THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND DECISION-MAKING STYLES IN A SAMPLE OF FEMALE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UMM AL OURA

D R . MARIAM HAMEED AHMED ALLAHYANI

Department of Psychology University of UMM Al Qura Makkah Al Mukarramah Ksa Study summary: The aim of this study is to determine the magnitude of cognitive dissonance present in a sample of female students at Umm Al Qura University, and clarifying the relationship between the cognitive dissonance and decision-making styles. It also aimed to identify differences between female students with high cognitive dissonance and those with low cognitive dissonance in decision-making styles. The study also aimed to unveil the most common styles for decision-making (intuitive, rational, spontaneous, dependent & avoidant) with the f'emale students at Umm Al Qura University. The sample is composed of (263) subjects; all of them were female students at Umm Al-Qura University. Instruments used by the study were the cognitive dissonance scale (Cassel, Chow & Reiger, 2001) and the Scott and Bruce (Bruce Scott &, 1995) scale for decision-making styles. The most eminent result of the study, as of magnitude of cognitive dissonance, is that (40.3) of the total sample size reflect cognitive dissonance which suggests that the total cognitive dissonance present is below the average. The results of the study also showed a positive relationship of statistical function between the internal personal dimension in the cognitive dissonance scale and the overall and sub scores for the following decision-making styles (the intuitive, the spontaneous, & the avoidant style). The results also showed a negative relationship of statistical function between the cognitive dissonance in the internal personal dimension and the rational style. The results also showed a positive relation of statistical function between the cognitive dissonance in the external-social dimension (impersonal) and the scores of the following decision-making styles (intuitive style, the spontaneous style & the avoidant style). The results showed a negative relation of statistical function in the external dimension and the rational style. The results also showed a positive correlation of statistical function between the cognitive dissonance and in the external-social dimension and the independent style. The results showed the presence of statistical function differences between the subjects of high and low cognitive dissonance in the score of the spontaneous style dimension for the subjects of high cognitive dissonance. There also found statistical function differences between the subjects of high and low cognitive dissonance in the score of the avoidant style dimension for the subjects of high cognitive dissonance.

641

642 / Education Vol. 132 No. 3 Introduction:

People strive to get their opinions and attitudes intemally match with each other, i.e. there is some sort of harmony between what the individual knows and what he believes and does; but sometimes the individual behavior may come in contrast with his believes. For example, the person may know that smoking is harmful to his health, but still he continues to smoke. This type of contradiction is what is called by Festinger "the cognitive dissonance" (Festinger, 1957). This concept has been widely & repeatedly dealt with since it was reached that dissonance could affect the decision-making process (Soutar & Sweeney, 2003). The Cognitive Dissonance suggests that some cognitions of the individual are not consistent with each other. Such cognition may represent any type of notion, opinion, or believe on the environment, self or personal conduct. People sometimes find themselves doing actions that are not suitable or consistent to their knowledge, or they may express opinions that are not consistent with their original opinions (Festinger, 1957). Ehot & Devine (1994) observed that Cognitive Dissonance appears through the psychological discomfort (Soutar & Sweeney, 2003). Fesfinger sees the cognitive dissonance as a motivational tension as any other type of tension that needs to be reduced. This definite state of dissonance, which directs the cognitive activity, can be seen as a previous state which leads to an activity directed to minimize the dissonance same as hunger leads to an activity directed to minimize hunger (Festinger, 1957; 3).

Cognitive dissonance, according to Festinger (1957), is considered a continuous process because the individual cannot control the information and the events that occur in his environment which may be consonant to each other. Dissonance has a nature that motivate individuals to seek for more information and opinions that support their attitudes and believes against the information that support the reversed direction in a trial to minimize the dissonance. Dissonance is considered as an important result of the choice between altematives, or selection of the link to some contradictory types of behavior, and the amount of dissonance and subsequent attempts to resolve are consistent with the variables, such as importance, attractiveness, and so on. This appears more pronounced when the individual takes a "wrong decision" (i.e., whenever dissonance is greater), and thus he may more wish to search support to his original decision, where dissonance arrived its higher level, and will invalidate its decision or change its behavior (Brehm & Cohen, 1962). Sometimes the process of fear from dissonance could lead to make the individual fearful or reluctant to behaviorally commit himself. Also fearfi^omdissonance may lead the person to decide or to commit himself to take a decision or to oblige himself to do so, and when it is not possible to delay decision-making and conduct, the conduct may be accompanied by denial of knowledge to the action (Festinger, 1957). Salovic (1990) considers that the decision-making is the essence of intelligent behavior. Murrey (1986, p 237) defines it

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /643

as "the process by which a choice between alternatives in order to achieve the objectives of the Organization". Weiss (1983) mentioned that the decision-making is a function of the individual information and his personal ideology and concerns. Petrides & Guiney (2000) believe that decision-making is an authoritarian effective process where individual values and beliefs are the base for the decision-making process. These researchers, in addition to others, recognize that decision-making is a cognitive process (Jacoby, 2007). The study on decision-making and decision styles originated and developed during the last century. In the 1960s, researches began to focus in particular on individual decision-making and decision-making styles. Driver & Streufert (1969) have developed a model for styles to check the information processing of the person and his capabilities for problem solving. As studies have shown the importance of personal qualities in decision-making under the so-called decision-making styles, or the cognitive styles which refer to differences between individuals in information processing when solving problems and making decisions (Thunholm, 2004; Gambetti et al., 2008). Leonard et al. (1999) believe that the term "cognitive style" refers mostly to the behavior and conduct of oneself when reflecting his abilities for the decision making, and it does not refer to the decision-making process. Due to complexity and variation in the use of this term, Rowe and Mason (1987) suggest the term of decision style to mean the way in which a person uses information to form a deci-

sion. He also pointed out that the decision style is still a cognitive process including the individual personality in regards to his needs, values and self-concept. In the early 1990s some theorists tried to find a definition for the decision-making style; where the decision-making style was defined as a normal style used by the individual in decision-making process. Harren (1979) presented another definition as he defined the decision-making style for the individual was an individual characteristic to understand the decisionmaking task and to respond to it (Jacoby, 2007; 7-8). Driver defined the decisionmaking style as "the normal form used by the individual when taking a decision" (Scott & Bruce, 1995; 818). Nutt (1990) found that the decision making style depicts the individual's belief system, including data classification which might be taken as something recognized and/or applied without conscious to decision-making process. Eriedman believes that individuals' decision-making styles can be divided into three different sections (prudence, rush, and indecision) based on different levels of reflection and commitment dimensions (Eriedman, 1996). The decision making styles defined as a normal and learned form of response conveyed by the individual in the state of decision making. It is not one of the personality traits; but a tendency based on habit to interact in a certain way (Scott & Bruce, 1995; 820). Scott & Bruce (1995) identified four styles for decision-making: 1. a rational style characterized by a rich research on

