and when disso-nance occurs, because of decision-making,we must analyze the different decision sit-uations, especially when choosing betweentwo positive altematives, where the per-son expects emergence of some p ressuresto reduce the dissonance, after selection.Festinger (1957) summed up other kindsof decision-making situations, which aregood analyses reported by Lewin, Hov-land and Sears about the decision andconflicfing conditions as follows:1. The decision-making betvceen twoquite different alternatives: this willnot put a person in a decision-makingsituation, unless there are som e factors

force him to choose between them.2. The decision-making between twoalternatives, both have positive andnegative aspects: this is the normaltype of decision-making situations, andthere will be some cognitive elementscorresponding to the positive aspectsof the non-chosen altemate, and someelements corresponding to the negadveaspects of the chosen a ltemative, whichcreates dissonance with cognition of

7/28/2019 73342112

5/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /645

3. Decision-making among more thantwo alternatives: most of decisionsinclude more than two altematives. Thedecision maker may find some settle-ments or compromises, or new m ethodsto the action, and so on. This add ition-al complexity makes analysis of thedecision-making process difficult, butit adds very simple complex to analyzethe dissonance processes that occur afterthe making the decision. Therefore, weconclude that cognitive dissonance isan inevitable consequence of the deci-sion making, and requires examinationof factors affecting the size of this dis -sonance.The magnitude of dissonance follow-ing decisions is considered as an adverse

function to the size of the power used forobtaining compatibility. If the reasonablegrounds on w hich an individual builds hisdecision(s) are adequate, they equivalentto low dissonance while low justificationsare equivalent to high dissonance (Rabbieet al. 1959). The re are three main w ays toreduce dissonance occurs after decision-making (Festinger, 1957):a. Change or revoke the decision: It ispossible to reduce or even remove dis-sonance by revoking the dec is ionpsychologically. This involves recog-nition of taking the wrong choice or byinsisting that there was no choice ofcasting the responsibility on the per-son.b. Change the attractiveness of alter-natives on choice: this is the moregeneral way to reduce the dissonancefollowing the decision. Dissonance may

items or by adding new elements thatare consonant w ith the cognition relat-ed to the decision taken. The individualsuccess partially depends on mentalcapacity.c. Establishment of cognitive overlap-ping and conformity between the onchoice alternatives: whenever similarcognitive elemen ts corresponding to thevarious alternatives for decision, thesmaller the resulting dissonance anddissonance occurs after the decisioncould be reduced by establishing ordeveloping a consensual cognitive rela-tion.In this context, Rabbie et al. (1959) havestudied the impact of verbal expression ofdissonant situations on a sample com posed

of (60) fresh students at Yale University.The design has been used beyond exp res-sion only in the light of semi-scan, as thestudents w ere asked to w rite articles againsttheir own attitudes on the topic that wasextremely important for them. Results indi-cated that the decision to take a conflictingattitude is sufficient to cause dissonance,and thus change the attitude towards thatsituation.Cognitive dissonance is considered aninevitable outcome of decision-making.Also, cognitive style used by the individ-ual in decision-making often indicates that"mental practices" of the individual areessential to understanding the processesof decision (Hunt, et al., 1989), whichmakes it possible to link decision-makingstyles with the cognitive dissonance bybeing familiar with the types of decision-mak ing s ty l e s ( i n tu i t i ve , r a t i ona l ,

7/28/2019 73342112

6/24

646 7 Education Vol. 132 No . 3

associated with cognidve dissonance, andoperate to raise or lower it.Therefore, the study quesdons could beidentified as follows;1. Is it possible to idendfy the cognitivedissonance mag nitude in the sample ofUmm Al-Qura University female stu-dents?

2. Is there a stadsdcal funcdon reladonshipbetween cognitive dissonance and deci-s ion-making s tyles (e .g . in tui t ive ,rational, spontaneous, dependent andavoidant style)?

3. Are there differences of stadstical func-tion between those who have low orhigh cognitive dissonance at the femalestudents who have intuidve, rational,spontaneous, dependent and avoidantstyle at Um m A l-Qura U niversity?4. Is it possible to rearrang e the dec ision-making s ty les ( in tu i t ive , ra t iona l ,spontaneous, dependent and avoidant)the most common among the female

students at Umm Al Qura University?The Study procedures:

First: The study sample:The study was conducted on a sampleof (270) female university students. All ofthem were from the third level of sciendf-ic sections (applied sciences college),hum anides (college of Arts and Adm inis-t r a t i ve Sc i ences ) . The s amp le wasrandomly selected in a simple manner fromthe original populadon of the study. Thestudy sample totaled to (263) female stu-dents. Their ages ranged between 20 - 23years and above with a mean age of (21.62)and a standard deviation of (1,950). Table(1) below show s the frequent distributionof the total study sample according to thefield of specialty, age groups, arithmeticmean and standard deviations:

Table (1) redundant distribution of the total study sampleby age groups and educational level (N=263)

Field of SpecialtyAge category

level3rd4th

TotalMean

Total sample (N=263)20-21 yrs

Total13732169

%52.112.264.3

20.66

22-23 yrsTotal

412970

%15.611.026.6

22.26

More than 23 yrsTotal

121224

%4.64.69.1

26.50

TotalTotal

19 07326 3

%72.227.8100.0

21.62

7/28/2019 73342112

7/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /647First: cognitive dissonance scale:This measure was designed in its sec-ond form by Cassel, Chow & Reiger (2001)based on Festinger theory (1957). It cov-ers two areas of the person life: the intemalpersonal domain and the extemal non-per-sonal domain. Each area consists of fourparts and each part includes (25) item, i.e.

