Scholarly article on topic 'Decision-making and Cognitive Structuring of Students at University'

Decision-making and Cognitive Structuring of Students at University Academic research paper on "Psychology"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{decision-making / "cognitive structuring" / "ability to achieve cognitive structure" / "need for cognitive structure" / self-esteem / "shifting responsibility" / vigilance / hypervigilance / procrastination}

Abstract of research paper on Psychology, author of scientific article — Michal Čerešník

Abstract In our paper, we focus on the relation of decision-making and cognitive structuring of students at university. In the introduction, we concern on various theories of decision-making, especially we concern on the theory of rational decision-making and the psychological theory of decision-making. In the centre of our attention is the theory of Janis and Mann, which is the resource of the research. Very important part of our paper is a section about cognitive structuring which consists of two elementary factors – the need for structure and the ability to achieve cognitive structure. Both processes, decision-making and cognitive structuring are based on information processing. We want to explore relations among the cognitive structuring components and the components of decision-making – self-esteem of decision maker, vigilance, shifting responsibility, procrastination, hypervigilance. The research question was if the ability to work with information is a condition of effective decision-making. In the end of the paper, we present conclusions connected with educational environment.

Academic research paper on topic "Decision-making and Cognitive Structuring of Students at University"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SciVerse ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 55 (2012) 196 - 205

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NEW HORIZONS IN EDUCATION

INTE2012

Decision-making and cognitive structuring of students at

university

Michal Ceresnik

Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of Education, Department of Pedagogy and School Psychology,

Drazovska 4, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia

Abstract

In our paper, we focus on the relation of decision-making and cognitive structuring of students at university. In the introduction, we concern on various theories of decision-making, especially we concern on the theory of rational decision-making and the psychological theory of decision-making. In the centre of our attention is the theory of Janis and Mann, which is the resource of the research. Very important part of our paper is a section about cognitive structuring which consists of two elementary factors - the need for structure and the ability to achieve cognitive structure. Both processes, decision-making and cognitive structuring are based on information processing. We want to explore relations among the cognitive structuring components and the components of decision-making - self-esteem of decision maker, vigilance, shifting responsibility, procrastination, hypervigilance. The research question was if the ability to work with information is a condition of effective decision-making. In the end of the paper, we present conclusions connected with educational environment.

©2012PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Selectionand/orpeer-reviewunderresponsibilityofTheAssociationofScience, EducationandTechnology

Keywords: decision-making; cognitive structuring; ability to achieve cognitive structure; need for cognitive structure; self-esteem; shifting responsibility; vigilance; hypervigilance; procrastination

1. Theories of decision-making

Decision-making process is a term which means a process of choosing one alternative out of more. Montgomery (1983 in Fabry et al., 1992) describes this term as a process of looking for some dominant structure, while one alternative is better than the other ones, at least in one attribute; moreover all its disadvantages are eliminated in different ways. From behavioristic point of view, decision-making

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of The Association of Science, Education and Technology doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.494

process is defined as a process which happens in situations where it is possible to choose out of different stimuli and responses. (Edwards, Tversky in Fabry et al., 1992).

Decision-making process is a process which has its part in an everyday life and in a psychological research too. This process relates to the issue of cognitive styles, categorization (Sarmany-Schuller, 1998) and risk (Sarmany-Schuller, 1979, Sarmany-Schuller, Pavlickova, 2005, Fandelova, 1996), coping strategies in Slovakia (Ruisel, Ruiselova, Prokopcakova, 1994). Big attention has been devoted to the procrastination in recent decades (Sarmany-Schuller, 2000; 1999), then to decision-making styles (Sarmany-Schuller, Pilarik, 2005; Pilarik, 2006), faulty decision making (Sarmany-Schuller, Skovayova, 1992) and personality dimensions (Sarmany -Schuller, 2000, Fickova, 1994) associated with decisionmaking process. Former research data are focused on the operators' decision-making and moral assumptions of optimal decision (Daniel, 1971; Daniel, Droppova, 1979; Zelman, 1979).

There are two dominant fundamental lines in the theory of decision-making - the theory of rational decision-making and the theory of psychological decision-making.