644 / Education VoL 132 No. 3

altematives and rational evaluation; 2. an intuitive style which is characterized by using the intemal sensations and emotions in decision making; 3. a dependent style which is characterized by depending on the advice and tips from others; and 4. the avoidant style which is characterized by attempts to avoid the decision-making. Depending on their results of factor analysis they added afifthstyle, the spontaneous style, which is characterized by a sense of immediacy and the desire to complete the decision-making process as soon as possible (Scott & Bmce , 1995; Loo, 2000, 896). A number of experts, especially Kurt Lewin, recognized the fact that the decision, once taken, gives impetus to the process that tends to strengthen and stabilize the decision. In the same context, Treffinger, et al. (2008) stated that individuals, when understand their style in decision-making and problem-solving, they become capable for leaming and application of processing tools more effectively, and that differences between individuals in the styles of decision-making and problem solving are considered a key to understand the interaction of the individual with the decision-making process. Rabbie et al. (1959) see that the decision to take an opposite stand on a certain issue is sufficient to cause dissonance and subsequent change of attitude towards the taken position or situation. Soutar & Sweeney (2003) prepared a study focusing on differences in dissonance in a real life situation for consumers in their purchase decisions. The study sam-

ple included (636) consumers. They used a scale composed of (22) items, developed by Sweeney et al. (2000) and includes three dimensions of cognitive dissonance (the emotional dimension, the wisdom of buying and the interest of transaction). The study found that some dissonance dimensions are correlated to each other, ranging between (0.31, and 0.68). The higher dimensions were the emotional dissonance and the interest in transaction. To understand why and when dissonance occurs, because of decision-making, we must analyze the different decision situations, especially when choosing between two positive altematives, where the person expects emergence of some pressures to reduce the dissonance, after selection. Festinger (1957) summed up other kinds of decision-making situations, which are good analyses reported by Lewin, Hovland and Sears about the decision and conflicfing conditions as follows: 1. The decision-making betvceen two quite different alternatives: this will not put a person in a decision-making situation, unless there are some factors force him to choose between them. 2. The decision-making between two alternatives, both have positive and negative aspects: this is the normal type of decision-making situations, and there will be some cognitive elements corresponding to the positive aspects of the non-chosen altemate, and some elements corresponding to the negadve aspects of the chosen altemative, which creates dissonance with cognition of choosing a certain altemative.

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /645

3. Decision-making among more than two alternatives: most of decisions include more than two altematives. The decision maker may find some settlements or compromises, or new methods to the action, and so on. This additional complexity makes analysis of the decision-making process difficult, but it adds very simple complex to analyze the dissonance processes that occur after the making the decision. Therefore, we conclude that cognitive dissonance is an inevitable consequence of the decision making, and requires examination of factors affecting the size of this dissonance. The magnitude of dissonance following decisions is considered as an adverse function to the size of the power used for obtaining compatibility. If the reasonable grounds on which an individual builds his decision(s) are adequate, they equivalent to low dissonance while low justifications are equivalent to high dissonance (Rabbie et al. 1959). There are three main ways to reduce dissonance occurs after decisionmaking (Festinger, 1957): a. Change or revoke the decision: It is possible to reduce or even remove dissonance by revoking the decision psychologically. This involves recognition of taking the wrong choice or by insisting that there was no choice of casting the responsibility on the person. b. Change the attractiveness of alternatives on choice: this is the more general way to reduce the dissonance following the decision. Dissonance may be reduced by deleting some of these

items or by adding new elements that are consonant with the cognition related to the decision taken. The individual success partially depends on mental capacity. c. Establishment of cognitive overlapping and conformity between the on choice alternatives: whenever similar cognitive elements corresponding to the various alternatives for decision, the smaller the resulting dissonance and dissonance occurs after the decision could be reduced by establishing or developing a consensual cognitive relation. In this context, Rabbie et al. (1959) have studied the impact of verbal expression of dissonant situations on a sample composed of (60) fresh students at Yale University. The design has been used beyond expression only in the light of semi-scan, as the students were asked to write articles against their own attitudes on the topic that was extremely important for them. Results indicated that the decision to take a conflicting attitude is sufficient to cause dissonance, and thus change the attitude towards that situation. Cognitive dissonance is considered an inevitable outcome of decision-making. Also, cognitive style used by the individual in decision-making often indicates that "mental practices" of the individual are essential to understanding the processes of decision (Hunt, et al., 1989), which makes it possible to link decision-making styles with the cognitive dissonance by being familiar with the types of decisionmaking styles (intuitive, rational, spontaneous, dependent and avoidant style)

646 7 Education Vol. 132 No. 3

associated with cognidve dissonance, and operate to raise or lower it. Therefore, the study quesdons could be identified as follows; 1. Is it possible to idendfy the cognitive dissonance magnitude in the sample of Umm Al-Qura University female students? 2. Is there a stadsdcal funcdon reladonship between cognitive dissonance and decision-making styles (e.g. intuitive, rational, spontaneous, dependent and avoidant style)? 3. Are there differences of stadstical function between those who have low or high cognitive dissonance at the female students who have intuidve, rational, spontaneous, dependent and avoidant style at Umm Al-Qura University? 4. Is it possible to rearrange the decisionmaking styles (intuitive, rational, spontaneous, dependent and avoidant) the most common among the female

students at Umm Al Qura University?

