Poster Psychological Congress Berlin 2008

1. Tatiana INDINA , Varvara MOROSANOVA
(E-mail:Tatiana.indina@gmail.com, tel: +7 926 721 13 07)
Mokhovaya 9 bld 4, 125009 Moscow
Russian Federation
Personality and regulation determinants of rationality in decision making situations
(on example of political voting in Russia)
Are voters derived mostly by their feelings or rationality while making while making decision and which psychological traits does rational choice depend on?
Abstract
The research is devoted to the problem of psychological conditions (personality, regulation and cogitive factors) of rational decision making. To investigate subject’s rational or irrational choice in political voting situation
we elaborated a model of Political Elections, where subjects have to choose one of two political candidates - with “rational” or “emotional” image. We measured individual’s rationality level with the help of content analysis and
experts’ esteems and investigated how rationality can be predisposed by individual self-regulation, general intelligence level and personality traits.
The results has shown the existence of specific positive connection between individual rationality level and general level of intelligence, and self-regulation including basic regulation processes (goal planning, programming of
actions, modeling of significant conditions and results evaluation) . Rationality is positively connected with personality factors: Introversion, Sensation, Judging and Thinking (according the Keirsey temperament sorter).
We discovered that these factors determinate subject’s rationality in political voting situations as follows:. Among positive determinants of rationality high level of IQ and conscious self-regulation, Judging and Thinking
personality traits were distinguished. As negative predictor of rational decision making - high emotionality level was described.
Basic concepts
We define Rationality as an ability to consider all necessary information while making decisions and realizing ones actions.
We define Self-regulation as a process of conscious self-organization of psychic activity that assures goal setting and achievement of results corresponding to these goals (О.А. Коnopkin, V.I. Моrosanova
The main components of Self-regulation system are: goals planning, simulation of meaningful conditions for their achievement, programming of actions, estimation of results, and decision on corrective action.
The self-regulation system integrates personality and cognitive aspects of subject’s activity and can be realized throw a number of personality traits (f.e. responsibility, reflexivity, reliability) - as means the of regulation (V.I.
Моrosanova, 1995-2001).
We suppose that individual self-regulation can determine subjects’ behavior in various social situations. Particularly they can influence subject’s rationality while decision making in political voting situation.
Political Voting model Rational candidate’s Emotional candidate’s Sample
To investigate individual differences in rational decision making we elaborated the model materials included materials were aimed The general research sample
of political voting - where subjects have to choose one of two political candidates, with objective and concrete mainly at one’s feelings and included 290 subjects: Russian
rational or emotional political image, according to information of their pre -election information on his emotional perception, the accent students (18-22yrs.) and adults
materials (political program, biography, appeal to electorate). political program, was made on candidate’s attractive (35-65yrs.).
The question was – which candidate will electorate prefer and how will they explain their appealing mostly to appearance and personality.
choice? Subject’s rationality level in this model was defined by expert esteems and content- logical analysis .
analysis of subjects written-form reports.
Methods
The Personality decision making Characteristics of emotionality The Keirsey Temperament Sorter- (Russian The Self-regulation Profile Questionnaire
factors (T.Kornilova, 2003) (E.P. Ilyin, 2001) version) (V.I. Morosanova, 2000)
The Raven Standard Progressive Matrices Test
Psychological scales of Rationality and Self estimation questionnaire of The questionnaire, based on K. Jung theory of The questionnaire consists of six scales, which
The Raven's Progressive Matrices can be described as "tests Risk-taking characterizing individual E.P. Ilyin allows to measure personality, is designed to describe different types of diagnose individual typical peculiarities of
of observation and clear thinking". acceptance of decision making situations individual emotionality level . personality by 4 pairs of polarizing traits: regulatory processes:
SPM is a non-reading test of cognitive processing skills. As The questionnaire is aimed at diagnostics The questionnaire includes scales: Extroversion (E) and Introversion (I) - social address  - Goal planning scale
all standardized intelligence tests, it tests general mental of personal inclination to risk and rational Emotional excitability, Emotional or social attitude – “expressive” or “reserved”  -Modeling of significant conditions scale
ability. The SPM consists of 60 items arranged in five sets decision making. continuance, Intensiveness of Intuition (N) and Sensing (S) - external оr internal  - Programming of actions scale
(A, B, C, D, E) of 12 items each. We used “Rationality” scale of emotions Influence of emotions attention, introspection" or "observation)  - Results evaluation scale
The Raven tests ability include alertness to visual detail, Kornilova’s questionnaire to measure on behavior and activity, General Thinking (T) and Feeling (F) -more attention to  - Regulatory flexibility scale
categorical thinking, conceptual reasoning, decoding, individual rationality indexes in decision level of emotionality thoughts or feelings  -Independence of planning, programming
problem-solving skills, concentration, persistence, making situations. Judgement (J) and Perception (P)- keeping schedules and result evaluation scale
sequencing, nonverbal concept formation, synthesis and or preference to probe for options  - General level of self-regulation scale
analysis, spatial perception, and information-processing
skill. We used it to estimate General intelligence level.