The theory of rational decision-making puts forward two basic questions: "How to decide in a rational way?" and "How to choose the optimal alternative?". This theory is based on studies of Lange and Sadowski. It is based on fundamental arguments that are firmly anchored in rational postulates. They are based on the definition of a rational man who is able to analyze a situation in which he is, in accordance with the principles of logic. He takes into account all possible alternatives during decision-making process and can choose the best alternative. (according to Kozielecki, 1977; 1981)

The earliest models of how people decide are called a classical decision-making theory. A classical decision-making theory has advantages of an economic perspective in terms of creating and using of mathematical models for human behavior and is associated with terms an economic man and an economic woman. This model assumes a full awareness of possible alternatives and their consequences, sensitivity to slight differences between alternatives and rationality manifested of maximizing the value (according to Sternberg, 2002). We distinguish the following decision-making approaches within the classical decision-making models - approaches by Bayes, Fox, Newell and Simon (Fabry et al., 1992).

Solving of the problem of (un)bounded rationality of a decision maker is in psychology of decision-making dated back to the period of the fifties in the last century and is connected with the name Simon. Simon (1957) states that a person is not in a decision-making process necessarily an irrational one, but he/she reflects in the bounded rationality. Simon (1957) defined a decision-making process as satisfaction, in which we do not concern all alternatives through comparing it, because they maximize our profits and minimize losses. However, we consider the minimum possible number of alternatives in such a way to reach decision which we believe is satisfying for us. Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992 in Sarmany-Schuller, 2000) follow these ideas and add that current decision-making situations in various areas are characterized by the number of used criteria, type and use of search information, sources of information, using heuristics, as well as the number of alternatives generated by the heuristics.

Tversky (1972a, 1972b) developed Simon's idea of bounded rationality in the seventies of the twentieth century. He focused on situations in which a large number of alternatives are available for the decision maker and he is not able to consider them all. Tversky (1972a, 1972b) believes that the decision maker will use a method of elimination in this case. He focuses on one aspect occurring at different options and at the same time he creates the minimum criterion for it. He excludes all options which do not meet the criterion. He selects other aspect at the remaining options and he sets a minimum criterion to it and he will continue in elimination. This process finishes when there is only one alternative left.

The theory of rational decision-making is a normative theory, which takes into account rationality, which might be also called an instrumental theory. The principle of the instrumental rationality is the best achievement of the objectives and not the optimal goal itself. According to this theory the role of a decision maker is to choose methods to maximize the target regardless of the impact of its action on other individuals or institutions. Therefore Kozielecki (1977) suggests, along with the instrumental rationality,

to take into account an axiological rationality which function is a focus on constructiveness of set targets considering a social environment.

Psychological decision-making theory was developed due to economical and statistical studies. The representatives of this theory are trying to answer the question of a descriptive character: "How do people decide?" Therefore they divert from the normative framework of the theory of rational decision-making which aims at optimizing of the process and results of decision.

The subject of the psychological theory of decision-making is an activity of a decision maker in a decision-making process, but also the structure of roles and personality characteristics of people (eg.: characteristics of the memory or the ability to transform information) in the decision-making process. Tasks placed on a decision maker are diverse, but their common feature is a set of alternatives from which a person selects only one. Each alternative, or a variant of solutions, belongs to a set of possible outcomes, consequences in decision-making process (Kozielecki, 1977).

There are applied so mechanisms in a decision-making process, such as achieving pleasure and avoiding pain. With these theories operate also SEU theories (subjective expected utility) (eg.: Hurwicz, 1953 in Kfivohlavy, 1966, Savage, 1954 in Kozielecki, 1977, Edwards 1992, Sheffrin, 1983 in Sarmany-Schuller, 2000), on the base of which a decision maker tries to maximize a positive benefit (pleasure) and to minimize a negative benefit (pain). The SEU theories therefore work with the concept of a subjective utility. They characterize a decision-making process by a subjective probability. If we know these variables, we should know to predict the optimal decision according to the SEU theory. Therefore, the SEU theories ate based on assumption of and unbounded rationality, the same way as a traditional theory of decision-making. However, people in decision-making process do not always seem fully rational. Traditional examples of utility theories always involve a time factor in itself. Experiments of decision-making realised at children and adults show that subjective utility is lower if the consumption time comes later, or if more time passes till utility time. This phenomenon is known as „gratification delay", it means an ability to resist a momentary pressure and withstand as long as the conditions are more favourable for a decision maker. According to results of such experiments we can assume that there exists a certain hierarchy of values in every person. It means there are also certain scales of subjective utility, which individuals bring to their decisions (Sarmany-Schuller, 2000).