The Study procedures: First: The study sample:

The study was conducted on a sample of (270) female university students. All of them were from the third level of sciendfic sections (applied sciences college), humanides (college of Arts and Administrative Sciences). The sample was randomly selected in a simple manner from the original populadon of the study. The study sample totaled to (263) female students. Their ages ranged between 20 - 23 years and above with a mean age of (21.62) and a standard deviation of (1,950). Table (1) below shows the frequent distribution of the total study sample according to the field of specialty, age groups, arithmetic mean and standard deviations:

Table (1) redundant distribution of the total study sample by age groups and educational level (N=263)
Field of Specialty Age category level 3rd 4th Total Mean Std. deviation 20-21 yrs Total 137 32 169 % 52.1 12.2 64.3 Total sample (N=263) 22-23 yrs Total 41 29 70 % 15.6 11.0 26.6 More than 23 yrs Total 12 12 24 26.50 2.859 % 4.6 4.6 9.1 Total 190 73 263 Total % 72.2 27.8 100.0 21.62 1.950

20.66 0.476

22.26 0.440

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /647

First: cognitive dissonance scale: This measure was designed in its second form by Cassel, Chow & Reiger (2001) based on Festinger theory (1957). It covers two areas of the person life: the intemal personal domain and the extemal non-personal domain. Each area consists of four parts and each part includes (25) item, i.e. the cognitive dissonance scale contains 200 items which require to be answered by right or wrong in every part of the eight parts: (FAM, EMO, PAD, HEA, SCH, SOC, PER and SUB). There are (21) pairs of the scale items form degrees of trustworthiness (or lying) which were included to make sure that the items could be read

and/or understood correctly. Individuals who register high degrees of tmstworthy are excluded from the analysis of data. The scale was * translated and presented to a number of specialists in English language to ensure safety of translation, and appropriate language and wording. For use in this study it has been codified on local Saudi environment. It has been applied on two samples one of them is a pilot sample (N=104), and the final sample for more validation of the scale (N=263). * In conjunction with Dr. Samira Al-Otaibi. Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology (major: educational psychology) University of Umm Al Qura

Table (2): Validity values of the cognitive dissonance scale dimensions calculated by reapplication and internal consistency methods (Alpha) and (SPLIT) for both pilot and study samples (n = 104) Nof Scale dimensions Items 01 - FAM 02 - EMO 03 - PAD 04 - HEA 05 - IPTOT 06-SCH 07 - SOC 08 - PER 09 - SUB 10-ETTOT 11-DISS-R 25 25 25 25 100 25 25 25 25 100 200 0.801 0.792 0.702 0.822 0.876 0.801 0.613 0.759 0.698 0.837 0.890 Reapplication Cronbakh 0.8402 0.7606 0.6928 0.7904 0.9114 0.7083 0.7625 0.7755 0.7399 0.8785 0.9423 Spearman-Brown 0.8337 0.7984 0.7470 0.7152 0.7494 0.7059 0.7015 0.7224 0.7373 0.8247 0.8868 Alpha (SPLIT)

648 / Education Vol. 132 No. 3

After translating the scale into Arabic language the researcher applied it on a random sample of (30) female students of the humanities and home economics college at Umm Al Qura University in Makkah to ensure the correctness and easiness of the statements. Then the researcher calculated the scale rehability by reapplication of the scale on a sample includes (104) female students. The total correlation between the two applications in total internal-personal dimension was (0.876). Reliability has been calculated, using the Alpha Cronbakh coefficient, and recorded (0.9114). Reapplication of sub dimensions which include (FAM, EMO, PAD, HEA) was (0.801, 0.792, 0.702, 0.822) respectively. Alpha Cronbakh coefficients for these sub dimensions were (0.8402, 0.7606, 0.6928, 0.7904) respectively. Correlation between the two applications in total external dimension or social impersonal dimension equals (0.837). Reliability is calculated using alpha coefficient Cronbakh and recorded (0.8785). Reapplication value for the sub dimensions of the social/impersonal external dimension which include (SCH, SOC, PER and SUB) was (0.801, 0.613, 0.759, 0.698) respectively. Alpha coefficients for these sub dimensions on Cronbakh equal (0.7083, 0.7625, 0.7755, 0.7399) respectively. Total correlation for the total grade of cognitive dissonance scale by using retesting method equals (0.890), while the alpha coefficient for the total grade of cognitive dissonance scale equals (0.9423), indicating reliability of the overall scale and its sub dimensions, and its validity for use in this study.

Tables (3), (4) and (5) show the results of correlation coefficient - internal consistency for the statements of the cognitive dissonance scale and its sub dimensions, so also the inter correlation of the cognitive dissonance scale and its sub dimensions for the pilot sample of the study:

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /649

Table (3) the results of correlation coefficient-internal consistency between subscales statements for each subscale of the internal- personal dimension for the cognitive dissonance scale on the pilot sample (N=104)
Correlation between subscale statements scores witb overall score Pearson Correlation

(*) Correlational values contained in the table above statistically significant at the level of (0.01), (*) Correlational values contained in the table above statistically significant at the level (0.05)

650 / Education Vol. 132 No. 3

As shown in the preceding table no. (3): the values of all correlation coefficients for the cognitive dissonance scale have a

statistical function at the level of (0.01) and (0.05).

Table (4) the results of correlation coefficient-internal consistency between the statements of the subscales in overall scores for each subscale of the external social impersonal dimension of the cognitive dissonance scale for the pilot sample (n = 104)
Correlation between subscale statements scores with overall scores No. of Pearson Correlation Items SCH
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 0.360" 0.281'* 0.398" 0.435" 0.352" 0.601" 0.517" 0.250* 0.451* 0.423" 0.453" 0.343** 0.510" 0.329*' 0.404" 0.278" -0.201* 0.440** 0.404** 0.421** 0.206* 0.494** 0.466** 0.500** 0.402** IPTOT 0.369** 0.316** 0.272** 0.409** 0.360** 0.513** 0.324** 0.327** 0.308** 0.350** 0.344** 0.273** 0.321** 0.335** 0.251* 0.452** -0.210* 0.459** 0.482** 0.478** 0.496** 0.417** 0.389** 0.419** 0.293**

DISS-R
O.*392* 0.259** 0.307** 0.397** 0.307** 0.496** 0.334** 0.294** 0.285** 0.321** 0.301** 0.196* 0.278** 0.363** 0.217** 0.484** -0.257** 0.320** 0.447** 0.464** 0.472** 0.382** 0.422** 0.427** 0.255**

SOC
0.434** 0.496** 0.438** 0.453** 0.481** 0.407** 0.302** 0.294** 0.482** 0.452** 0.318* 0.209* 0.307** 0.391** 0.608** 0.548** 0.325** 0.343** 0.258** 0.553** 0.378** 0.339** 0.392** 0.463** 0.464**