the cognitive dissonance scale contains200 items which require to be answeredby right or wrong in every part of the eightparts: (FAM, EMO, PAD, HEA, SCH,SOC, PER and SUB ). There are (21) pairsof the scale items form degrees of trust-worthiness (or lying) which w ere includedto make sure that the items could be read

and/or understood correctly. Individualswho register high degrees of tmstworthyare excluded from the analysis of data.The scale was * translated and presentedto a number of specialists in English lan-guage to ensure safety of translation, andappropriate language and wording. For usein this study it has been codified on localSaudi environm ent. It has been applied ontwo sam ples one of them is a pilot sam ple(N=104), and the final sample for morevalidation of the scale (N=263). * In con-junc t ion w i th Dr. Sami ra A l -O ta ib i .Assistant Professor, Department of Psy-chology (major: educational psychology)University of Umm Al Q ura

Table (2): Validity values of the cognitive dissonance scale dimensions calculated by reapplicationand internal consistency methods (Alpha) and (SPLIT) for both pilot and study samples (n = 104)

Scale dimensions

01 - FAM02 - EM O03 - PAD04 - HEA05 - IPTOT0 6 - S C H07 - SOC08 - PER09 - SU B1 0 - E T T O T

N o fItems

25252525

10025252525

100

Reapplication

0.8010.7920.7020.8220.8760.8010.6130.7590.6980.837

AlphaCronbakh

0.84020.76060.69280.79040.91140.70830.76250.77550.73990.8785

( S P L I T )Spearman-Brown

0.83370.79840.74700.71520.74940.70590.70150.72240.73730.8247

7/28/2019 73342112

8/24

648 / E ducation V ol. 132 N o. 3

After translating the scale into Arabiclanguage the researcher app lied it on a ran-dom sample of (30) female students of thehumanities and home economics college atUmm Al Qura University in Makkah toensure the correctness and easiness of thestatements. Then the researcher calculat-ed the scale rehability by reapplication ofthe scale on a sample includes (104) femalestudents. The total correlation between thetwo applications in total internal-persona ldimension was (0.876). Reliability hasbeen calculated, using the Alpha Cronbakhcoefficient, and recorded (0.9114). Reap-plication of sub dimensions which include(FAM, EMO, PAD, HEA) was (0 .801,0.792, 0.702, 0.822) respectively. AlphaCronbakh coefficients for these sub dimen-s ions were (0 .8402 , 0 .7606 , 0 .6928 ,0.7904) respectively. Correlation betweenthe two applications in total externaldimension o r social impersonal dimensionequals (0.837). Reliability is calculatedusing alpha coefficient Cronbakh andrecorded (0.8785). Reapplication value forthe sub dimensions of the social/impersonalexternal dimension which include (SCH,SOC, PER and SUB) was (0.801, 0.613,0.759, 0.698) respectively. Alpha coeffi-c ien ts fo r these sub d imens ions onCronbakh equal (0.7083, 0.7625, 0.7755,0.7399) respectively. Total correlation forthe total grade of cognitive dissonancescale by using retesting method equals(0.890), while the alpha coefficient for thetotal grade of cognitive dissonance scaleequals (0.9423), indicating reliability ofthe overall scale and its sub dimensions,

Tables (3), (4) and (5) show the resultsof correlation coefficient - internal con-sistency for the statements of the cognitivedissonance scale and its sub dimensions,so also the inter correlation of the cogni-t ive d i ssonance sca le and i t s subdimensions for the pilot sample of thestudy:

7/28/2019 73342112

9/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /649

Table (3) the results of correlation coefficient-internal consistency between sub scales statements foreach subscale of the internal- personal dimension for the cognitive dissonance scale on the pilot

sample (N=104)Correlation between subscale statements scores witb overall score

Pearson Correlation

(*) Correlational values contained in the table above statistically significant at the level of (0.01), (*) Correlational

7/28/2019 73342112

10/24

650 / Education Vol. 132 N o. 3

As shown in the preceding table no . (3): statistical function at the level of (0.01)the values of all correlation coefficients and (0.05).for the cognitive dissonance scale have a

Table (4) the results of correlation coefficient-internal consistency between th e statements of thesubscales in overall scores for each subscale of the external social impersonal dimension of the

cognitive dissonance scale for the pilot sample (n = 104)

No . ofItems

1.2.3.4.5.6.7 .8.9.

10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .2 1.22.23 .