Almost each decision is connected with a risk. The best-known theories that highlight aspects of risk in decision-making theories are those ones by Busemeyer and Townsend, Feather, Janis and Mann.

Busemeyer and Townsend (1993) developed a decision field theory (DFT), which illustrates a decision-making in conditions of uncertainty. DFT incorporated four interlinked factors - probabilistic search, steps and range, approach avoidance balance and time constraints. Elaboration of these criteria represents a shift in the implication of contextual and individual characteristics within the decision-making process.

Feather (1985 in Sarmany-Schuller, 2000) emphasizes the need of the application of dynamic aspects in decision-making process. He developed a model of a dynamic decision-making process concerning on the temporal sequence of decisions which may change the specification of tasks in time. There is changed information that acquires a different quality than in the first step of decision. Finally, implications of decision-making change; they are aimed to future.

Janis and Mann (1977 in Sarmany-Schuller, 2000) focused on the role of conflict in decision-making process. The theory of conflict analyzes the coping patterns used by individuals if he/she faces difficult life or working decisions. The core of the theory is in stress that enters the decision conflict as a major determinant of failure while achieving high quality decisions. The conflict model identifies five main coping patterns within the inducing stress which eventuates from different decisions of a decision maker.

2. Cognitive structuring

Cognitive structuring defines Neuberg andNewson (1993 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997) as the creation and use of abstract mental representations, which are simplified by generalizations of previous experience.

The importance of cognitive structuring plays an important role in memory processes and the perception of people (Alba, Hasher, 1983; Allport, 1954; Anderson, 1983; Cantor, Mischel, 1979 in BarTal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak,1997), stereotypes (Kruglanski, Freund, 1983; Stephan, 1989; Taylor, 1981 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997), cognitive processes (Kruglanski, Ajzen, 1983 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997), stress and its coping (Epstein, Meier, 1989; Wheaton in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997), attitudes (Jamieson, Zanna, 1989; Schlegel, DiTecco, 1982 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997), but especially when experiencing uncertainty and its removal (Bar-Tal, 1993, 1994; Bunder, 1962; Mayseles, Kruglanski, 1987 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997).

Cognitive structuring assists a person effectively acquire a sense of security. If we define the uncertainty (the removal of which is the fundamental of cognitive structuring) in accordance with Bunder (1962 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tobacco, 1997; Sarmany - Schuller 2001) as the inability to adequately categorize and structure information, we can find the effectiveness of cognitive structuring in its relative automaticity, speed and undeliberateness (Brewer, 1988; Shiffrin, Schneider, 1977; Taylor, Crocker, 1981 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tobacco, 1997).

Cognitive structuring helps to develop reassurance in a sense that a person does not perceive inconsistent and irrelevant information.

Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak (1997) assume that cognitive structuring consists of two components -need for structure and ability to achieve cognitive structure.

A need for structure is defined as the preference of cognitive structuring, which is understood as (1) an opposite towards a piecemeal processing of information and (2) a means leading to a reassurance (BarTal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997).

In the past, many authors devoted to the need for cognitive structure (for instance Bunder, Newson, Kruglanski), who, however, used the names such as tolerance for ambiguity, dogmatism, open mind, focus on confidence, the need for cognition, desire for a simple structure, personal need for a structure, the need for cognitive closure, the preference for consistency to describe this term.

We will focus on research findings of some authors mentioned above.

Frenkel-Brunswik (1949 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tobacco, 1997) notes that people, who do not have a tolerance for ambiguity, prefer the familiar and confidential information, as well as symmetry, closure, permanent regularity. They tend to premature conclusions, black and white vision, simplifying dichotomisation.

Smock (1955 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tobacco, 1997) adds Frenkel-Brunswik. Intolerance of ambiguity reflects the need of a person to become familiar with his/ her surroundings.

Rokeach (1960 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tobacco, 1997) defines the difference between open-minded people and closed-minded people. Open-minded people have a system of cognitive beliefs which leads them towards new information. Close-minded people focus on known and predictable events.

