Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Identity-processing style and decision making theory: factors to consider when adolescents are deciding… Chung, Rosamond 1997

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1997-250350.pdf [ 5.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0088067.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0088067-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0088067-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0088067-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0088067-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0088067-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0088067-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0088067-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0088067.ris

Full Text

IDENTITY-PROCESSING S T Y L E AND DECISION MAKING THEORY: F A C T O R S TO CONSIDER W H E N A D O L E S C E N T S A R E DECIDING UPON A C A R E E R by ROSAMOND C H U N G Dip. Si r Robert Black Co l lege of Educat ion, Hong Kong B . E D . S imon Fraser University, C a n a d a M.A. University of British Columbia , C a n a d a A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D E G R E E OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in T H E FACULTY OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES _ , (Department of Educat ional Psychology and Spec ia l Educat ion) W e accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1997 ©Rosamond Chung, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be, granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial . gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. , Department of EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY & SPECIAL EDUCATION The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada JUNE, 1997 . Date DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T While t a k i n g a p e r s o n o l o g i c a l approach t o d e c i s i o n making th e o r y , t h i s t h e s i s addresses the i s s u e of how a d o l e s c e n t s make o c c u p a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s . I m p l i c i t i n t h i s t h e s i s i s the i d e a t h a t a p e r s o n o l o g i c a l approach t o d e c i s i o n making has t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e when i t i s conducted through a person-a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n . The p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n used t o examine a d o l e s c e n t d e c i s i o n making i s the s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e t h e o r y o f Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . Based on Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , 63 a d o l e -s c e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d as I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t f o r a s s e s s i n g the extent compensatory (high demand) and non-compensatory (reduced-demand) p r o c e s s i n g was used i n an occu-p a t i o n a l c h o i c e s i t u a t i o n t h a t v a r i e d i n c o g n i t i v e complexity. A d d i t i o n a l i n t e r e s t was a l s o d i r e c t e d a t de t e r m i n i n g whether the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s r e f l e c t e d d i f f e r e n t i n t r i n s i c or ex-t r i n s i c v a l u e p r e f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r f i n a l c h o i c e s . A l l p r o c e s s i n g data was d e r i v e d through a computerized i n -fo r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n system c a l l e d MOUSELAB. As h y p o t h e s i z e d , the t h r e e i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y usage and search behavior. I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s were seen t o use a compensatory a d d i t i v e l i n e a r procedure; t h a t i s , they searched a l a r g e amount of i n f o r m a t i o n , i n a c o n s t a n t f a s h i o n , f o r an extended p e r i o d of time. Normative a d o l e s c e n t s were seen t o use a non-compensatory c o n j u n c t i v e i i procedure; t h a t i s , they searched a s m a l l e r amount of i n f o r -mation, i n a s e l e c t i v e f a s h i o n , f o r a s h o r t e r p e r i o d o f time. D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s were seen t o use a non-compensatory e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t procedure; where the amount, s e l e c t i v i t y and time of search was s i m i l a r t o the Normative a d o l e s c e n t s . In reg a r d s t o se a r c h d i r e c t i o n , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s and Normatives were seen t o as s e s s o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e s through an a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d s e a r c h p a t t e r n whereas; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s were seen t o l e a n towards an a t t r i b u t e - b a s e d search p a t t e r n . These p r o c e s s i n g r e s u l t s were t r u e o n l y f o r the hig h i n f o r m a t i o n l o a d c o n d i t i o n . F i n a l l y , as expected t h e o r e t i c a l l y , v a l u e p r e f e r e n c e s were seen t o v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o an adole s c e n t ' s i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e . When making an o c c u p a t i o n a l s e l e c t i o n , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s p l a c e d more emphases on i n t r i n s i c v a l u e s ( F e e l i n g o f S e l f - f u l f i l -ment, I n t e l l e c t u a l S t i m u l a t i o n , Autonomy ect) whereas Normative a d o l e s c e n t s p l a c e d more emphases on e x t r i n s i c v a l u e s ( A u t h o r i t y , P r e s t i g e , Wage e t c ) . D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s o s c i l l a t e d between the two val u e systems. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r d e c i s i o n making theory, a p p l i e d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s c o u n s e l l i n g job-seeking a d o l e s c e n t s and l i m i t -a t i o n s of the study are d i s c u s s e d . i i i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S A B S T R A C T i i T A B L E O P C O N T E N T S i v L I S T O P T A B L E S v i L I S T O P F I G U R E S v i i A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T v i i i C H A P T E R I INTRODUCTION 1 T h e o r e t i c a l Issues and Approach 2 R a t i o n a l e 4 C o g n i t i v e S t y l e R e v i s i t e d 6 M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Approach 8 Statement of Problem , 9 Models and O r i e n t a t i o n 9 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study 10 D e f i n i t i o n s 11 C H A P T E R I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14 S e c t i o n One: The Issue of C o g n i t i v e S t y l e 15 S e c t i o n Two: Berzonsky's I d e n t i t y P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e s 19 S e c t i o n Three: D e c i s i o n Making Theory 29 C o g n i t i v e S t r a t e g i e s and I d e n t i t y P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e S i m i l a r i t i e s 38 Techniques f o r Studying D e c i s i o n Making as a P r o c e s s . . . . 41 Concluding Remarks and General Questions 43 Development of Hypotheses 45 C H A P T E R I I I METHODOLOGY 46 Stage One 46 Sample 46 Instrumentation 47 Procedures 52 P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s 53 Stage Two 56 Sample 56 Experimental Apparatus 56 S t i m u l i and Design 57 Procedures 60 Measure of D e c i s i o n Process 60 Research Hypotheses 64 Data A n a l y s i s 65 i v C H A P T E R I V RESULTS 68 Hypothesis I (A) 68 Summary of Hypothesis I (A) 76 Hypothesis I (B) 77 Summary of Hypothesis I (B) 79 Hypothesis I I 81 Summary of Hypothesis I I 85 C H A P T E R V DISCUSSION 86 R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Previo u s S t u d i e s 88 T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s 91 P r a c t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s 95 L i m i t a t i o n s and Future Research 99 C o n c l u s i o n 104 G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S 105 R E F E R E N C E S 106 A P P E N D I C E S 124 APPENDIX A: Work Value Survey 124 APPENDIX B: M a t r i x D i s p l a y of Two D e c i s i o n Tasks 125 APPENDIX C: A Sample of an I n d i v i d u a l ' s Search Record on Low Task C o n d i t i o n 126 APPENDIX D: A Sample of the Computation of Information Search Measures 127 APPENDIX E: A Sample of the Four D e c i s i o n S t r a t e g i e s 129 APPENDIX F: Samples of I n d i v i d u a l Search Record 1. I n f o r m a t i o n a l 131 2. Normative 134 3. D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t 136 APPENDIX G: Samples of I n d i v i d u a l W r i t t e n P r o t o c o l s 1. I n f o r m a t i o n a l 137 2. Normative 138 3. D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t 139 APPENDIX H: Problem of G l o b a l Assessment Measure 140 v L I S T O F T A B L E S TABLE #1 Mean & Standard D e v i a t i o n (SD) of Values by the C o l l e g e Sample 55 TABLE #2 MANOVA Summary of Task Performance Among the Three Groups 69 TABLE #3 Mean, Standard D e v i a t i o n (SD) of P r o p o r t i o n o f Information Search (PIS) f o r Each I d e n t i t y -p r o c e s s i n g S t y l e a c r o s s t a s k s 71 TABLE #4 Mean, Standard D e v i a t i o n (SD) of Latency o f Search among the Groups acr o s s t a s k s 73 #4a Average Amount of Time Spent ( i n second u n i t ) per box among the groups 73 TABLE #5 Mean, Standard D e v i a t i o n (SD) of V a r i a b i l i t y of Search (VSA) f o r each I d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g S t y l e a c r o s s t a s k s 74 TABLE #6 Mean, Standard D e v i a t i o n (SD) of D i r e c t i o n o f Search (DS) f o r each I d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g S t y l e a c r o s s t a s k s 75 TABLE #7 Frequencies of D e c i s i o n S t r a t e g i e s Employed by the Three I d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g Groups i n Low and High Information Tasks 79 TABLE #8 MANOVA Summary R e s u l t s of W i t h i n - s u b j e c t a c r o s s Tasks 81 TABLE #9 S e l e c t e d Independent V a r i a b l e s Entered i n t o the D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n f o r F i n a l A n a l y s i s 82 TABLE #10 Group C e n t r o i d and D i s c r i m i n a n t S t r u c t u r e M a t r i x f o r DA of Value Dimensions Among the Three I d e n t i t y P r o c e s s i n g Groups 84 TABLE #11 Rotated Loading Between D i s c r i m i n a t i n g V a r i a b l e s and Can o n i c a l D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n s 84 v i L I S T O F F I G U R E S FIGURE 1: Example of Stimulus D i s p l a y of the 3 x 8 Task M a t r i x 59 FIGURE 2: Latency of Search Per A t t r i b u t e (LSPA) on the Search Record 126 v i i A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T A t t h i s p o i n t , I would l i k e t o extend g r a t i t u d e t o the members of my s u p e r v i s o r y committee, Dr. A r t h u r More, Dr. L a r r y Cochran and Dr. Walter B o l d t f o r t h e i r support and encouragement throughout. I t was t h e i r p a t i e n c e , understanding and c o n f i d e n c e i n me t h a t r e s u l t e d i n the completion of t h i s study. A l s o , I would l i k e t o thank my c o l l e a g u e s , Barry B e r r e t t o n i , Ken Chan, Choon Hian Chan and L i n d a C h r i s t i e f o r t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n s d u r i n g the p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s