IPTOT DISS-R
0.300** 0.321** 0.346** 0.295** 0.412** 0.456** 0.207* 0.373** 0.400** 0.231* 0.308** 0.468** 0.443** 0.313** 0.558** 0.551** 0.206* 0.358** 0.216* 0.437** 0.334** 0.255** 0.363** 0.557** 0.445** 0.319** 0.469** 0.430** 0.331** 0.445** 0.337** 0.271** 0.482** 0.478** 0.492** 0.250* 0.448** 0.416** 0.268** 0.624** 0.604** 0.377** O.*334* 0.193* 0.414** 0.395** 0.295** 0.366** 0.576** 0.387**

FER
0.415** 0.444** 0.485** 0.607** 0.312** 0.413** 0.366** 0.397** 0.240* 0.314** 0.523** 0.459** 0.284** 0.554** 0.276** 0.471** 0.440** 0.318** 0.270** 0.298** O.*3O8* 0.*403* O.*526* O.*5O3* 0.363**

IPTOT DISS-R
0.227* O.*415* O.*422* O.*473* 0.234* 0.333** 0.384** 0.300** 0.216* 0.306** 0.525** 0.527** 0.349** 0.492** 0.315** 0.495** 0.460** 0.253** 0.238* 0.254** 0.314** 0.332** 0.423** 0.339** 0.374** 0.362** 0.394** 0.432** 0.427** 0.265** 0.288** 0.433** 0.465** 0.225* 0.375** 0.502** 0.584** 0.435** 0.450** 0.288** 0.428** 0.441** 0.243* O.*387* 0.204* O.*353* 0.262** 0.347** 0.277** 0.329**

SUB
0.523** 0.503** 0.346** 0.370** 0.472** 0.321** 0.350** 0.352** 0.401** 0.394** 0.513** 0.326** 0.230* 0.258** 0.334** 0.480** 0.464** 0.323** 0.279** 0.307** 0.345** 0.367** 0.307** 0.424** -0.337**

IPTOT DISS-R
0.492** 0.423** 0.408** 0.339** 0.402** 0.421** 0.440** 0.275** 0.340** 0.239* 0.470** 0.327** 0.200* 0.201* 0.247* 0.364** 0.552** 0.245* 0.377** 0.205* 0.229* 0.379** 0.349** 0.403** 0.451** 0.423** 0.444** 0.424** 0.352** 0.318** 0.404** 0.210* 0.294** 0.377** 0.435** 0.317** 0.262** 0.202* 0.385** 0.319** 0.639** 0.194* 0.313** 0.324** 0.383** 0.348** 0.347** 0.356**

-0.500** -0.545**

(**) Correlational values contained in table (3) above statistically significant at the level of (0.01), () Correlational values contained in the table above statistically significant at the level (0.05)

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... 7 651

As shown in the preceding table no. (4): the values of all correlation coefficients for the cognitive dissonance scale have a statistical function at the level of (0.01) and (0.01). Table no. (5) shows values of all correlation scale mental function at the level of antagonism (0.01). Second: the Scale for Decision-making styles: This scale was prepared by Scott & Bruce (1995). They have conducted a general survey of the early studies of the decision-making style, and drew on the

model of decision-making styles on the occupational field prepared by Harren which includes the dependent style, rational style and intuitive style to build their scale. They also added the avoidant style for decision-making. The exploratory factor analysis, using the analysis of the five basic axes procedure, has shownfivefactors: rational, dependent, intuitive, avoidant, and a new factor named the spontaneous factor. Each item contains 25 statements on which the subject answers according to a 5-point-scale.

Table 5 shows the results of the inter-correlation matrix* for the cognitive dissonance scale dimensions for the pilot study (N=104)

Correlation between subscale statements scores with overall scores Pearson Correlation Dimensions ofDISS-Scale 01FAM 02EMO 0.576" 02 - EMO 03 - PAD 04 - HEA OS-SCH 06-SOC 07-PER 08 - SUB 09-IPTOT 10-ETTOT II-DISS-R 03PAD 0.364" 0.699" 04HEA 0.308" 0.622** 0.705" 05SCH 0.400" 0.607" 0.483" 0.496" 06SOC 0.481" 0.675" 0.559" 0.511" 0.479" 07PER 0.420" 0.603" 0.566" 0.614" 0.491" 0.561" 08SUB 09IFTOT 0.694" 0.888" 0.845" 0.820" 0.612" 0.684" 0.680" 0.601" 10ETTOT 0.484" 0.756" 0.670" 0.677" 0.767" 0.768" 0.865" 0.822" 0.797" 11DISS-R 0.629" 0.872" 0.805" 0.795" 0.721" 0.763" 0.808" 0.742" 0.955" 0.940" -

0.268" 0.574" 0.559" 0.552" 0.506" 0.491" 0.659"

( " ) Correlational values contained in the table have statistical function at the level of (0.01).

652 / Education Vol. 132 No. 3

The scale items have been translated by Al-Otaibi (2009). The original version of the scale, together with translation, were presented before a group of psychologists, and then adjustments took place on the items identified by the psychologists, where 3 items have been added to each subscale of the decision-making styles, except for intuitive style where 7 items have been added because there is no full agreement on the exact meaning and due to the multiplicity of its courses. The scale reliability was calculated by using the intemal consistency in the method of alpha Cronbach. The reliability coefficients for each dimension of the decision-making styles scale were as follows: the rational style, 0,837, intuitive style 0.899, dependent style 0.849, avoidant style 0,836, and the spontaneous style 0.821. It is noted that all reliability coefficients were high. The application was rebuilt in an interval of 15 days. The correlation coefficients between the two applications were as follows: intuitive style 0.842, rational style 0.846, spontaneous style 0.772, dependent style 0.851, and avoidant style 0.755. Validity of the scale

has been verified by using factor analysis where five factors have been identified to explain 49.57% of the overall variance, followed by rotating the axis to achieve simple construction and thus the possibility of psychological interpretation, and then rotating by using the perpendicular varimax. Significance over 40 has been adopted. In this way, the overall items of the scale became 43 items. The formative validity was calculated through calculation of the correlation coefficient between the decision-making styles scale and the locus of control. The results indicated negative function correlation of the rational style with the locus of control. Both avoidant and dependant styles were positively correlated with the locus of control scale. This finding agrees with the results obtained by the foreign studies on the same scale. For using this scale in this study, the scale validity and reliability were verified on a pilot sample includes (128) female students from the education college at the University of Umm Al Qura.

