The current study aimed to establish whether individuals can accurately report their experiential (intuitive) and rational (analytical) processing abilities on the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI) in relation to their performance on the Serial Reaction Time (SRT) and the Operation Span (Ospan) tasks. Previous research has indicated that the rational subscale may have predictive validity, but evidence of the predictive validity of the experiential subscale is mixed. To determine why previous researchers have struggled to establish this link, the current study introduced a manipulation of the knowledge of the psychological definition of intuition and its value in cognitive processing. The researcher hypothesized that the manipulation might have an impact on the correlations between self-reported intuitive ability and performance on the SRT, and that there would be a correlation between self-reported analytical ability and performance on the Ospan in both conditions. The results indicated that the relationship between self-reported rational favorability scores and Ospan performance was significantly higher in the control condition than it was in the experimental condition, but that all participants, regardless of condition, struggled with accurately reporting their intuitive ability. The implications for the use of self-report measures of intuitive and analytical ability are discussed.
Cognitive Psychology | Psychology
Sobyra, Jennifer A., "The Accuracy of Self-Reported Intuitive and Analytical Ability" (2010). Honors Projects. Paper 140.