manuscript. F i n a l l y , I am g r e a t l y i n d e b t e d t o a l l the v o l u n t e e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s study. Without t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n , the study would not have been p o s s i b l e . v i i i C H A P T E R O N E I N T R O D U C T I O N I t i s apparent we are now l i v i n g i n a time of i n c r e a s i n g t e c h n o l o g i c a l change and complexity. As a r e s u l t , i t i s r e a s o n -a b l e t o assume t h a t the adolescent of today i s now exposed t o an a r r a y of more c h a l l e n g i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s than ever b e f o r e . However, as i t i s noted i n the l i t e r a t u r e , such i n c r e a s e i n o c c u p a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y does not come without i t s own c a s t of problems (Brown, 1984; Dawis & L o f q u i s t , 1984; K l e i n & Wiener, 1977). While i t i s l i k e l y over time the a d o l e s c e n t w i l l have o p p o r t u n i t y t o choose another o c c u p a t i o n (Super, 1957, 1983), i t i s the extent of today's e d u c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g and p e r s o n a l investment t h a t suggests an i n i t i a l o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e c o u l d have continued importance throughout l i f e (Super, 1980). Thus, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the o p p o r t u n i t y the a d o l e s c e n t has f o r s e l e c t i n g from amongst v a r i o u s c a r e e r s , choosing t h a t c a r e e r now c a r r i e s a sense of permanency wi t h i t . Add t h i s f e e l t o the f a c t t h a t young people now have l e s s time t o c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s c a r e e r s because most r e q u i r e an e a r l y e d u c a t i o n a l commitment and; one can then a p p r e c i a t e some of the p r e s s u r e the a d o l e s c e n t now f a c e s i n choosing the modern c a r e e r . I t i s w i t h i n t h i s x r e a l w o r l d ' c o n t e x t t h a t t h i s author w i l l look a t d e c i s i o n making, i n p a r t i c u l a r , a d o l e s c e n t d e c i s i o n making. 1 T h e o r e t i c a l I s s u e s a n d A p p r o a c h While l i t e r a t u r e notes t h a t most r e s e a r c h on d e c i s i o n making i s t a s k c o n t i n g e n t when i t comes t o search and c h o i c e (Abelson & L e v i , 1985; G a t i , 1993; Jacoby, 1989; P i t z & Harren, 1980), few of t h e s e s t u d i e s have looked a t what the d e c i s i o n maker b r i n g s p e r s o n o l o g i c a l l y t o the d e c i s i o n making pr o c e s s (Ford e t a l . , 1989) . ! I t seems d e c i s i o n t h e o r i s t s (Payne, 1976, Payne e t a l . , 1993) have overlooked a fundamental p r o p o s i t i o n i n psychology, Behaviour = f ( P e r s o n , Task), where d e c i s i o n a l outcome i s c o n t i n g e n t on the d e c i s i o n maker's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the t a s k s i t u a t i o n , and the r e s u l t i n g i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t h e r e o f ( M i s c h e l , 1973). Or as Hunt e t a l . (1989) note, t a s k c o n t i n g e n t p r o c e s s i n g can " h a r d l y exhaust the v a r i e t i e s of human c h o i c e " (p. 436). D e c i s i o n making i s not o n l y d r i v e n by the t a s k per se, but i t i s a l s o the product of one's f e e l i n g s , i n t e r e s t s , m o t i v a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y ( T a y l o r , 1984). Thus, t o a c q u i r e a more complete understanding of d e c i s i o n making as i t occurs i n the * r e a l world', t h e o r i s t s should pay g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n t o the d e c i s i o n maker's p e r s o n a l q u a l i t i e s ; t h a t i s , how c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common t o the d e c i s i o n maker are r e l a t e d t o those p r o c e s s i n g procedures t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y . In d o i n g so, S i m i l a r to Alker's (1971) notion of personologism, a personological o r i e n t a t i o n consists of stable person-centred c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( t r a i t s , world views, cognitive styles) that influence or determine behavioral v a r i a t i o n (Wright et a l . , 1985). What a decision maker brings persono-l o g i c a l l y to the decision making process i s a unique manner (style) for addressing the p a r t i c u l a r problem. This d e c i s i o n a l manner i s comprised of developmental, psychological and s o c i o l o g i c a l elements. 2 t h i s author b e l i e v e s t h e o r i s t s w i l l then be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o f a c i l i t a t e a person's d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s . U s i n g o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e as a problem s e t , t h i s author w i l l i n v e s t i g a t e the extent t h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n s common t o adolescence are r e l a t e d t o d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y ( G a t i , 1993; Payne, 1976, Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980). N o t i n g the a d o l e s c e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t h i s study, i t s p e r s o n o l o g i c a l dimension i s p r i n c i p a l l y E r i k s o n i a n ( E r i k s o n , 1963, 1982), as i t i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d i n Marcia's (1980, e t a l . , 1993) i d e n t i t y s t a t u s r e s e a r c h . However, where Marcia's i d e n t i t y s t a t u s t h e o r y i s seen t o r e s t on c e r t a i n p s y c h o a n a l y t i c premises, t h i s t h e s i s w i l l f o l l o w