Correlation between subscale statements scores with overall scoresPearson Correlation

SCH0.360"0 . 281 '*0 . 3 9 8 "0 . 4 3 5 "0 . 3 5 2 "0 . 6 0 1 "0 . 5 1 7 "0.250*0.451*

0 . 4 2 3 "0 . 4 5 3 "0.343**0.510"0 .3 2 9 * '0.404"

0 . 2 7 8 "-0.201*0.440**0.404**

0.421**0.206*0.494**

0.466**

IPTOT

0.369**0.316**

0.272**0.409**0.360**0.513**0.324**

0.327**0.308**0.350**0.344**

0.273**0.321**0.335**0.251*

0.452**-0.210*0.459**0.482**0.478**0.496**0.417**0.389**

DISS-RO.*392*0.259**0.307**0.397**0.307**0.496**0.334**

0.294**

0.285**0.321**0.301**0.196*

0.278**0.363**0.217**0.484**

-0.257**0.320**0.447**0.464**

0.472**0.382**0.422**

SOC0.434**

0.496**0.438**0.453**0.481**0.407**0.302**0.294**

0.482**0.452**0.318*0.209*

0.307**0.391**0.608**0.548**0.325**0.343**0.258**0.553**0.378**0.339**0.392**

IPTOT0.300**0.321**0.346**0.295**0.412**0.456**0.207*

0.373**0.400**0.231*

0.308**0.468**0.443**0.313**0.558**0.551**0.206*

0.358**0.216*

0.437**0.334**

0.255**0.363**

DISS-R0.319**0.469**0.430**0.331**0.445**0.337**0.271**0.482**0.478**0.492**0.250*

0.448**0.416**0.268**0.624**

0.604**

0.377**O.*334*0.193*0.414**

0.395**0.295**0.366**

FER0.415**0.444**

0.485**0.607**0.312**0.413**0.366**0.397**0.240*0.314**

0.523**0.459**0.284**

0.554**

0.276**0.471**0.440**0.318**0.270**0.298**O.*3O8*0.*403*O.*526*

IPTOT0.227*

O.*415*O.*422*O.*473*0.234*

0.333**0.384**

0.300**0.216*

0.306**0.525**0.527**0.349**0.492**0.315**0.495**0.460**0.253**0.238*0.254**

0.314**

0.332**0.423**

DISS-R0.362**0.394**

0.432**0.427**0.265**0.288**0.433**0.465**0.225*

0.375**0.502**0.584**

0.435**0.450**0.288**0.428**0.441**0.243*

O.*387*0.204*

O.*353*0.262**0.347**

SUB0.523**0.503**0.346**0.370**0.472**0.321**0.350**0.352**0.401**0.394**

0.513**0.326**0.230*

0.258**0.334**

0.480**0.464**

0.323**0.279**0.307**0.345**0.367**0.307**

IPTOT0.492**0.423**0.408**0.339**0.402**0.421**0.440**0.275**0.340**0.239*0.470**0.327**0.200*0.201*0.247*0.364**

0.552**0.245*

0.377**0.205*0.229*

0.379**0.349**

DISS-R0.451**0.423**0.444**

0.424**

0.352**0.318**0.404**

0.210*0.294**

0.377**0.435**0.317**0.262**0.202*

0.385**0.319**0.639**0.194*

0.313**0.324**

0.383**0.348**0.347**

7/28/2019 73342112

11/24

Cognitive Dissonance and D ecision-Making... 7 651

As shown in the preceding table no. (4):the values of all correlation coefficientsfor the cognitive dissonance scale have astatistical function at the level of (0.01)and (0.01).Table no. (5) shows values of all cor-relation scale mental function at the levelof antagonism (0.01).Second: the Scale for Decision-makingstyles:This scale was prepared by Scott &Bruce (1995). They have conducted a gen-eral survey of the early studies of thedecision-making style, and drew on the

model of decision-making styles on theoccupational field prepared by Harrenwhich includes the dependen t style, ratio-nal style and intuitive style tobuild theirscale. They also added the avoidant stylefor decision-m aking. The exploratory fac-tor analysis, using the ana lysis of the fivebasic axes procedure, has shownfivefac-t o r s : r a t i o n a l , d e p e n d e n t , i n t u i t i v e ,avoidant, and a new factor nam ed the spon-taneous factor. Each item contains 25statements on which the subject answersaccording to a 5-point-scale.

Table 5 shows the results of the inter-correlation matrix* for the cognitive dissonance scale

dimensions for the pilot study (N=104)

Dimensions

ofDISS-Scale

02 - EMO03 - PAD04 - HEAOS-SCH06-SOC07-PER08 - SUB09-IPTOT10-ETTOTII-DISS-R

0 1 -

FAM

-

-

-

-

Correlation between subscale statements scores with overall scores

Pearson Correlation

0 2 -

EMO

0 . 5 7 6 "-

-

--

0 3 -

PAD

0 . 3 6 4 "0 . 6 9 9 "

-

-

0 4 -

HEA

0 . 3 0 8 "0.622**0 . 7 0 5 "

-

---

0 5 -

SCH

0 . 4 0 0 "0 . 6 0 7 "0 . 4 8 3 "0 . 4 9 6 "

--

-

06 -

SOC

0 . 4 8 1 "0 . 6 7 5 "0 . 5 5 9 "0 . 5 1 1 "0 . 4 7 9 "

--

07 -

PER

0 . 4 2 0 "0 . 6 0 3 "0 . 5 6 6 "0 . 6 1 4 "0 . 4 9 1 "0 . 5 6 1 "

--

0 8 -

SUB

0 . 2 6 8 "0 . 5 7 4 "0 . 5 5 9 "0 . 5 5 2 "0 . 5 0 6 "0 . 4 9 1 "0 . 6 5 9 "

-

0 9 -

IFTOT

0 . 6 9 4 "0 . 8 8 8 "0 . 8 4 5 "0 . 8 2 0 "0 . 6 1 2 "0 . 6 8 4 "0 . 6 8 0 "0 . 6 0 1 "