Roney, Sorrentino (1987 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997) point to differences between people oriented on certainty and people oriented on uncertainty. People oriented on certainty use clear and structured categories, they can see a world in black and white, and they can reach the certainty the way that they ignore inconsistency and ambiguity. People oriented on uncertainty dispose with richly developed and low differentiated categories. They cope with inconsistency in a direct way and do not avoid confrontation with it.

On base of above mentioned conclusions, we can generalize differences between people with high and low need for cognitive structure. People with high need for cognitive structure reduce the uncertainty in

both non-systematic and heuristic ways and on base of created (Brewer, 1988; Fiske, Pavelchak, 1986 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997). People with low need for cognitive structure reduce uncertainty in an individual way, in a piecemeal process which is systematic and based on meaningful search for relevant information which evaluates and assimilates to its system (Driscoll, Hamilton, Sorrentino, 1991 in Bar-Tal, Kishon-Rabin, Tabak, 1997). They tend to use piecemeal processes in information processing.

Table 1. Combination of need for cognitive structure and ability to achieve cognitive structure

Need for cognitive structure

Low High

Low level of piecemeal structuring Low level of cognitive structuring

Unintended information processing Hypervigilance

Dysfunctional impulsivity Low self-efficiency

Low self-efficiency High uncertainty

High uncertainty Obsessions, compulsions

Frequent use of stereotypes High sensitivity

Low level of stress Less frequent use of stereotypes

Very high level of stress

High level of piecemeal structuring The high level of cognitive structuring

Intended information processing Unintended information processing

Vigilance Functional impulsivity

High self-efficiency High self-efficiency

Low certainty High certainty

High level of stress High level of repression

Frequent use of stereotypes

Low level of stress

The ability to achieve cognitive structure relates to how the one is able to utilize the process of information processing, which is consistent with its need for cognitive structure. In the case of a high need for structure, it regards to (1) avoidance of information that the one cannot categorized in accordance with existing knowledge and (2) organizing of knowledge the way to be adapted to existing cognitive structure. In the case of a low need for structure, it regards to (3) active and systematic understanding of all available information. In general, the ability to achieve cognitive structure can be defined as the ability to use its categories the same way as analytical information processing in accordance with the tasks that are the man asked.

Need for cognitive structure and ability to achieve cognitive structure are components of cognitive structuring process, which combination we can get four types related to processing of information:

• Low need for structure - low ability to achieve cognitive structure (in research is used abbreviation LPNS - LAACS),

• Low need for structure - high ability to achieve cognitive structure (LPNS - HAACS),

• High need for structure - low ability to achieve cognitive structure (HPNS - LAACS),

• High need for structure - high ability to achieve cognitive structure (HPNS - HAACS). Particular characteristics of mentioned types are displayed in Table 1.

3. Research

The sample consisted of 75 participants whose average age was 21. They were students of Faculty of Social Sciences and Health Care, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. Their fields of study were social work and psychology. Women dominated in the research group. We used the following questionnaires for data collecting (in alphabetical order):

AACSS - Ability to Achieve Cognitive Structure Scale author: Bar-Tal

The questionnaire consists of twenty-four claims that a participant assesses in the 6-point scale. Items of the questionnaire include the following four fields: easy use of cognitive structure, difficulties with use of cognitive structure, easy use of a piecemeal information processing, and difficulties with use of a piecemeal information processing. The output is a single number that characterizes the individual ability to achieve cognitive structure.

MDMQ - Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire author: Mann et al.

Twenty-two-item questionnaire designed to identify a decision-making style. It has 5 factors in its extended version:

SED (evaluation of self-esteem as a decision maker in terms of ability of effective decision-making skills),

VIG (vigilance), SR (shifting responsibility); PRO (procrastination), HYP (hypervigilance)

PNSS - Personal Need for Structure Scale authors: Thopson, Naccarato, Parker

The questionnaire consists of 12 claims which are reviewed by a 6-point scale. Questionnaire items are designed to capture the organization and method of processing information, as well as stereotyped responses, external keys when creating judgments, processing of inconsistent information, efforts to enrich existing knowledge.

We hypothesis that:

H1 high ability to achieve cognitive structure is in relation with high self-esteem in decision-making.

H2 high ability to achieve cognitive structure is in relation with vigilance. H3 low ability to achieve cognitive structure is in relation with shifting responsibility. H4 low ability to achieve cognitive structure is in relation with procrastination. H5 low ability to achieve cognitive structure is in relation with hypervigilance.