the s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e approach of Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . As a s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e approach, i t w i l l be seen t h a t Berzonsky's t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t -i o n i s s u i t a b l e f o r l o o k i n g a t d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y , a s u i t -a b i l i t y t h a t not o n l y p r o v i d e s the c o g n i t i o n i s t s w i t h an import-ant p e r s o n o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , but i n doing so, suggests an i n t e r e s t i n g c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e f o r t h e o r i s t s t o study a d o l e s -c e n t d e c i s i o n making. F i n a l l y , where r e s e a r c h i n d e c i s i o n mak-i n g has documented d e c i s i o n a l performance from an i n p u t - o u t p u t (stimulus-response) p e r s p e c t i v e (Newell & Simon, 1972; B i l l i n g s & Marcus, 1983), t o t h i s author's knowledge none have looked a t the x i n - p r o c e s s ' aspects of d e c i s i o n making through a psycho-s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n . 3 R a t i o n a l e As a p s y c h o - s o c i a l model, Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e theory i s i n t e r e s t e d i n how an a d o l e s -c e n t searches i n f o r m a t i o n . E s s e n t i a l l y , Berzonsky sees an a d o l e s -c e n t ' s s e a r c h as v a r y i n g i n accordance t o an u n d e r l y i n g psycho-l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e ( E r i k s o n , 1963, 1968, 1982). Depending on how t h i s s t r u c t u r e i s o n t o l o g i c a l l y experienced, Berzonsky suggests t h r e e i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s : a) the I n f o r m a t i o n a l p r o c e s s -i n g s t y l e where search i s open, f l e x i b l e or u n c o n d i t i o n a l i n u t i l i z a t i o n ; b) the Normative p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e where s e a r c h i s c l o s e d , r i g i d or c o n d i t i o n a l i n u t i l i z a t i o n and; c) t h e D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e where search o s c i l l a t e s between an open/closed, f l e x i b l e / r i g i d or u n c o n d i t i o n a l / c o n d i t i o n a l form of u t i l i z a t i o n . 2 Where the i m p l i e d p s y c h o - s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e above i s e s s e n t i a l l y E r i k s o n i a n , i t i s Berzonsky's treatment of psycho-s o c i a l s e a r c h where h i s theory suggests a new s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e emphasis. For Berzonsky e t a l . (1992, 1993), each i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e i s d i s c e r n a b l e through f o u r s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e elements: ex-p e r i e n t i a l openness (Costa & McCrae, 1978); i n t r o s p e c t i v e n e s s ( H a n s e l l e t a l . , 1986); p e r s o n a l versus s o c i a l i d e n t i t y r e c e p t -i v e n e s s (Cheek & B r i g g s , 1982) and c o g n i t i v e m o t i v a t i o n , as i n I t i s important to note t h i s author i s s e n s i t i v e to the problem of using general and impersonal descriptors to describe human phenomena. While concepts l i k e Informational, Normative and Diffuse/avoidant are concept-u a l l y convenient, as a reminder of t h e i r empirical l i m i t a t i o n s and i n f e r r e d humanness, they w i l l always be c a p i t a l i z e d throughout the t h e s i s . 4 one's xneed f o r c o g n i t i o n ' (Cacioppo & P e t t y , 1982). I t i s i n r e l a t i o n t o these s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s t h a t t h i s author i s s u g g e s t i n g Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s share important s i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h those c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g procedures t h a t con-s t i t u t e d e c i s i o n making theory ( G a t i , 1993; Payne, 1976, Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980). In other words, not o n l y are the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s of d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y t a s k c o n t i n g e n t responses o f a person's x f i x e d c a p a c i t y ' t o p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n (Simon, 1957, Tversky, 1969, 1972), but i n an isomorphic sense they a r e a l s o p e r s o n o l o g i c a l extensions of a l a r g e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . While more conceptual d e t a i l i s p r o v i d e d i n the next chapter, t h i s author i s suggesting t h a t d u r i n g d e c i s i o n making, Berzonsky's I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s have an i n c l i n a t i o n t o use a complex, h i g h p r o c e s s i n g demand (compensatory) procedure where-as, Normative or D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s have an i n c l i n a t i o n t o use a s i m p l i f i e d , low p r o c e s s i n g demand (non-compensatory) procedure. I t seems the manner i n which an a d o l e s c e n t c o g n i t i v e l y i n t e r a c t s w i t h the world i s very much r e l a t e d t o how he/she p e r -c e i v e s the world, a p e r c e p t i o n t h a t i s i n p a r t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the youth's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e . Where the main i n t e r e s t i n t h i s t h e s i s i s c o g n i t i v e s t r a t -egy usage v i a Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , the author i s a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g the e x t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a l q u a l i t y and