Table (6): Reliability values of different styles of decision-making scale calculated by reapplication methods and internal consistency (Alpha Cronbakh) and SPLIT for the pilot sample (N=1 Scale styles
1. Intuitive 2. Rational 3. Spontaneous 4. Dependant S. Avoidant

No. of Items
11 9 7 g 8

Reapplication
0.713 0.721 0.652 0.607 0.709

Alpha reliability Cronbach 0.8917 0.8718 0.7829 0.8219 0.8638

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /653

The researcher calculated the pilot sample reliability, using alpha Cronbakh coefficient on each dimension of the decision making styles: the intuitive, rational, spontaneous, dependant and avoidant styles (0.8917, 0.8718, 0.7829, 0.8219, 0.8638) respectively. The scale reliability was calculated using reapplication method and the total correlation between the two applications for each dimension of the decision making styles' dimensions: the intuitive, rational, spontaneous, dependant and

avoidant styles were (0.721,0.652,0.607, 0.709,0.762) which indicates the reliability of the overall scale and its sub-dimensions, and its validity for use in this study. * (**) Correlational values contained in the table above statistically significant at the level of (0.01), (*) Correlational values contained in the table above statistically significant at the level (0.05). As shown in the preceding table no. (7): the values of all correlation coefficients

Tahle No. (7): The results of correlation coefficient* between each suhscale statements with the overall score for each subscale in the decision-making styles of the pilot sample (n=128):
Correlation of the style statements scores with the overall score (Pearson Correlation) 2. Rational style Style Item No. #1 0.666 scale 0.502 No. 1 7 12 17 23 28 33 38 42 " #2 scale No. 6 11 16 22 27 32 37 0.436 #3 0.569 0.706 0.670 0.695 0.664 0.646 0.621 Overall Item Style Overall 3. Spontaneous style Item Sty Overall scale 0.351 0.397 0.303* 0.446 0.312 0.278 0.603 4. Dependant style Item No. 3 9 14 19 25 30 35 40 Style #4 Overall scale S. Avoidant style Item No. 4 10 15 20 26 31 36 41 Style #5 0.599 0.716 0.671* Overall scale 0.448* 0.360* 0.452**

0.752* 0.363 0.590 0.359 0.695 0.295 0.771** 0.311* 0.673 0.464** 0.769 0.406* 0.764* 0.416 0.693 0.568 0.551* 0.538 -

0.692 0.349 0.348* 0.308** 0.701** 0.560** 0.686* 0.420 0.726** 0.439 0.750** 0.447 0.810* 0.500 0.657 0.410 -

0.803 0.684 8 13 18 21 24 29 34 29 43 0.672 0.439 0.793 0.576 0.675 0.558 0.574 0.611 0.658 0.536 0.827 0.619 0.673 0.626 0.765 0.570 0.466 0.385 Style 2 grade Style 3 grade Style 4 grade Style 5 grade Overall scale

0.704** 0.466* 0.751* 0.397* 0.731** 0.435** 0.750** 0.363** 0.804** 0.439** 0.271* 0.801

0.518* -

HH
0.352 .241** -

0.210 0.575 .396** 0.586 .354** 0.643 0.580 -

654 / Education Voi. 132 No. 3

for the cognitive dissonance scale function at the level of (0,01) and (0,05).
Results:

For answering question (1), verification is made on the dissonance magnitude, average, standard deviation and the degree of statistical variance in the cognitive dissonance and its sub-dimensions have been calculated from the study sample which included (250) undergraduate female students at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah using cognitive dissonance test and its sub-dimensions. The table below shows the values of descriptive statistics and the magnitude of cognitive dissonance dimensions by percentage; it also shows the values of averages and their implications:

The previous table illustrates the following results: The most cognitive dissonance dimension as of magnitude and widespread in the study sample was the social dimension (extemal or impersonal) with a mean of (166.94) i.e. 41.7% of the actual dissonance magnitude. Followed by internal-personal dissonance in a mean of (156.3160) with a rate of (39.01). The mean of the total magnitude of the overall dissonance of the total sample was (322.2600) and the overall cognitive achieved rate was (40.3) of the total sample size, which suggests an overall cognitive dissonance below average. For answering question (2), correlation coefficient was calculated using Pearson method between the sample scores on the

Table (8): Values of averages and their standard deviations for the scores obtained by cognitive dissonance dimensions of the overall study sample of the female students (n=250):

Dimensions of DISS-Scale 01-FAM 02 - EMO 0 3 - PAD 04 - HEA 05 - IPTOT 06 - SCH 07 - SOC 08 - PER 09 - SUB 10-ETTOT 11 - DISS - R

Overall Presumptive Score 100 100 100 100 400 100 100 100 100 400 800

Mean Average 22.3840 37.7920 46.2560 49.8400 156.3160 35.0080 42.4000 46.7680 42.7680 166.9440 322.2600

Standard Variance Deviation 18.28678 16.73382 14.48107 18.31820 54.32965 14.38568 14.06811 16.69819 13.88717 47.58764 96.98143 334.406 280.021 209.701 335.557 2951.711 206.948 197.912 278.829 192.854 2264.583 9405.398

Minimum score 0.00 4.00 8.00 8.00 32.00 8.00 16.00 4.00 8.00 60.00 100.00

Maximum score 84.00 80.00 76.00 92.00 296.00 84.00 72.00 96.00 84.00 328.00 608.00

% of the mean acbieved 22.4 37.8 46.3 49.8 39.1 35.0 42.4 46.7 42.8 41.7 4.03

Ratio of arithmetic mean achieved for the style/overall presumptive score for the style x 100.