To test our hypothesis we used Statistical Program for Social Science 17.0. We used Kruskal-Wallis test to test differences among research groups. As a critical statistical value which indicates the statistical significance, we appointed the standard value of p = 0,05.

The results are presented in tables 2 to 6. All differences are significant at the level of a < 0.001. The only exception is the vigilance in which we did not measured the significant difference among research groups. At this place we explain the abbreviations we used in tables. CS = cognitive structuring, AACS = ability to achieve cognitive structure, PNS = personal need for structure, H = high, L = low, N = count, Min = minimal measured value, Max = maximal measured value, Me = median, AM = average mean, SD = standard deviation, H = result of Kruskal-Wallis test, p = significance.

We allege that we can support all hypothesizes we designated except the hypothesis 2.

4. Conclusions and discussion

We found that the students with high ability to structure the information have also high self-esteem in decision-making. They do not have the tendency to use ineffective decisional styles in forms as shifting responsibility, procrastination and hypervigilance. On the other hand, we did not find the relation between high ability to structure information and vigilance as effective decisional style.

We can write that the crucial factor which determined decisional style was the ability to achieve cognitive structure. Personal need for structure was the factor which emphasizes the effect of the ability to achieve cognitive structure in case of shifting responsibility and procrastination.

So we cannot support the relation between high ability to process the information and effective deciding. But we can support the relation low ability to process the information and ineffective deciding.

And what are the implications to educational environment? In the present reform of educational system, there is the accent on the humanistic approach. It means the change of the relation educator -educant, curricular transformation and also the aspiration to emphasize non-intellectual factors of education. But the ability to process the information stays the base on which we have to build the education of the students. Information is not only concepts, theories, facts, but also the emotions, attitudes, beliefs, patterns of behavior. Maybe this is the reason why we think about putting back the math into the final exam in secondary school as an inherent part.

The limits of our research are evident. The research sample is small. It is representative for the faculty on which the research was realized, but it is not representative for whole population of students. But the results are clear.

There exists a tendency to decide ineffectively. It means the human has a tendency to deciding delay, to not accept own responsibility for own decisions or has neurotic symptoms because he has the problem to select important information and avoid the unimportant ones. It leads to disbelief to own competences, negative emotions and low self-esteem which was strong influence on own self-image.

If we do not want to learn the students who do not know to decide we have to support their ability to process the information as a part of cognitive effectivity and metacognitive factor.

Table 2. Differences in self-esteem among the groups of cognitive structuring

groups of CS N Min Max Me AM SD H p

LAACS-LPNS 21 4 10 8 7.57 1.66

HAACS-LPNS 21 5 12 10 9.29 1.88 21.987 <0.001

self-esteem

HAACS-HPNS 16 6 12 11 10.06 1.56

LAACS-HPNS 17 5 12 8 7.47 2.10

Table 3. Differences in vigilance among the groups of cognitive structuring

groups of CS N Min Max Me AM SD H p

LAACS-LPNS 21 5 12 10 9.38 2.11

HAACS-LPNS 21 6 12 10 9.57 2.14 5.319 0.150

vigilance

HAACS-HPNS 16 7 12 11 10.81 1.52

LAACS-HPNS 17 7 12 10 9.94 1.95

Table 4. Differences in shifting responsibility among the groups of cognitive structuring

groups of CS N Min Max Me AM SD H p

LAACS-LPNS 21 1 12 6 5.76 2.81

shifting HAACS-LPNS 21 1 8 5 4.57 1.83 21.112 <0.001

responsibility HAACS-HPNS 16 0 6 2 2.50 2.13

LAACS-HPNS 17 0 12 7 6.76 2.93

Table 5. Differences in procrastination among the groups of cognitive structuring

groups of CS N Min Max Me AM SD H p

LAACS-LPNS 21 1 8 5 4.95 1.96

HAACS-LPNS 21 1 6 2 2.81 1.78 28.417 <0.001

procrastination

HAACS-HPNS 16 0 4 2 1.75 1.29

LAACS-HPNS 17 2 9 5 4.94 1.98

Table 6. Differences in hypervigilance among the groups of cognitive structuring

groups of CS N Min Max Me AM SD H p

LAACS-LPNS 21 0 10 5 5.19 2.34

HAACS-LPNS 21 1 7 4 3.67 1.83 22.043 <0.001

hypervigilance

HAACS-HPNS 16 1 5 4 3.31 1.30

LAACS-HPNS 17 3 9 6 6.12 1.62

References

Bar-Tal, Y., Kishon-Rabin, L., & Tabak, N. (1997). The effect of need and ability to achieve cognitive structuring on cognitive structuring. Journal of personality and social psychology, 6, 1158 - 1176.