-

10 -

ETTOT

0 . 4 8 4 "0 . 7 5 6 "0 . 6 7 0 "0 . 6 7 7 "0 . 7 6 7 "0 . 7 6 8 "0 . 8 6 5 "0 . 8 2 2 "0 . 7 9 7 "

-

1 1 -

DISS-R

0 . 6 2 9 "0 . 8 7 2 "0 . 8 0 5 "0 . 7 9 5 "0 . 7 2 1 "0 . 7 6 3 "0 . 8 0 8 "0 . 7 4 2 "0 . 9 5 5 "0 . 9 4 0 "

7/28/2019 73342112

12/24

652 / E ducation V ol. 132 No. 3

The scale items have been translated byAl-Otaibi (2009). The original version ofthe scale, together with translation, werepresented before a group of psychologists,and then adjustments took place on theitems identified by the psychologists,where 3 items have been added to eachsubscale of the decision-making styles,except for intuitive style where 7 itemshave been added because there is no fullagreement on the exact meaning and dueto the multiplicity of its courses.

The scale reliability was calculated byusing the intemal consistency in the methodof alpha Cronbach. The reliability coeffi-c ien ts fo r each d imens ion of thedecision-making styles scale were as fol-lows: the rational style, 0,837, intuitivestyle 0.899, dependent style 0.849, avoidantstyle 0,836, and the spontaneous style0.821. It is noted that all reliability coeffi-cients were high. The application wasrebuilt in an interval of 15 days. The cor-relation coefficients between the twoapplications w ere as follows: intuitive style0.842, rational style 0.846, spontaneousstyle 0.772, dependent style 0.851, andavoidant style 0 .755. Validity of the scale

has been verified by using factor analysiswhere five factors have been identified toexplain 49.57% of the overall variance,followed by rotating the axis to achievesimple construction and thus the possibil-ity of psychological interpretation, andthen rotating by using the perpendicularvarimax. Significance over 40 has beenadopted. In this way, the overall items ofthe scale becam e 43 items.The formative validity was calculatedthrough calculation of the correlation coef-ficient between the decision-making stylesscale and the locus of control. The resultsindicated negative function correlation ofthe rational style with the locus of control.Both avoidant and dependant styles werepositively correlated w ith the locus of con-trol scale. This finding agrees with theresults obtained by the foreign studies onthe same scale.

For using this scale in this study, thescale validity and reliability were verifiedon a pilot sample includes (128) femalestudents from the education college at theUniversity of Umm Al Qura.

Table (6): Reliability values of different styles of decision-making scale calculated by reapplicationmethods and internal consistency (Alpha Cronbakh) and SPLIT for the pilot sample (N=1

Scale styles1. Intuitive2. Rational3 . Spontaneous4. Dependant

No. of Items1197g

Reapplication0.7130.7210.652

0.607

Alpha reliability Cronbach0.89170.87180.78290.8219

7/28/2019 73342112

13/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /653

The researcher calculated the pilot sam-ple re l iabi l i ty , us ing a lpha Cronbakhcoefficient on each dimension of the deci-sion making styles: the intuitive, rational,spontaneous, dependant and avoidant styles(0.8917, 0.8718, 0.7829, 0.8219, 0.8638)respectively. The scale reliability w as cal-culated using reapplication m ethod and thetotal correlation between the two applica-tions for each dimension of the decisionmaking styles' dimensions: the intuitive,ra t ional , spontaneous, dependant and

avoidant styles were (0.721,0.652,0.607,0.709,0.762) which indicates the reliabil-i ty of the overal l scale and i tssub-dim ensions, and its validity for use inthis study.* (**) Correlational values containedin the table above statistically significantat the level of (0.01), (*) Correlationa l val-ues contained in the table above statisticallysignificant at the level (0.05).As shown in the preceding table no. (7):the values of all correlation coefficients

Tahle No. (7): The results of correlation coefficient* between each su hscale statements with theoverall score for each sub scale in the decision-making styles of the pilot sample (n=128):

Correlation of the style statements scores with the overall score (Pearson C orrelation)

Item No .

81318212429342943

Style 2 gradeStyle 3 gradeStyle 4 grade

Style#1

0.666

0.8030.6720.7930.6750.5740.6580.8270.6730.7650.466

Overallscale

0.502

0.6840.4390.5760.5580.6110.5360.6190.6260.5700.385

-

2. Rational styleItemN o.

1712172328333842"

--

-

Style#2

0.752*0.5900.6950.771**0.6730.7690.764*0.6930.551*

--

0.518*

-

-

Overallscale

0.363

0.3590.2950.311*0.464**0.406*0.4160.5680.538

-

--

-

3 . Spontaneous styleItemNo.