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... 7 655

Table (9) shows the results of the correlative relation values* between the scores obtained by the cognitive dissonance dimensions and the cognitive dissonance styles of the overall study sample of the female students at Umm Al Qura University in Makkah (n=250): The correlation relationship between the scores obtained by the dimensions of cognitive dissonance scale and the decision-making styles (Pearson Correlation) Dimensions of DISS-Scale
01 - FAM 02 - EMO 03 - PAD 04 - HEA 05 - IPTOT 06 - SCH 07 - SOC 08 - PER 09 - SUB 10-ETTOT 11-DISS-R

Decision making styles Intuitive

0.039 0.115 0.152 0.231'* 0.167" 0.041 0.150* 0.223** 0.127* 0.172** 0.178**

Rational
-0.053 -0.231** -O.074 -0.068 -0.132* -0.218** -0.145* -0.053 -0.059 -0.145* -0.145*

Spontaneous
0.212** 0.309** 0.173** 0.297** 0J13** 0.236** D.257** 0.296** 0.235** 0J20** 0.332**

Dependant
-0.052 0.113 1.108 0.140* 0.092 0.014 0.072 0.172** 0.238** 0.155* 0.128*

Avoidant 0.159* 0.395** 0J59** 0J09** 0J75** 0.209** 0.315** 0.308** 0.417** 0J86** 0.400**

() The correlation values stated in the above table are of statistical function of (0.01), () the correlation values stated in the above table are of statistical function of (0.05).

cognitive dissonance scale and the decision-making styles scale. The following table shows the correlation coefficient values and significance. Reading through the previous tahle reveals the foliowing: There is a positive statistical function relationship between the internal personal dimension of the cognitive dissonance scale and the sub-scores of the following decision-making styles: intuitive style, spontaneous style and the avoidant style at the level of (0.01). This means that there was a direct cor-

relation function, i.e. the higher the cognitive dissonance in the internal personal dimension, the higher the scores of dimensions of the decisionmaking styles scale (intuitive style, spontaneous style and the avoidant style). A negative statistically function relationship between the cognitive dissonance personal-internal dimension and the rational style at a level of (0.05). This means the existence of an inverse correlation relationship, i.e. the higher the cognitive dissonance with the inter-

656 / Education Vol. 132 No. 3

avoidant style), at the level of (0.01) nal personal dimension, the lower the and (0.05). This means there was a scores of the rational style and vice direct correlation relationship i.e. the versa. The cognitive dissonance EMO higher the overall score of the cogninegatively correlated with the rational tive dissonance, the higher the scores of style at the level of (0.01). the dimensions of the decision-making The results also showed a lack of cordimensions. relative function relationship between the cognitive dissonance personal-inter- There is a negative statistical function relationship between the overall score nal dimension and the dependent style. of the cognitive dissonance and the The results also showed a positive starational style, at the level of (0.05). This tistically function relationship between means the existence of an inverse corthe cognitive dissonance impersonalrelation relationship, although weak, external dimension and the following i.e. the higher the overall score of the dimensions of decision-making styles: cognitive dissonance, the lower the intuitive style, spontaneous style, depenscores of the rational style and vice dant style, and avoidant style, which versa. are statistically function values at the levels of (0.01). This means that there For answering question (3), t-test was was a direct correlation relation, i.e. the used to find the differences between the higher the cognitive dissonance in the means of the high and low cognitive disextemal social dimension, the higher sonance in thefivedecision making styles. the scores of dimensions of the deci- Results are shown on the following table: sion-making styles scale (intuitive style, spontaneous style, dependant style) at a level of (0.05). A negative statistically function relationship between the cognitive dissonance external-social dimension and the rational style at the level of (0.05). This means the existence of an inverse correlation relationship, i.e. the higher the cognitive dissonance with the extemal social dimension, the lower the scores of the rational style and vice versa. The results also showed the correlation of the overall score of the cognitive dissonance with the following decision making styles: (intuitive styles, spontaneous style, dependant style and the

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /657

Table No. (10) shows the results of the independent samples 't' test for differences among female students with high and low cognitive dissonance in average scale of the decision-making styles in the female students sample at Umm Al Qura University in Makkah (n=250)
Levene's Test for Decfsion-makiog styles standard Group N Mean Deviation value DISS bighs 1. Intuitive DISS lows DISS highs 2. Radonal DISS lows |BISS^Iis| 210 24.6762 5.89785 210 40 26.4476 23.4250 7.39129 7.17863 3.467 No. F 40 28.4750 7.89673 0.007 No. F 0.064 -1.186 No. F Signifiance 0.934 1.573 No. F 0.237 0.117 2.0274 Variance consistent Test (2-tani) DIfTerence t significance Mean

m
40 210

DISS highs 4. Dependant DISS lows

m
BB

6.777

0.01

21.2750 19.8381

5.00762 1.542 5.98583 ^OOli^ 8.403 5f45il65

0.216 No. F

H
1.426

B
0.155 1.4369 No. F

-1.2512

IDlSSimaiSI 40M

MB IM

0.01

^H ^

AU values oft test stated in this table were iti free degree of (248)

Reading througii the previous table reveis tlie foiiowing: There are statistical function differences between those of high and low cognitive dissonance in the overall score of the (spontanious style) dimension for those of high cognitive dissonance; There are statistical function differences between those of high and low cognitive dissonance in the overall score of the (avoidant style) dimension for those of high cognitive dissonance. Differences between aggregates indicate that the high cognitive dissonance group mostly used the spontaneous style, while the low cognitive dissonance group used the avoidant style. There are also other differences of non-

statistical function between the cognitive dissonance and intuitive style, rational style and dependant style. For answering question (4), average means were calculated to disclose the decision-making styles the most common used among female students at Umm Al Qura University?"

658 / Education Vol. 132 No. 3

Table No. (11): indicates classification of decision-making styles as per the percentage of means achieved by study sample of the female students at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah (n=263)
Overall Decision making styles No. of suppositive Items score 2. Rational 4. Dependant 1. Intuitive 5. Avoidant 3. Spontaneous achieved* 24.3194 20.1103 26.7110 14.2738 12.0532 67.55 62.85 60.71 44.61 43.05 6.22148 6.00439 7.63580 5.88512 4.84857 38.707 36.053 58.305 34.635 23.509 5.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 36.00 32.00 44.00 29.00 28.00 2 3 4 5 Mean The mean Deviation Percentage of Standard Variance score score Ion Minimum Maximum Classificat Style

9
8 11 8 7

36 32 44 32 28

* The mean ration of the style = the achieved mean of the style/the overall assumption score of the style x 100.