the s t y l e s are r e l a t e d (Blaycock & Rees, 1984). Because Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s are 5 a c t u a l l y *world views' - s t r u c t u r e d schemata from which people i n t e r p r e t events and x c h a r t the course of t h e i r b e h a v i o u r ' ( K e l l y , 1955, p. 740) - i t stands t o reason t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s who h o l d them may have q u a l i t a t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s f o r c e r t a i n t y pes of d a t a . E x a c t l y what consequence data p r e f e r e n c e c o u l d have f o r the a d o l e s c e n t who i s engaging i n o c c u p a t i o n a l s e a r c h i s be t o d e t e r -mined. C o g n i t i v e S t y l e R e v i s i t e d From the onset, i t i s t o be noted, t h i s author w i l l view Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s from w i t h i n a c o g n i t i v e s t y l e o r i e n t a t i o n , a broad-based o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t c o n s i s t s of developmental, p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s . I t i s f e l t not o n l y does t h i s c o g n i t i v e s t y l e approach support the author's p e r s o n o l o g i c a l emphasis, but i t a l s o h e l p s t o mediate c o n c e p t u a l l y between the separate f i e l d s of p e r s o n a l i t y and d e c i s i o n making theory. However, i n t a k i n g t h i s approach, the author i s aware t h a t r e s e a r c h on c o g n i t i v e s t y l e has been i n c o n -s i s t e n t i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s ( B l a y l o c k & Rees, 1984). I t i s t h i s a u t hor's b e l i e f t h a t t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y i s as much a t t r i b u t a b l e t o problems of c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n (Roby & Taggart, 1981; Schweiger, 1983; T a y l o r & Benbasat, 1980) as i t i s t o e m p i r i c a l documentation (Huber, 1983). For example, v o i c i n g a need t o c o n c e p t u a l i z e c o g n i t i o n i n more p r a c t i c a l ways, Robertson (1985) suggests the concept of s t y l e i s wanting i n scope and 6 a u t h e n t i c i t y . For t h i s author, the problem w i t h c o g n i t i v e s t y l e comes from a dependency ( e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t ) on a neo-b e h a v i o r a l r a t i o n a l e f o r i t s occurrence; a r a t i o n a l e t h a t a l s o u n d e r l i e s the t a s k c o n t i n g e n t s t r a t e g i e s of d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y (Newell & Simon, 1972; Simon, 1957; Tversky, 1969; 1972). However, as Messick e t a l . (1976) imply, the v e r y i d e a of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e suggests a wider scope than what i s i n f e r r e d i n the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . That i s , c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s h o u l d h o l d a c r o s s v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s whereas ta s k c o n t i n g e n t s t r a t e g i e s are seen t o be s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c (McKenna, 1984). Second, n o t i n g the presence of an e m p i r i c a l c o n s i s t e n c y i n t a s k c o n t i n g e n t r e s e a r c h , i t seems t h e r e i s a f e e l i n g (as i n methodology) t h a t c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s o n l y capable of s i m i l a r c o n s i s t e n c y when t e s t e d separate from a more v o l a t i l e and l e s s c o n t r o l l a b l e concept of p e r s o n a l i t y ( P r a t t , 1980; Zmud, 1979). I t i s t h i s author's b e l i e f t h a t some of the i n c o n s i s t e n c y found i n c o g n i t i v e s t y l e r e s e a r c h (Blaycock & Rees, 1984) i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o c o g n i t i o n i s t s f a i l i n g t o p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r the concept w i t h i n a d e f i n i n g p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t a t i o n (Reneau & G r a b s k i , 1987). F i n a l l y , where d e c i s i o n making t h e o r i s t s (Beach & M i t c h e l l , 1978) are seen t o e x p l a i n p r o c e s s i n g v a r i a t i o n through a t a s k c o n t i n g e n t x c o s t / b e n e f i t ' theorem - c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t and d e c i s i o n a l a c c u r a c y are r e c i p r o c a l l y r e l a t e d - t h e r e i s a f e e l i n g t h a t the v a r i a t i o n common t o c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y u n e x p l a i n a b l e ( B l a y l o c k & Rees, 1984; Huber, 1983; Robey & Taggart, 1981; 7 Schweiger, 1983; T a y l o r & Benbasat, 1980). In t a k i n g a p e r s o n a l -i t y o r i e n t a t i o n , t h i s author i s s u g g e s t i n g the e q u i v a l e n t regu-l a t o r y system f o r c o g n i t i v e s t y l e (one t h a t does p r o v i d e a form of d e c i s i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c y ) can o n l y be p e r s o n o l o g i c a l i n emphas-i s . I t i s apparent, as the t h e s i s p r o g r e s s e s , Berzonsky's i d e n t -i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e theory i s a b l e t o address these c o n c e p t u a l i s s u e s . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l A p p r o a c h Because t h i s t h e s i s i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a d o l e s c e n t d e c i s i o n making, i t w i l l use a s t a n d a r d pro c ess t r a c i n g technique as i t s methodology (Bettman & Jacoby, 1976; E i n h o r n & Hogarth, 1981; Payne, 1976; Payne e t a l . , 1978). S p e c i f i c a l l y , the methodology i n t h i s study c o n s i s t s of a compu-t e r i z e d i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n system c a l l e d MOUSELAB (Johnson e t a l . , 1989). To assure o p e r a t i o n a l congruency between the p e r -s o n o l o g i c a l and d e c i s i o n making p o s i t i o n s of t h i s study, c o g n i -t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n s such as non-compensatory and compensatory p r o -c e s s i n g are d e f i n e d i n the same manner as they are i n d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y ( G a t i , 1993; Onken et a l . , 1985; P i t z & Harren, 1980). Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s a r e determined through h i s r e v i s e d psychometric t e s t - the Ident i t y S t y l e Inventory ( T h i r d E d i t i o n ) . F i n a l l y , two a d d i t i o n a l t e s t s are used f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the t e s t i n g environment of t h i s t h e s i s . 8 S t a t e m e n t o f P r o b l e m The q u e s t i o n s t h i s t h e s i s addresses are: To what e x t e n t does an a d o l e s c e n t ' s i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e impact on the d e c i s i o n making process? I s t h e r e a connection between an a d o l e s c e n t ' s i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e and those h e u r i s t i c s a d e c i s i o n maker uses i n p r o c e s s i n g information? Could Berzonsky's (1992, 1993) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s h e l p a c o u n s e l l o r t o i d e n t i f y p o t e n t -i a l i n f o r m a t i o n a p a r t i c u l a r a d o l e s c e n t would f i n d a p p e a l i n g when making an o c c u p a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n ? To what ext e n t does an a d o l e s -c e n t ' s i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e m i t i g a t e the s a l i e n t c h a r a c t -e r i s t i c s of the t a s k c o n t i n g e n t argument (Ford e t a l . , 1989)? F i n a l l y , i s the c o g n i t i o n i s t ' s o b j e c t i v e of a s s i s t i n g the person t o improve h i s / h e r d e c i s i o n making ( P i t z & Harren, 1980) f u r t h e r s e r v e d w i t h i n a p e r s o n o l o g i c a l model? M o d e l s a n d O r i e n t a t i o n The a s t u t e t h e o r i s t w i l l note t h a t i n t h i s t h e s i s two world views (Reese & Overton, 1970) are p r e s e n t - one t h a t i s i n h e r e n t t o d e c i s i o n making theory and the other t h a t i s i n h e r e n t t o p e r -s o n a l i t y t h e o r y . While i t i s apparent t h a t the i d e a of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n d e c i s i o n making theory i s c o n c e p t u a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t found i n p e r s o n a l i t y theory, t h i s does not mean t h a t a p e r s o n o l o g i c a l approach t o d e c i s i o n making i s not v a l i d . Whether the person i s adapting t o the s p e c i f i c demands of a t a s k (Payne, 1976) or t o l i f e ' s p r e s s u r e s i n g e n e r a l (Berzonsky, 1992b), i n 9 both i n s t a n c e s , he/she i s p e r c e i v e d as ad a p t i n g t o something. In t h i s sense, the conceptual scope of p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y does not so much c o n f l i c t w i t h d e c i s i o n making theory, as i t supplements i t . S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study i s d i s c e r n a b l e on t h r e e r e l a t -ed l e v e l s ; two t h e o r e t i c a l and one a p p l i e d . F i r s t , i n n o t i n g t h a t the task c o n t i n g e n t approach t o d e c i s -i o n making has dominated r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area f o r the l a s t t h r e e decades ( G a t i , 1993; Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980; Simon, 1957; Tversky, 1969, 1972), i t seems a m i l i e u has emerged t h a t has i n a d v e r t e n t l y minimized the importance of t h e d e c i s i o n maker's p e r s o n o l o g i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o d e c i s i o n making. As a r e -s u l t , i n showing e m p i r i c a l l y how p e r s o n a l i t y and d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y are r e l a t e d , i t i s hoped t h a t some of the emphases c o g n i -t i o n i s t s p l a c e on the ta s k c o n t i n g e n t argument w i l l abate. For o n l y then, does t h i s author b e l i e v e o t h e r i d e a s w i l l suggest themselves f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g a person's d e c i s i o n making perform-ance; i d e a s t h a t p r o p e r l y take i n t o account the r e l a t i v i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the d e c i s i o n maker. Second, i n o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g Berzonsky i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s through an e m p i r i c a l l y i n c l i n e d d e c i s i o n making model, i t w i l l then be p o s s i b l e t o p r o v i d e p s y c h o - s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s w i t h a r e c o g n i z e d method f o r a n a l y z i n g a d o l e s c e n t d e c i s i o n making. Not-10 i n g t h e p e r i o d of adolescence ( E r i k s o n , 1963, 1968) i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be a time when important l i f e d e c i s i o n s a re be i n g made, such a t o o l can o n l y h e l p those who are students of the adolescence ex-p e r i e n c e . Meaning the r e l a t i v i s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s mentioned above are a c t u a l l y p s y c h o - s o c i a l p r o p e r t i e s (Marica e t a l . , 1993). In sum, t h i s author i s suggesting a d e c i s i o n maker as person v i e w p o i n t . F i n a l l y , s i n c e t h i s t h e s i s uses o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e as i