Results
Distribution of voices for each candidate in groups of rational and emotional subjects
According the results of correlation analysis rationality factor is positively connected with general level of
High rationality group High emotionality group self-regulation and basic regulative processes planning, programming, modeling and result evaluation; as well
against all for as with general intelligence level and personality factors: Introversion, Sensation, Thinking and Judging.
against all
24% Rational Negative significant correlation was found with Emotionality factor and personality traits Feeling, Intuition and
18%
candidate Perception (Keirsey temperament sorter).
for Rational 30%
candidate for
for 54% Emotional
We’ve also found that in each group certain personality types have prevailed
Emotional In high rationality group prevailed personality types: SJ (Sensory-Judging) Guardian- 44%; and NT
candidate
candidate (Intuitively-Rational)- Rationals (NT) - 31%. In high emotionality group majority of subjects belonged to the
46%
28%
Sensory –Perceiving (SP ) - Artists 47% and Intuitively-feeling (NF) Idealists – 29% personality types
Using political voting model we distinguished two groups- with high rationality and high emotionality of
decision making. As showed on the plot - in high rationality group the majority of subjects have chosen the rational
candidate, and in high emotionality group – majority voted for emotional candidate. Subjects, with high scores on rationality are “Personality Regulation Typology of Rational and Emotional subjects was constructed. The typology
more disposed to rely on objective information and concrete facts of candidate’s political program. High emotionality group included 4 regulation profiles for “rational” decision making: (rationally-planning, rationally-modeling,
subjects were more often directed by emotional expression of candidate’s personality. rationally-programming, rationally-estimating); and 2 profiles for “emotional” decision making: (emotionally-
neurotic and emotionally-extraverted). Each style is described by specific traits of personality and self-
High rationality subjects are characterized
Rational vs Emotional subjects comparison by rather high general level of intelligence, regulation.
(personality, cognition, self-regulation) conscious self-regulation and higher indexes
10 of goal planning, programming their actions Personality-regulation profiles for Rational subjects Personality regulation profiles for emotional
9
Rationals Emotionals and results evaluation, but lower flexibility 9 subjects
8 indexes. These subjects also have evident 8 8
7
exponents of Introversion, Sensing, Judging 7 7
6 6 6
5
and Thinking scales (according to Keirsey 5 5
4 type-indicator) 4 4
3 3
3 High emotionality subjects are 2 2
2 Rationally -esteeming Rationally-modelling 1
distinguished by tendency to high regulation 1 Rationally-programming Rationally-planning 0
1 flexibility and lower regulation capacity for 0
Pla
Mo
Pr
Re
Se
0
Fle
the goal planning, programming of their
og
l f-s
su
cy
d
g
ng
on
nn
xib
y
ing
ell
ilit
ram
llin
lr
y
rso IQ
e o emo nt
g
g
Ris mo n
su am g
Th ion
en
in
uff
ma g
Pr ode g
rov on
F tion
ea ions
F e ng
Ju ng
s
siv xc lity
Pla tion
actions and results evaluation. Subjects with
)
ilit
mi
ati
ing
tra i lit
Pe dgi n
Re ogr lli n
lity
es
n
oti emo eivin
tio
M nin
es
e
g
nn
xib
ici
lt e mi
m
de
Int versi
y
ici
i
eli
lue ity o item
Ex lexib
en al e iona
er s
i nk
tim
alu
ram
din
na
high emotionality have lower indexes of
la
ing
t
en
n
Pla
Fl e
Mo
uf f
gu
ati
rc
cy
ev
sti
t
og
general intelligence and self-regulation and
o
fe
lf-s
-re
f
n
kr
( pe
lt
Pr
lf
su
are characterized by advanced Intuition,
Se
Se
Em ral
on
l ity
nc
Re
Feeling and Perception indexes. Emotionally-neurotic type Emotionally extraverted type
ne
r al
na
Ge
ne
In t
tio
In f
Ge
Ra
Conclusions
Regulation, personality and cognitive determinants of The regression analysis allowed us to distinguish We’ve picked out two types of electorate – subjects who rationally vote for political program, analyzing facts
rational decision making determinants of high rationality in decision and information. And those who pay more attention to candidate’s personality while voting
0.8 making. They are: rationality as personal train We described subjects with high rationality and emotionality level of decision making and defined their regulation,
(according Keirsey temperament sorter) cognitive and personality characteristics.
0.6
(Beta=0,64), general level of self-regulation
0.4 (Beta= 0,61), general intelligence level (Beta= Rationals are characterized by high general level of intelligence, conscious self-regulation of Introversion,
0,42) ; personality traits Judging (Beta= 0,55) Sensing, Judging and Thinking personality traits. Subjects with high emotionality are characterized by
0.2
and Thinking (Beta=0,57). advanced Intuition, Feeling and Perception as well as developed Flexibility and Emotionality traits. The
0 B specific regulation and personality profile for each type was build.
The factor of Emotionality intensiveness has
-0.2 Ra Se Th Ju IQ Em
ti on lf- r ink dg le v otio shown the negative influence on subject’s
alit eg ing ing el na
y( ula (pe ( pe lity The obtained data have shown the significant positive correlations between rationality and general level of
-0.4 pe tio
n rso rs o rationality (Beta= - 0,41).
r so na na intelligence, self-regulation (general level, planning, programming, modeling and result evaluation processes)
na lit y lty
-0.6 l tr tr a tra as well as with Judging and Thinking personality traits.
ait it) it )
)
Psychological determinants of rational decision making while political voting were discovered. We distinguished
psychological determinants of subject’s rational choice in political voting as follows:: high general level of self-
regulation, high IQ level, extended personal characteristics of thinking and judging increase subject’s rationality while
making decision. At the same time extended emotionality blocks rational decision making while voting.