IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v9y2019i1p2158244019837439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Head, Heart, and Gut in Decision Making: Development of a Multiple Brain Preference Questionnaire

Author

Listed:
  • Grant Soosalu
  • Suzanne Henwood
  • Arun Deo

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature that supports the idea that decision making involves not only cognition, but also emotion and intuition. However, following extant “dual-process†decision theories, the emotional and intuitive aspects of decision making have predominantly been considered as one “experiential†entity. The purpose of this article is to review the neurological evidence for a three-factor model of head, heart, and gut aspects of embodied cognition in decision making and to report on a study carried out to design and validate a psychometric instrument that measures decision-making preferences across three separable interoceptive components, representing the complex, functional, and adaptive neural networks (or “brains†) of head (analytical/cognitive), heart (emotional/affective), and gut (intuition). Development and validation of the Multiple Brain Preference Questionnaire (MBPQ) instrument was carried out in three phases. Translational validity was assessed using content and face validity. Construct validity was undertaken via exploratory factor analysis of the results from the use of the instrument with 301 subjects from a global sampling, and reliability tests were performed using internal consistency and test–retest analysis. Results confirmed extraction of three factors (head, heart, and gut) was appropriate and reliability analysis showed the MBPQ to be both valid and reliable. Applications of the tool to coaching and leadership are suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Grant Soosalu & Suzanne Henwood & Arun Deo, 2019. "Head, Heart, and Gut in Decision Making: Development of a Multiple Brain Preference Questionnaire," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:2158244019837439
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244019837439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244019837439
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244019837439?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Betsch, Cornelia, 2004. "Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID) : Inventar zur Erfassung von affekt- und kognitionsbasiertem Entscheiden," Papers 04-19, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    2. Adam, Hajo & Obodaru, Otilia & Galinsky, Adam D., 2015. "Who you are is where you are: Antecedents and consequences of locating the self in the brain or the heart," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 74-83.
    3. Olga Markic, 2009. "Rationality and Emotions in Decision Making," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 7(2), pages 54-64.
    4. George, Jennifer M. & Dane, Erik, 2016. "Affect, emotion, and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 47-55.
    5. Bechara, Antoine & Damasio, Antonio R., 2005. "The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 336-372, August.
    6. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    7. Robin Hogarth, 2002. "Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantadges and disadvantadges of analytic and intuitive thought," Economics Working Papers 654, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    8. Kimberly D. Elsbach & Pamela S. Barr, 1999. "The Effects of Mood on Individuals' Use of Structured Decision Protocols," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 181-198, April.
    9. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    10. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    11. Sinclair, Marta & Ashkanasy, Neal M. & Chattopadhyay, Prithviraj, 2010. "Affective antecedents of intuitive decision making," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 382-398, July.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:1-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Nathan F Lepora & Giovanni Pezzulo, 2015. "Embodied Choice: How Action Influences Perceptual Decision Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-22, April.
    14. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    15. Shapiro, Stewart & Spence, Mark T., 1997. "Managerial intuition: A conceptual and operational framework," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 63-68.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lester, Bijou Yang, 2011. "An exploratory analysis of composite choices: Weighing rationality versus irrationality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 949-958.
    2. Lillemo, Shuling Chen, 2014. "Measuring the effect of procrastination and environmental awareness on households' energy-saving behaviours: An empirical approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 249-256.
    3. Adam, Marc T.P. & Astor, Philipp J. & Krämer, Jan, 2016. "Affective Images, Emotion Regulation and Bidding Behavior: An Experiment on the Influence of Competition and Community Emotions in Internet Auctions," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 56-69.
    4. Kyra L Wiggin & Martin Reimann & Shailendra P Jain & Darren W Dahl & Margaret C Campbell & Paul M Herr, 2019. "Curiosity Tempts Indulgence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 45(6), pages 1194-1212.
    5. Martin Binder & Leonhard K. Lades, 2015. "Autonomy-Enhancing Paternalism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 3-27, February.
    6. Drew Fudenberg, 2006. "Advancing Beyond Advances in Behavioral Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 694-711, September.
    7. D.Dragone, 2005. "Incoerenza Dinamica ed Autocontrollo: Proposta per un'Analisi Interdisciplinare," Working Papers 549, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    8. Cowan, Kirsten, 2020. "Anything you can imagine is possible: How imagining can overcome visceral drive states elicited in promotional advertising," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 529-538.
    9. Dewitte, Siegfried, 2013. "From willpower breakdown to the breakdown of the willpower model – The symmetry of self-control and impulsive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 16-25.
    10. David K. Levine & Drew Fudenberg, 2006. "A Dual-Self Model of Impulse Control," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1449-1476, December.
    11. Don A. Moore & Lloyd Tanlu & Max H. Bazerman, 2010. "Conflict of interest and the intrusion of bias," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(1), pages 37-53, February.
    12. Cappelletti, Dominique & Güth, Werner & Ploner, Matteo, 2011. "Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 940-950.
    13. Pham, Michel Tuan & Faraji-Rad, Ali & Toubia, Olivier & Lee, Leonard, 2015. "Affect as an ordinal system of utility assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 81-94.
    14. Sands, Sean & Maggioni, Isabella & Ferraro, Carla & Jebarajakirthy, Charles & Dharmesti, Maria, 2019. "The vice and virtue of on-the-go consumption: An exploratory segmentation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 399-408.
    15. Ardalan, Kavous, 2018. "Neurofinance versus the efficient markets hypothesis," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 170-176.
    16. Haiyang Yang & Ziv Carmon & Barbara Kahn & Anup Malani & Janet Schwartz & Kevin Volpp & Brian Wansink, 2012. "The Hot–Cold Decision Triangle: A framework for healthier choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 457-472, June.
    17. Benhabib, Jess & Bisin, Alberto, 2005. "Modeling internal commitment mechanisms and self-control: A neuroeconomics approach to consumption-saving decisions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 460-492, August.
    18. Lone Seboni & Joseph Ssegawa, 2022. "Does a Project Manager Assignment Process Affect Project Management Performance Indicators? An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Frans van Winden & Mirre Stallen & K. Richard Ridderinkhof, 2008. "On the Nature, Modeling, and Neural Bases of Social Ties," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-063/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2008. "The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 5-17, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:2158244019837439. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.