6111622273237-

--

-

Sty#3

0.569

0.7060.6700.6950.6640.6460.621

-

0.436

-

Overallscale

0.351

0.3970.303*0.4460.3120.2780.603

--

--

4. Dependant styleItemN o .

39141925303540-

--

Style#4

0.692

0.348*0.701**0.686*0.726**0.750**0.810*0.657

---

HH0.352

.241**-

Overallscale

0.349

0.308**0.560**0.4200.4390.4470.5000.410

--

--

-

S. Avoidant styleItemN o.

410152026313641-

-

---

Style#5

0.599

0.7160.671*0.704**0.751*0.731**0.750**0.804**

--

0.271*0.210

.396**

.354**

Overallscale

0.448*

0.360*0.452**0.466*0.397*0 .435**0.363**0.439**

---

0.8010.5750.5860.643

7/28/2019 73342112

14/24

654 / Education Voi. 132 No. 3

for the cognitive dissonance scale functionat the level of (0,01) and (0,05).Results:For answering question (1), verifica-tion is mad e on the dissonance m agnitude,average, standard deviation and the degreeof statistical variance in the cognitive dis-sonance and its sub-dimensions have been

calculated from the study sample whichincluded (250) undergraduate female stu-den ts atUmm Al-Qura Univers i ty inMakkah using cognitive dissonance testand its sub-dimensions. The table belowshows the values of descriptive statisticsand the magn itude of cognitive dissonancedimensions by percentage; italso showsthe values of averages and their implica-tions:

The previous table illustrates the fol-lowing results: The most cognitive dissonance dimen-sion as of magnitude and widespreadin the study sample was the socialdimension (extemal or impersonal) witha mean of (166.94) i.e. 41.7% of theactual dissonance m agnitude. Followed by internal-personal disso-

nance in a mean of (156.3160) with arate of (39.01). The mean of the total magnitude of theoverall dissonance of the total samplewas (322.2600) and the overall cogni-tive achieved rate was (40.3) of the totalsample size, which suggests an overallcognitive dissonance below average.For answering question (2), correlationcoefficient was calculated using Pearsonmethod between the sample scores on the

Table (8): Values of averages and their standard deviations for the scores obtained by cognitive

dissonance dimensions of the overall study sample of the female students (n=250):

Dimensions ofDISS-Scale

0 1 - F A M02 - EMO0 3 - PAD04 - HEA05 - IPTOT06 - SCH07 - SOC08 - PER09 - SUB10- ETTOT

OverallPresumptive Score

10010010010040 010010010010040 0800

MeanAverage

22.384037.792046.256049.8400156.316035.008042.400046.768042.7680166.9440322.2600

StandardDeviation

18.2867816.7338214.4810718.3182054.3296514.3856814.0681116.6981913.8871747.5876496.98143

Variance

334.406280.021209.701335.5572951.711206.948197.912278.829192.854

2264.5839405.398

Minimumscore0.004.008.008.00

32.008.0016.004.008.00

60.00100.00

Maximumscore84.0080.0076.0092.00296.0084.0072.0096.0084.00

328.00608.00

% ofthe meanacbieved

22.437.846.349.839.135.042.4 46.742.841.74.03

7/28/2019 73342112

15/24

Cognitive Dissonance and De cision-Making... 7 655Table (9) shows the results of the correlative relation values* between the scores obtained by the

cognitive dissonance dimensions and the cognitive dissonance styles of the overall study sample ofthe female students at Umm Al Qura University in Makkah (n=250):

The correlation relationship between the scores obtained by the dimensions ofcognitive dissonance scale and the decision-m aking styles (Pearson Correlation)

Dimensions ofDISS-Scale

01 - FAM02 - EMO03 - PAD04 - HEA05 - IPTOT06 - SCH07 - SOC08 - PER09 - SUB1 0 - E T T O T1 1 - D I S S - R

Decision making stylesIntuitive

0.0390.1150.152

0 .231 '*0.167"0.041

0.150*0.223**0.127*

0.172**0.178**

Rational-0.053

-0.231**-O.074-0.068

-0.132*-0.218**-0.145*-0.053-0.059

-0.145*-0.145*

Spontaneous0.212**0.309**0.173**0.297**0 J 1 3 * *0.236**D.257**0.296**0.235**0 J 2 0 * *0.332**

Dependant-0.0520.1131.108

0.140*0.0920.0140.072

0.172**0.238**0.155*0.128*

Avoidant0.159*

0.395**0J59**0J09**0J75**0.209**0.315**0.308**0.417**0J86**0.400**

() The correlation values stated in the above table are of statistical function of (0.01), () the correlation valuesstated in the above table are of statistical function of (0.05).

cognitive dissonance scale and the deci-sion-making styles scale. The followingtable shows the correlation coefficient val-ues and significance.Reading through the previous tahlereveals the foliowing:- There is a positive statistical functionrelationship between the internal per-sona l d imens ion of the cogn i t i vedissonance scale and the sub-scores ofthe following decision-making styles:intuitive style, spontaneous style andthe avoidan t style at the level of (0.01).

relation function, i.e. the higher the cog-n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e in the i n t e rna lpersonal dimension, the higher thescores of dimensions of the decision-making styles scale (intuitive style,spontaneous style and the avoidantstyle).A negative statistically function rela-t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the c o g n i t i v edissonance personal-internal dimensionand the rational style at a level of (0.05).This mean s the existence of an inverse