Busermeyer, J.R., & Townsend, J T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic- cognitive approach to decision making under uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432 - 459.

Fabry, R., Markus, A., Fickova, E., & Dvorakova, T. (1992). Rozhodovanie operatora - riesenie problemu -mentalny model. Ceskoslovenskapsychologie, 4, 309-324, 1992.

Fickova, E. (1994). Relationships between activation, anxiety and stress in decision making of operators.

Studiapsychologica, 2, 113-122.

Daniel, J. a kol. (1971). Analyzaprace operatora v automatizovanej vyrobe. Zaverecna sprava UEP SAV.

Daniel, J., & Droppova, Z. (1979). Niektore vychodiska vyskumu rozhodovania a zat'aze operatora.

Psychologie v ekonomickepraxi, 3-4, 239-244.

Kozielecki J. (1977). Psychologiczna teoria decyzji. Varsava: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo naukove. Kozielecki J. (1981). Psychological decision theory. Varsava: Polish Scientific Publishers. Krivohlavy, J. (1966). Rozhodovani. Ceskoslovenska psychologie, 1, 3-17.

Pilarik, E. (2006). Osobnostne faktory maladaptivnych stylov rozhodovania. Medzinarodna konferencia doktorandov odborov Psychologia a Socialnapraca. Nitra: UKF.

Pilarik, E., & Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2005). Optimalna hladina stimulacie a jej motivacne atributy. Svet zen a svet muzu: polarita a vzajemne obohacovani. Olomouc: UP v Olomouci.

Ruisel, I., Ruiselova, Z., & Prokopcakova, A. (1994). Subjective aspects of problem solving and decision making in the context of coping. Studia psychologica, 2, 77-90.

Sarmany-Schuller, I. (1979). Rizikove tendencie v kontexte osobnostnych dimenzii. Psychologie v ekonomicke praxi, 1.

Sarmany-Schuller, I. (1993). Different problem solving strategies (What role is played by optimism-pessimism here?). Studia psychologica, 4, 377-379.

Sarmany-Schuller, I. (1996). Podiel osobnostnej crty anxiety a impluzivity na styl ucenia. Retrospektiva, realita a perspektiva psychologie na Slovensku. Bratislava: Stimul, 403-407.

Sarmany-Schuller, I. (1998). Category width, cognitive style and decision making processes. Studia psychologica, 3, 250-254.

Sarmany-Schuller, I. (1999). Procrastination, need for cognition and sensation seeking. Studia psychologica, 1, 73-85.

Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2000). Prokrastinacia - osobnostne korelaty. Psychologie pri treti tisicileti. Praha: Testcentrum, 322-324.

Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2001). Potreba struktury a schopnost' vytvarat' struktury ako osobnostne konstrukty.

Psychologiapre bezpecny svet. Bratislava: Stimul, 336-339.

Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Skovayova, E. (1992). Erroneous decision making in the operators work. Studia psychologica, 1, 77-84.

Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Pavlickova, K. (2005). Rizikove rozhodovanie v kontexte osobnosti. Psychologia pre zivot - alebo ako je potrebna metanoia. Bratislava: Stimul, 476-482.

Sarmany-Schuller, I., & Pilarik, E. (2005). Styly rozhodovania z pohl'adu osobnostnych dimenzii J.Graya.

Psychologia pre zivot - alebo ako je potrebna metanoia. Bratislava: Stimul, 186-190.

Simon, H.A. (1957). Administrative behavior. New Jersey: Littlefield Adams. Sternberg, R.J. (2002). Kognitivnipsychologie. Praha: Portal.

Tversky, A. (1972a). Choice by elimination. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9, 341-367.

Tversky, A. (1972b). Eliminations by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.

Zelman, J. (1979). Psychologicky vyskum operatora v ASRTP. Psychologie v ekonomicke praxi, 3-4, 245-249.