The previous table shows the possibility of classifying the dimensions of the aggressive behavior at the overall sample, and reflects the following results: The most apparent and prevalence decision-making style is the rational dimension, followed by the dependent dimension, intuitive dimension, avoidant dimension and finally the spontaneous dimension.
Discussion:

The decision-making contributes in dissonance occurrence, once dissonance occurs after decision-making, there appears the pressure aiming to reduce the dissonance occurred. The decision maker acts cautiously and actively and uses high-quality components when making a decision. He may use certain styles and methods to prove he is capable for coping. This study has emerged a set of statistical results. This study found that the most cognitive dissonance style in terms of size and spreading in the study sample is the social dimension (extemal or impersonal). This can be interpreted in the light of the amount of

dissonance that accompanies a specific cognition and the importance of such the dissonant cognition. The dissonance magnitude is also considered a function of the ratio of the dissonant cognitions to the consonant cognitions, as each cognitive element is weighted according to its importance to the person (Brehm & Cohen, 1962). Increase of the cognitive dissonance magnitude in the external dimension on the intemal dissonance refers to the external community pressures on the individual where the social life and the individual vision and belief before the extemal community beliefs and vision resulting in an extreme pressure urging occurrence of the cognitive dissonance where the individual seeks to reduce it as soon as possible because it affects his personal life and his relationship to others. The overall dissonance magnitude in the overall sample recorded (40.3) of the total sample size, which suggests an overall cognitive dissonance below the average. The maturity and awareness of the study sample make it easier for them to be aware of these dis-

Cognitive Dissonance and Dedsion-i\/lai<ing... 7 659

sonant and contradictory cognitions with the dissonance in a trail to increase the reltheir beliefs, cognitions and opinions. The ative attractiveness of the chosen results also showed a direct correlation alternative, and to reduce the relative attracrelationship between the cognitive disso- tiveness of non-chosen alternative, and to nance and the intuitive style , which is a find cognitive consensus, or revoke the style requires a focus on emotional self decision psychologically, which could perception as the basis for selection, and occur by using the avoidant or the spontasimple anticipating future and litde search neous style. for information or the logical weight of The results also showed an inverse relaalternatives (Hablemitoglu & Yildirim, tionship between the cognitive dissonance 2008; 215). This is consistent with the idea of internal & personal dimension and the of the cognitive dissonance which requires rational style, which is a logical consecontradiction of cognitions and beliefs. It quence that means the individual use of may also explain the relationship between rational style as a positive style where indithe cognitive dissonance and the sponta- viduals using this style tend to deal with neous style which is described as the problems than to avoid them, where the immediate sense and the direct desire to individual seek extensive information and access to the decision-making process as set a list of alternatives and make a logisoon as possible, so also the relation cal evaluation for them, which reduce his between the cognitive dissonance and the cognitive dissonance, unlike the cognitive avoidant style described as attempts to dissonance which includes psychological avoid decision-making whenever feasible, tension and discomfort and contradiction which means increased use of intuitive, between cognitions. spontaneous and avoidant styles by indiThe results also showed a positive corviduals with the increase of cognitive relation between the cognitive dissonance dissonance, in the light of confirmation by external social dimension and the followGriffin et al. (Griffin, 2006; Littlejohn & ing decision-making styles (intuitive, Foss, 2005; Rice, 1997) that decisions spontaneous, dependant and avoidant). taken in haste can cause considerable inter- This result can be interpreted in the light nal tension following decision making. of the idea of the cognitive dissonance After the adoption of the decision, people linked with high tension and psychologipassed a tingling and self-condemnation cal discomfort where individuals which whether they have taken the right decision, leads individuals to use negative images and after having their grief they frequent- of decision-making styles such as the intuly resolved obsessions after the difficult itive style where people usually use selection process, people try to automati- intuition to take a decision in stressful sitcally find information to justify and defend uations engulfed by doubt and lack of their decisions and satisfy nagging doubts. information (Judge & Robbins, 2006; Once the cognitive dissonance occurs after David, 2009). Although intuition is conthe decision, pressure appears to reduce sidered important and necessary in the

660 / Education Vol. 132 No. 3

decision-making process, however, (as Scott & Bruce, 1995) it depends on the attention to details more than information and relying on emotions and personal concems. In addition, the decision makers in this style tend to be risk seekers, with intense interest, and believe in luck (Martin et al., 2005). People often rely on intuition in decision-making because they are not completely sure of the altemative (Certo & Certo, 2005). This style also linked to the spontaneous style, defined by & Scott Bmce (1995), as the direct desire to address the decision as soon as possible, thereby resulting in a lot of erroneous or conflicting decisions that serve to increase tension in the individual as well as many information that were not handled properly or not dealt with as a result of a hasty decision-making. Such information increase cognitive dissonance in case of decision-making. The cognitive dissonance, also, associated with the extemal social dimension (impersonal) of the dependant style, which is based on the advice and tips for others (Loo, 2000). In particular, extemal and social dissonance contains two important dimension associated with and affect this style. These dimensions are SUB dimension and PER dimension, where the individual here is affected by others in his decision-making under his dependency to others to try to satisfy them. It also associated with the avoidant style which means avoiding decision-making whenever possible. The person having this style will try his best to avoid decision making ( Hablemitoglu & Yildirim, 2008). Individuals with painful dissonance may try to avoid dissonance

occurrence through avoiding those situations leading to dissonance, and develop some mechanisms to reduce dissonance, and their inability to take a decision result from their fear of dissonance occurrence. Some individuals seek to avoid dissonance following the adoption of the decision by taking decisions without their knowledge that they have taken them. This may sometimes occurs by taking a negative role with regard to the environment, so that decisions are taken in cases where the individual finds himself obliged to take. In this case the decision was taken but is not responsible for it. Dissonance occurs after decision-making could be avoided, somewhat, by abrogating the decision psychologically once taken (Festinger, 1957; 269-271). This was confirmed by both Rowe & Boulgarides, where they stated that the decision style helps to predict the outcome of the decision (Rowe & Boulgarides, 1992). When applying the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) in the field of decision-making, it affirmed that individuals promote their views on decisions after taking them. We find that people are trying to reduce their mental inconsistency because it happened as an unpleasant condition. This was confirmed by the study of Rabbie et.al. (1959) which stated that there is relationship between cognitive dissonance and decision making where results stated that the decision to take a position in conflict is sufficient to cause the dissonance and thus change the attitude towards the situation. The results also showed an inverse relationship between the cognitive dissonance and the extemal social dimension (rational