7/28/2019 73342112

16/24

656 / Ed ucation V ol. 132 N o. 3

nal personal dimension, the lower thescores of the rational style and viceversa. The cognitive dissonance E MOnegatively correlated with the rationalstyle at the level of (0.01).The results also showed a lack of cor-relative function relationship betweenthe cognitive dissonance personal-inter-nal dimension and the dependent style.The results also showed a positive sta-tistically function relationship betweenthe cognitive dissonance impersonal-external dimension and the followingdimensions of decision-making styles:intuitive style, spontaneous style, depen-dant style, and avoidant style, whichare statistically function values at thelevels of (0.01). This means that therewas a direct correlation re lation, i.e. thehigher the cognitive dissonance in theextemal social dimension, the higherthe scores of dimensions of the deci-sion-making styles scale (intuitive style,spontaneous style, dependant style) ata level of (0.05).A negative statistically function rela-t i onsh ip be tween the cogn i t i vedissonance external-social dimensionand the rational style at the level of(0.05). This means the existence of aninverse co rrelation relationship, i.e. thehigher the cognitive dissonance withthe extemal social dimension, the lowerthe scores of the rational style and viceversa.The results also showed the correlationof the overall score of the cognitive dis-sonance with the following decision

avoidant style), at the level of (0.01)and (0.05). This means there was adirect correlation relationship i.e. thehigher the overall score of the cogni-tive dissonance, the higher the scores ofthe dimensions of the decision-makingdimensions. There is a negative statistical functionrelationship between the overall score

of the cognitive dissonance and therational style, at the level of (0.05). Thismeans the existence of an inverse cor-relation relationship, although weak,i.e. the higher the overall score of thecognitive dissonance, the lower thescores of the rational style and viceversa.For answering question (3), t-test was

used to find the differences between themeans of the high and low cognitive dis-sonance in thefivedecision m aking styles.Results are shown on the following table:

7/28/2019 73342112

17/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /657Table No. (10) shows the results of the independent samples 't' test for differences among female

students with high and low cognitive dissonance in average scale of the decision-making styles in thefemale students sample at Umm Al Qura University in Makkah (n=250)

Decfsion-makiog styles

1. Intuitive

2. Radonal

4. Dependant

Group

DISS bighsDISS lowsDISS highsDISS lows

| B I S S ^ I i s |

DISS highsDISS lows

IDlSSimaiSI M B

N

4021040

210

mm40210

4 0 MIMBB

Mean

28.475026.447623.425024.6762

21.275019.8381

standardDeviation

7.896737.391297.178635.89785

5.007625.98583

^ O O l i ^5f45i l65

Levene's Test forVariance consistentvalue

0.007

3.467

6.777

1.542

8.403

Signifiance0.934No . F0.064No . F

0.01

0.216No . F

0.01

tTest

1.573

-1.186

H1.426

H^ ^

significance(2-tani)

0.117No . F0.237No . F

.155No . F

MeanDIfTerence

2.0274

-1.2512B1.4369

AU values of t test stated in this table were iti free degree of (248)

Reading througii the previous tablereveis tlie foiiowing: There are statistical function differencesbetween those of high and low cogni-tive dissonance in the overall score ofthe (spontanious style) dimension forthose of high cognitive dissonance; There are statistical function differencesbetween those of high and low cogni-tive dissonance in the overall score ofthe (avoidant style) dimension for thoseof high cognitive dissonance. Differ-ences between aggregates indicate thatthe high cognitive dissonance groupmostly used the spontaneous style,while the low cognitive dissonancegroup used the avoidant style.

statistical function between the cogni-tive dissonance and intuitive style,rational style and dependant style.For answering question (4), averagemeans were calculated to disclose the deci-sion-making styles the most comm on usedamong female students at Umm Al QuraUniversity?"

7/28/2019 73342112

18/24

658 / E ducation V ol. 132 No. 3

Table N o. (11): indicates classification of decision-making styles as per the percentage of meansachieved by study sample of the female students at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah (n=263)

Decision makingstyles

2. Rational4. Dependant

1. Intuitive5. Avoidant

3. Spontaneous

No. ofItems

981187

Overallsuppositive

score3632443228

Mean

24.319420.1103

26.711014.273812.0532

Percentage ofThe meanachieved*

67.5562.85

60.7144.6143.05

StandardDeviation

6.22148

6.00439

7.63580

5.88512

4.84857

Variance

38.70736.053

58.30534.63523.509

Minimumscore

5.003.00

3.001.000.00

Maximumscore

36.0032.00

44.0029.0028.00

StyleClassificat

Ion

2

345

* The mean ration of the style = the achieved mean of the style/the overall assumption score of the style x 100.The previous table shows the possibil-ity of classifying the dimensions of theaggressive behavior at the overall sample,and reflects the following results:The m ost apparent and prevalence deci-sion-making style is the rational dimension,followed by the dependent dimension, intu-itive dimension, avoidant dimension andfinally the spontaneous dimension.

