↓ Skip to main content

An Analysis of the Associations among Cognitive Impulsiveness, Reasoning Process, and Rational Decision Making

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Analysis of the Associations among Cognitive Impulsiveness, Reasoning Process, and Rational Decision Making
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02324
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana P. G. Jelihovschi, Ricardo L. Cardoso, Alexandre Linhares

Abstract

Impulsivity may lead to several unfortunate consequences and maladaptive behaviors for both clinical and nonclinical people. It has a key role in many forms of psychopathology. Although literature has discussed the negative impact of impulsivity, few have emphasized the relationship between cognitive impulsiveness and decision making. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of cognitive impulsiveness on decision making and explore the strategies used by participants to solve problems. For this purpose, we apply two measures of impulsivity: the self-report Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) and the performance based Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). Moreover, we evaluate participants' reasoning processes employed to answer CRT questions based on the calculation expressions, data organization, and erasures they made while answering the CRT (note that we utilized the instruments using pen and paper). These reasoning processes are related to the role of executive functions in decision making, and its relationship with impulsiveness. The sample consists of 191 adults, who were either professionals or undergraduate students from the fields of business, management, or accounting. The results show that cognitive impulsiveness may negatively affect decision making, and that those who presented the calculation to answer the CRT questions made better decisions. Moreover, there was no difference in the strategies used by impulsive vs. nonimpulsive participants during decision making. Finally, people who inhibited their immediate answers to CRT questions performed better during decision making.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 24 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 11 18%
Psychology 9 15%
Engineering 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 26 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,872,091
of 23,864,146 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,463
of 31,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,913
of 447,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#267
of 544 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,864,146 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 544 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.