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /661

style) which emphasizes the negativity of cognitive dissonance variable in the human brain. This result can be interpreted in the light of the idea of cognitive dissonance as a motive psychological tension when the individual have cognitions of dissonant relations (Brehm & Cohen, 1962). This is the opposite of rational style, where decisions are logically related to the goal and result. Rationality requires deliberation and weight altematives for choosing the most effective means of achieving the objective(s) (Gross et al., 1980). The results also showed statistical function relationship between the subjects of high cognitive dissonance and those of low cognitive dissonance in the score of spontaneous style dimension for the subjects of high cognitive dissonance. Also showed statistical function relafionship between the subjects of high cognitive dissonance and those of low cognitive dissonance in the scores of avoidant style dimension for the subjects of high cognifive dissonance which confirms that cognitive dissonance is associated with negative styles of decision-making. This emphasizes that the subjects of high cognitive dissonance use more high negative styles of decision-making. This confirms the opinion about the term of decision style which means the way in which the person uses information to framing the decision. The decision style is still a cognitive process includes one personality in relation to his needs, values and self-concept (Rowe & Mason, 1987). Perhaps these differences in averages support the opinion of Soutar & Sweeney (2003) which says that the cognitive dissonance is not an extreme case, but it is

found in a higher or lower level in the various stages of decision-making. In extreme cases, where individual in maximum sustainability of cognitive dissonance, i.e. the dissonance is painful for them, the individual reacts to avoid the dissonance by avoiding the decision-making or even become unable to make decisions. Until reaching this extreme limit, the matter becomes satisfactory affair, and he may actually prefer to remain in the paradox and shows lack of decision-making capacity (Festinger, 1957). This study also found that the more common decision-making style in the study sample was the rational dimension, followed by the dependent dimension, and intuitive dimension, and dimension, and the avoidant dimension, and finally the spontaneous dimension. This result;, presented in the widespread use of the rational style, can be explained in the light of the results of some studies that addressed many variables affecting some decision styles (e.g. the study of Tayeb, 1988), which focused on the cultural background which affect an individual's decision style. Another study (AH, 1989) argued that the decision making differs according to the country, organizational sector, age, region where the individual spent his childhood, social mind and education. Yousef was conducted a study (1998) in which he reported that the decision style may be affected by the organizational culture, the level of use of technology, the level of education of the decision maker, and his employment status (Jacoby, 1996).

662 7 Education Vol. 132 No. 3 References

Al Otaibi, Al Bandari (2009). The relationship between the Decision-making Styles, the BigFive Factors and the Rational Thinking, an essay for a master degree on female students at King Saud University, Faculty of Education, Department of Psychology, Riyadh, KSA. Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R.( 1962); Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley. Cassel, R. N. Chow,P. & Reiger, R, C.(2001) : The Cognitive Dissonance Test.(DISS).C/M/J Vista, California, Project Innovation Certo, S. C , & Certo, S.T. ( 2005). Modern management (10th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Hall. David, F. R. (2009). Strategic management: concept and cases (12th ed). United States of America: Pearson Education, Inc Festinger, L., 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Friedman, I.A. (1996). Deliberation and resolution in decision making processes: A self-report scale for adolescents. Educational and Psychology Measurement m Vol. 56, No. 5, PP881-890, Stage. Gambetti, E., Fabbri, M., Besi,L., and Tonetti, L.(2008). A contribution to the Italian validation of the general decision making style inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol.44,No.4,PP842-852. Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory (6th ed ). New York: McGraw-Hill Gross, I.H., E.W. Crandall and M.M. Knoll. (1980) Managementfor Modern Families. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc Hunt, R.G., Kizystofiak, F.J., Meindl, J.R., and Yousry, A.M.(1989). Cognitive style and decision making .In Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol.44,PP.436-453. Jacoby, J. M., ( 2007). Relationship between Principals' Decision Making Styles and Technology Acceptance & Use, University of Pittsburgh - Electronic Thesis Dissertation Archive and, http:77etd.library.pitt.edu7ETD7 available7etd-01022007-223237 Judge, T.A., & Robbins, S.P. (2006). Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). Canada: Prentice Hall Leonard, N. H., School, R. W., & Kowalski, K. B. (1999). Information processing style and decision making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 407-420 Leonard, N.H., Pscholl, R.W., and Kowalski, K.B.(1999). Information processing style and decision making . Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.20, No.3, PP407-420.. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of human communication (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson7Wadsworth. Loo, R ( 2000 ).A Psychometric evaluation of the general decision- making style inventory, ELsonality and Individual Differences. Volume 29, Issue 5, 1 November, Pages 895-905. Martin, L. B., Bandali, F , & Lamoureux, T. (2005). Survey of Literature Pertaining to Decision Making Styles and Individual Factors. Toronto: DRDC. Murray, Michael (1986) Decisions a comparative critique. Pitman Publishing INC. Nutt, P. C. (1990). Strategic decision made by top executive and middle managers with data and process dominant styles. Journal of Management Studies,21(2), 172- 194. Rabbie, J. M., Brrhm, J. W. & Cohen, A. R.(1959): Verbalization & reactions to cognitive dissonance . Journal of Personality, Vol 27, no 3, 407-417, September. Rice, C. (1997). Understanding customers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1983). Decision Styles- A perspective . Leadership and Organization Development Journal,\2(4), 39. Rowe, A. J., & Boulgarides, J. D. (1992). Managerial Decision Making: A Guide to Successful Business Decisions. New York: McMillan. Rowe, A. J., & Mason, R. O. (1987). Managing with style: A guide to understanding, assessing, and improving decision making. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass.

Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making... /663

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. Sengul Hablemitoglu & Filiz Yildirim.(2008). The Relationship between Perception of Risk and Decision Making Styles of Turkish University Students: A Descriptive Study of Individual Differences. World Applied Sciences Journal 4 (2): 214-224. Slovic, p. (1990). Chaice. In D ,Osheron , & E ., Smith ( Eds) An Invitation to cognitive Science. Thinking, VOL. 3 london : The MT Press Soutar, G. N & Sweeney, J. C.(2003). Are There Cognitive Dissonance Segments? Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No.3. Thunholm,R.(2004). Decision making style:Habit, style or both? Personality and Individual Difference , Vol.36,No.4,PP.931-944. Treffinger, D.J., Selby, E.C., and Isaksen, S.G.(2008). Understanding individual problem- solving styles: A key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Learning and Individual Diffrences . Vol. 18, No. 4, PP' 390-401

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.