Discussion:The decision-making contributes in dis-sonance occurrence, once dissonanceoccurs after decision-making, there appearsthe pressure aiming to reduce the disso-nance occurred. The decision maker actscautiously and actively and uses high-qua l-ity components when making a decision.He may use certain styles and methods toprove he is capable for coping. This studyhas emerged a set of statistical results. Thisstudy found that the most cognitive disso-nance style in terms of size and sp readingin the study sample is the social dimen-

dissonance that accompanies a specificcognition and the importance of such thedissonant cognition. The dissonance m ag-nitude is also considered a function of theratio of the dissonant cognitions to the con-sonant cogni t ions , as each cogni t iveelement is weighted according to its impor-tance to the person (Brehm & Cohen,1962). Increase of the cognitive dissonancemagnitude in the external dimension onthe intem al dissonance refers to the exter-nal community pressures on the individualwhere the social life and the individualvision and belief before the extemal com-munity beliefs and vision resulting in anextreme pressure urging occurren ce of thecognitive dissonance where the individualseeks to reduce it as soon as possiblebecause it affects his personal life and hisrelationship to others. The overall disso-nance magnitude in the overall samplerecorded (40.3) of the total sample size,which suggests an overall cognitive dis-sonance below the average. The maturity

7/28/2019 73342112

19/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Dedsion-i\/lai

7/28/2019 73342112

20/24

660 / Education V ol. 132 N o. 3

decision-making process, however, (asScott & Bruce, 1995) it depends on theattention to details mo re than informationand relying on emotions and personal con-cems. In addition, the decision makers inthis style tend to be risk seekers, withintense interest, and believe in luck (M ar-tin et al., 2005). People often rely onintuition in decision-mak ing because theyare not completely sure of the altemative(Certo & Certo, 2005). This style alsolinked to the spontaneous style, defined by& Scott Bmc e (19 95), as the direct desireto address the decision as soon as possible,thereby resulting in a lot of erroneous orconflicting decisions that serve to increasetension in the individual as well as manyinformation that were not handled p roper-ly or not dealt with as a result of a hastyd e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . S uc h i n f o r m a t i o nincrease cognitive dissonance in case ofdecision-making. The cognitive disso-nance, also, associated with the extemalsocial d imension ( impersonal) of thedependant style, which is based on theadvice and tips for others (Loo, 2000). Inparticular, extemal and social dissonancecontains two important dimension associ-ated with and affect this style. Thesedimensions are SUB dimension and PERdimension, where the individual here isaffected by others in his decision-m akingunder his dependency to others to try tosatisfy them. It also associated with theavoidant style which means avoiding deci-s ion-making whenever poss ib le . Theperson having this style w ill try his best toavoid decision making ( Hablemitoglu &

occurrence through avoiding those situa-tions leading to dissonance, and developsome mechanisms to reduce dissonance,and their inability to take a decision resu ltfrom their fear of dissonance occurrence.Some individuals seek to avoid d issonancefollowing the adoption of the decision bytaking decisions without their knowledgethat they have taken them. This may som e-times occurs by taking a negative role withregard to the environment, so that deci-s ions a re taken in cases where theindividual finds himself obliged to take.In this case the decision was taken but isnot responsible for it. Dissonance occursafter decision-making could be avoided,somewhat, by abrogating the decision psy-chologically once taken (Festinger, 1957;269-271). This was confirmed by bothRowe & Boulgarides, where they statedthat the decision style helps to predict theoutcome of the decision (Rowe & Boul-garides, 1992). When applying the theoryof cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957)in the field of decision-m aking , it affirmedthat individuals promote their views ondecisions after taking them. We find thatpeople are trying to reduce their mentalinconsistency because it happened as anunpleasant condition. This was confirmedby the study of Rabbie et.al. (1959) whichstated that there is relationship betweencognitive dissonance and decision m akingwhere results stated that the decision totake a position in conflict is sufficient tocause the dissonance and thus change theattitude towards the situation.

The results also showed an inverse rela-

7/28/2019 73342112

21/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /661style) which emphasizes the negativity ofcognitive dissonance variable in the humanbrain. This result can be interpreted in thelight of the idea of cognitive dissonanceas a motive psychological tension whenthe individual have cognitions of dissonan trelations (Brehm & Cohen, 1962). This isthe opposite of rational style, where deci-sions are logically related to the goal andresult. Rationality requires deliberationand weight altematives for choosing themost effective means of achieving theobjective(s) (Gross et al., 1980).

The results also showed statistical func-tion relationship between the subjects ofhigh cognitive dissonance and those of lowcognitive dissonance in the score of spon-taneous style dimension for the subjectsof high cognitive dissonance. A lso showedstatistical function relafionship betweenthe subjects of high cognitive dissonanceand those of low cognitive dissonance inthe scores of avoidant style dimension forthe subjects of high cognifive dissonancewhich confirms that cognitive dissonanceis associated with negative styles of deci-sion-making. This emphasizes that thesubjects of high cognitive dissonance usemore high negative styles of decision-mak-ing. This confirms the opinion about theterm of decision style which means theway in which the person uses informationto framing the decision. The decision styleis still a cognitive process includes onepersonality in relation to his needs, valuesand self-concept (Rowe & Mason, 1987).Perhaps these differences in averages sup-port the opinion of Soutar & Sweeney

found in a higher or lower level in the var-ious stages of decision-making. In extremecases, where individual in maximum sus-tainability of cognitive dissonance, i.e. thedissonance is painful for them, the indi-vidual reacts to avoid the dissonance byavoiding the decision-making or evenbecome unable to make decisions. Untilreaching this extreme limit, the matterbecomes satisfactory affair, and he mayactually prefer to remain in the paradoxand shows lack of decision-making capac-ity (Festinger, 1957).

