IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v8y2018i1p2158244018767219.html

Psychometric Properties of Rational-Experiential Inventory for Adolescents

Author

Listed:
  • Maysam Shirzadifard
  • Ehsan Shahghasemi
  • Elaheh Hejazi
  • Zahra Naghsh
  • Ghafar Ranjbar

Abstract

This study investigates the psychometric properties of a well-set form of the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) for adolescents (REI-A20). Participants were 746 Iranian high school students (412 males, 334 females), selected through multistage sampling method. After subjecting our data to principal components analysis (PCA) and parallel analysis (PA), we found a two-factor structure corresponding to rational and experiential processing. Both rational and experiential scales of the REI-A20 exhibited good internal consistency. These two factors accounted for 37% of the variance. The fit indices of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the cross-validity of the inventory. Rationality, but not experientiality, was significantly related to better school performance, elaboration, organization, and metacognitive strategies. Males scored significantly higher on rational scale, but there was no difference between females and males in scores on experiential scale. This new inventory has reliable scores, and allows for valid inferences in assessing individual differences in adolescents’ preference for the rational and experiential information-processing styles.

Suggested Citation

  • Maysam Shirzadifard & Ehsan Shahghasemi & Elaheh Hejazi & Zahra Naghsh & Ghafar Ranjbar, 2018. "Psychometric Properties of Rational-Experiential Inventory for Adolescents," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(1), pages 21582440187, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:8:y:2018:i:1:p:2158244018767219
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244018767219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244018767219
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244018767219?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. Bartels, Daniel M., 2006. "Proportion dominance: The generality and variability of favoring relative savings over absolute savings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 76-95, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ishii, Takaharu, 2023. "Reference-dependent preferences and probability judgments," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    2. Maysam Shirzadifard & Ehsan Shahghasemi & Elaheh Hejazi & Shima Aminipour, 2020. "Life Management Strategies as Mediators Between Information Processing Style and Subjective Well-Being," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    3. Tomasz Wachowicz & Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko, 2023. "Identifying decision-making style: Do REI-20 and GDMS measure the same?," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 50(4), pages 415-437, December.

    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. Rudy Douven & Ron van der Heijden & Thomas McGuire & Erik Schut, 2017. "Premium levels and demand response in health insurance: relative thinking and zero-price effects," CPB Discussion Paper 366, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    2. Douven, Rudy & van der Heijden, Ron & McGuire, Thomas & Schut, Frederik, 2020. "Premium levels and demand response in health insurance: relative thinking and zero-price effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 903-923.
    3. Choi, Pilsik & Coulter, Keith S., 2012. "It's Not All Relative: The Effects of Mental and Physical Positioning of Comparative Prices on Absolute versus Relative Discount Assessment," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(4), pages 512-527.
    4. Villanova, Daniel & Pandelaere, Mario, 2024. "A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Arvid Erlandsson, 2021. "Seven (weak and strong) helping effects systematically tested in separate evaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(5), pages 1113-1154, September.
    6. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims in a refugee crisis context," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    7. Joowon Klusowski & Joshua Lewis, 2025. "Typical Ranges as Scale-Specific Benchmarks: When and Why Percentages Amplify Relative Magnitudes and Their Differences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(11), pages 9423-9436, November.
    8. Erlandsson, Arvid & Björklund, Fredrik & Bäckström, Martin, 2015. "Emotional reactions, perceived impact and perceived responsibility mediate the identifiable victim effect, proportion dominance effect and in-group effect respectively," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-14.
    9. Todd McElroy & Keith Dowd, 2007. "Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 48-53, February.
    10. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    11. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    12. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    13. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    14. Rudy Douven & Ron van der Heijden & Thomas McGuire & Frederik T. Schut, 2017. "Premium Levels and Demand Response in Health Insurance: Relative Thinking and Zero-Price Effects," NBER Working Papers 23846, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya S., 2010. "A cross-cultural study of reference point adaptation: Evidence from China, Korea, and the US," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 99-111, July.
    16. Stephan Dickert & Janet Kleber & Daniel Västfjäll & Paul Slovic, 2016. "Mental Imagery, Impact, and Affect: A Mediation Model for Charitable Giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, February.
    17. Keith S. Coulter, 2013. "Commentary on: “an appraisal of behavioral price research (Part I)”," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(3), pages 135-140, September.
    18. Johanna Wiss & Lars-Ake Levin & David Andersson & Gustav Tinghög, 2017. "Prioritizing Rare Diseases: Psychological Effects Influencing Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(5), pages 567-576, July.
    19. Rudy Douven & Ron van der Heijden & Thomas McGuire & Erik Schut, 2017. "Premium levels and demand response in health insurance: relative thinking and zero-price effects," CPB Discussion Paper 366.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Hagit Sabato & Tehila Kogut, 2021. "Happy to help—if it’s not too sad: The effect of mood on helping identifiable and unidentifiable victims," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:8:y:2018:i:1:p:2158244018767219. 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.