This study also found that the morecommon decision-making style in the studysample was the rational dimension, fol-lowed by the dependent dimension, andintuitive dimension, and dimension, andthe avoidant dimension, and finally thespontaneous dimension. This result;, pre-sented in the widespread use of the rationalstyle, can be explained in the light of theresults of some studies that addressed manyvariables affecting some decision styles(e.g. the study of Tayeb, 1988), whichfocused on the cultural background whichaffect an individual's decision style. Anoth-er study (AH, 1989) argued that the decisionmaking differs according to the country,organizational sector, age, region wherethe individual spent his childhood, socialmind and education. Yousef was conduct-ed a study (1998) in which he reported thatthe decision style may be affected by theorganizational culture, the level of use oftechnology, the level of education of thedecision maker, and his employment sta-tus (Jacoby, 1996).

7/28/2019 73342112

22/24

662 7 Education Vol. 132 N o. 3

ReferencesAl Otaibi, Al Bandari (2009). The relationshipbetween the Decision-making Styles, the Big-Five Factors and the Rational Thinking, anessay for a master degree on female studentsat King Saud University, Faculty of Education,Department of Psychology, Riyadh, KSA.Brehm , J. W., & Cohen, A. R.( 1962); Explorationsin cognitive dissonance. New Y ork: Wiley.Cassel, R. N. Chow,P. & Reiger, R, C.(2001) : The

Cognitive Dissonance Test.(DISS).C/M/JVista, California, Project InnovationCerto, S. C , & Certo, S.T. ( 2005). Modern man-agement (10th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Hall.David, F. R. (2009). Strategic management: con-cept and cases (12th ed). United States ofAmerica: Pearson Education, IncFestinger, L., 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Disso-nance, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Friedman, I.A. (1996). Deliberation and resolu-tion in decision making processes: Aself-report scale for adolescents. Educationaland Psychology Measurement m Vol. 56, No.5, PP881-890 , Stage.Gambetti, E., Fabbri, M., Besi,L., and Tonetti,L.(2008). A contribution to the Italian valida-tion of the general decision making styleinventory. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, Vol.44,No.4,PP842-852.Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication

theory (6th ed ). New York: McGraw-HillGross, I.H., E.W. Crandall and M.M. Knoll. (1980)Management or Modern Families. EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, IncHunt, R.G., Kizystofiak, F.J., Meindl, J.R., andYousry, A.M.(1989). Cognitive style and deci-sion making .In Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Process, Vol.44,PP.436-453.Jacoby, J. M ., ( 2007 ). Relationship between Prin-cipals' Decision Making Styles and

Technology Acceptance & Use, University ofPittsburgh - Electronic Thesis DissertationArchive and, http:77etd.library.pitt.edu7ETD7

Judge, T.A., & Robbins, S.P. (2006). Organiza-tional Behavior (12th ed.). Canada: PrenticeHallLeonard, N. H., School, R. W., & Kowalski, K. B.(1999). Information processing style and deci-sion making. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 20, 407-420Leonard, N.H., Pscholl, R.W., and Kowalski,K.B.(1999). Information processing style anddecision making . Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol.20, No.3, PP407-420..Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theoriesof human communication (8th ed.). Belmont,CA: Thomson7Wadsworth.Loo, R ( 2000 ).A Psychometric evaluation of thegeneral decision- making style inventory, EL-sonality and Individual Differences. Volume29 , Issue 5, 1 November, Pages 895-905.Martin, L. B., Bandali, F, & Lamoureux, T.(2005). Survey of L iterature Pertaining toDecision Making Styles and Individual Fac-

tors. Toronto: DRDC.Murray, Michael (1986) Decisions a comparativecritique. Pitman Publishing INC.Nutt, P. C. (1990). Strategic decision made by topexecutive and middle managers with data andprocess dominant styles. Journal of Manage-ment Studies,21(2), 172- 194.Rabbie, J. M., Brrhm, J. W. & Cohen, A. R .(1959):Verbalization & reactions to cognitive disso-nance . Journal of Personality, Vol 27, no 3,

407-417, September.Rice, C. (1997). Understanding customers (2nded.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1983). Deci-sion Styles- A perspective . Leadership andOrganization Development Journal,\2(4), 3-9.Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1992). Man-agerial Decision Making: A Guide toSuccessful Business Decisions. New York:

McMillan.Rowe, A. J., & Mason, R. O. (1987). Managing

7/28/2019 73342112

23/24

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /663Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995 ). Decision-m ak-ing style: the development and assessment ofa new measure. Educational and Psychologi-cal Measurement, 55(5), 818-831.Sengul Hablemitoglu & Filiz Yildirim.(2008). TheRelationship between Perception of Risk andDecision Making Styles of Turkish UniversityStudents: A Descriptive Study of IndividualDifferences. World Applied Sciences Journal4 (2): 214-224.Slovic, p. (1990). Chaice. In D ,Osheron , & E .,

Smith ( Eds) An Invitation to cognitive Sci-ence. Thinking, VOL. 3 london : The MT PressSoutar, G. N & Sweeney, J. C.(2003). Are ThereCognitive Dissonance Segments? AustralianJournal of Management, Vol. 28, No.3 .Thunholm,R.(2004). Decision making style:Habit,style or both? Personality and Individual Dif-ference , Vol.36,No.4,PP.931-944.Treffinger, D.J., Selby, E.C., and Isaksen,S.G.(2008). Understanding individual prob-

lem- solving styles: A key to learning andapplying creative problem solving. Learningand Individual Diffrences . Vol. 18, No. 4, P P'390-401

7/28/2019 73342112

24/24

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.