t s problem s e t , i t f i n d s i t s e l f i n the p o s i t i o n t o say something about an a d o l e s c e n t ' s o c c u p a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making, a t a s k t h a t E r i k s o n (1963, 1968, 1982) b e l i e v e s i s the primary i s s u e f a c i n g a d o l e s c e n t development. From the f i n d i n g s of t h i s t h e s i s , i t i s hoped educators w i l l be i n a knowledgeable p o s i t i o n t o d e s i g n c u r r i c u l u m s t h a t p e r s o n a l l y f a c i l i t a t e a st u d e n t ' s d e c i s i o n making; a c u r r i c u l u m t h a t encourages the student t o co n t i n u e t o se a r c h where he/she may have otherwise stopped. N o t i n g our edu-c a t i o n a l system i s now undergoing reform, t h a t i s , making c a r e e r p l a n n i n g a requirement f o r graduation, i t i s t h i s author's o p i n -i o n t h a t t h i s study i s r a t h e r t i m e l y . D e f i n i t i o n s D e c i s i o n Making D e c i s i o n making c o n s i s t s of g a t h e r i n g and p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r -mation. G a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n as i n s e a r c h i n g a v a i l a b l e d e c i s i o n -a l m a t e r i a l . P r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n as i n c o g n i t i v e l y e v a l u a t i n g 11 the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was gathered. In t h i s t h e s i s , because t h i s g a t h e r i n g and p r o c e s s i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n always o c c u r s p r i o r t o making a d e c i s i o n , as processes they are c o n s i d e r e d t o be p r e -d e c i s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . The g o a l of these p r e - d e c i s i o n a l a c t i v i t -i e s i s t o make a c h o i c e from amongst a s e t of a l t e r n a t i v e s (Payne e t a l . , 1993). C o g n i t i v e S t y l e E s s e n t i a l l y , c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s concerned w i t h a person's manner of approach t o problem s o l v i n g , t h a t i s , t o the g e n e r a l or expanded *how' of performance. In the co n t e x t o f t h i s t h e s i s , Hunt e t a l . (1989) s t a t e , "... [ D ] i f f e r e n c e s i n ... p e r c e p t i o n and a s s i m i l a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n amount t o x s t y l e s ' o f t h i n k i n g which d e f i n e how a person comes t o g r i p s w i t h complex problems both i n terms of conscious s t r a t e g i e s and unconscious h a b i t " (p. 438). Or as Messick e t a l . (1976) suggest, "... [ C ] o g n i t i v e s t y l e s ... are h i g h l e v e l h e u r i s t i c s t h a t o r g a n i z e and c o n t r o l behaviour a c r o s s a wide v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s " (p. 6) ; whereas, c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s are more a f u n c t i o n of the c o n d i t i o n s of a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n (McKenna, 1984). Since p e r c e i v i n g and organ i z i n g i n f o r m a t i o n are seen t o be ex p r e s s i o n s of a d e c i s i o n maker's p e r s o n a l i t y (Witkin e t a l . , 1977), i t f o l l o w s t h a t c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be i n s e p a r a b l e from p e r s o n a l i t y . Other terms i n the l i t e r a t u r e t h a t are s i m i l a r t o c o g n i t i v e s t y l a r e p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e , d e c i s i o n s t y l e and problem s o l v i n g s t y l e (Ruble & C o s i e r , 1990). 12 A l l o t h e r terms t h a t r e q u i r e c l a r i f i c a t i o n a re f u l l y d e f i n e d as they appear throughout the t h e s i s . 13 C H A P T E R T W O L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W In d e c i s i o n making theory i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s are e s s e n t i a l l y c o g n i t i v e performance d i s t i n c t i o n s - performance d i s t i n c t i o n s t h a t are i n t r i c a t e l y connected t o t a s k c o n t i n g e n t p r o p e r t i e s (Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980). In f a c t , i n a n e o - b e h a v i o r a l f a s h i o n , Newell and Simon (1972) go so f a r as t o imply t h a t t o know the t a s k i s t o know the d e c i s i o n maker. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i n the context of t h i s t h e s i s , i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r -ences are viewed as being broad-based p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s (Messick e t a l . , 1976), p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s t h a t are comprised of develop-mental, p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l p r o p e r t i e s (Berzonsky, 1989, 1990, Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992, 1993). As p r e v i o u s l y noted, the i s s u e of p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e i n d e c i s i o n making r e s e a r c h has been p r o b l e m a t i c (Blaycock & Rees, 1984). O p e r a t i o n a l i n c o n s i s t -e n c i e s , d i f f e r e n t measures and q u e s t i o n a b l e p s ychometrics have a l l c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s problem (Huber, 1983; Robey & Taggart, 1981; Schweiger, 1983; T a y l o r & Benbasat, 1980). While these reasons are e m p i r i c a l l y s u f f i c i e n t w i t h i n themselves t o d i s -courage r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area, the f a c t i s , l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been d i r e c t e d towards viewing p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e from a more encompassing p e r s o n o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . The f o l l o w i n g review of l i t e r a t u r e i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n addresses the i s s u e of c o g n i t i v e 14 s t y l e as i t i s used i n t h i s t h e s i s . The second s e c t i o n f o c u s e s on Berzonsky's (1989, 1990, 1993) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e t h e o r y . F i n a l l y , the t h i r d s e c t i o n p l a c e s Berzonsky's t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n w i t h i n the context of d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y ( P i t z & Harren, 1980). S E C T I O N I : T H E I S S U E O F C O G N I T I V E S T Y L E E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s s e c t i o n accounts f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a paradigmic gap (Reese & Overton, 1970) may e x i s t between Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s and d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y ( P i t z & Harren, 1980). As a r e s u l t , the concept of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s used t o mediate between the two t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s . I t i s through the i d e a o f c o g n i t i v e s t y l e t h a t the author i s attempting t o e s t a b l i s h Berzonsky's c o n c e p t u a l p r o x i m i t y t o d e c i s i o n making theory. While i t i s important t o note, i t i s not the i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s author t o r e s o l v e those c o n t r o v e r s i e s t h a t surround the i s s u e of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e (Blaycock & Rees, 1984), the f a c t i s , viewing s t y l e through a p e r s o n a l i t y d o c t r i n e c o u l d p r o v i d e a c o n c e p t u a l base from which t o b u i l d a more encompassing p e r s o n o l o g i c a l approach t o d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y . C o g n i t i v e S t r a t e g y a n d C o g n i t i v e S t y l e Where on the one hand, i t i s necessary t o e s t a b l i s h Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) r e l a t i o n s h i p t o d e c i s i o n making th e o r y , c a r e should be taken so as not t o confuse h i s s t y l e s 15 w i t h the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t comprise the d e c i s i o n mak-i n g p r o c e s s . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s problem i s one of c o n c e p t u a l d e f i n i t i o n . As d e p i c t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e , c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s are a c t u a l l y the q u a n t i t a t i v e t o o l s of r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making (Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980). As t o o l s , t h e c o g n i -t i v e s t r a t e g i e s are not s u s c e p t i b l e t o *more' or ' l e s s ' d i s t i n c t i o n s , meaning e i t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y i s used or i t i s not (McKenna, 1984). Because the main f u n c t i o n of the s t r a t e g i e s i s t o minimize the p r o c e s s i n g demands of the t a s k when nec e s s a r y (Simon, 1957, 1979; Tversky, 1969, 1972), they are c o n s i d e r e d t o be s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c (McKenna, 1984; Messick e t a l . , 1976). In c o n t r a s t , c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s concerned w i t h the q u a l i -t a t i v e manner of d e c i s i o n making (Hunt e t a l . , 1989; McKenna, 1984; Messick e t a l . , 1976). As a dynamic p r o c e s s , one's s t y l e can range from one type of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g t o another type of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g ( G u i l f o r d , 1967; Pask, 1976; W i t k i n , 1976). In f a c t , i t c o u l d be through the unique use of the cog-n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t a d e c i s i o n maker's c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s m a n i f e s t e d (Chung, 1991). As a p e r s o n o l o g i c a l concept, s t y l e suggests a scope t h a t i s a p p l i c a b l e over a v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s McKenna (1984) notes t h e r e i s l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l reason t o t h i n k c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s anything d i f f e r e n t from the c o g n i t i v e 16 s t r a t e g i e s . 3 E s s e n t i a l l y , c o g n i t i v e s t y l e has been o p e r a t i o n a l -i z e d (conscious or otherwise) from w i t h i n a t a s k c o n t i n g e n t (S-R) d o c t r i n e (Newell & Simon, 1972; Robertson, 1985; W i t k i n , 1976). However, f o r c o g n i t i v e s t y l e t o e x p l a i n A r e a l w orld' d e c i s i o n making, i t has t o be s e t w i t h i n an o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t complements i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e breadth. As a r e s u l t , i t i s t h i s a u thor's b e l i e f t h a t the concept of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s b e t t e r s e r v e d through a p e r s o n a l i t y theory t h a t i s broad-based and s e n s i t i v e t o d e c i s i o n a l i s s u e s . Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990, 1993) t h e o r y c o n c e r n i n g the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s meets t h i s requirement. C o g n i t i v e S t y l e a s P e r s o n a l i t y A c t i n g as a mediating concept t o d e c i s i o n making theory, t h i s author views c o g n i t i v e s t y l e as being i n s e p a r a b l e from p e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y (Reneau & Grabski, 1987). For example, p a r a l l e l i n g Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) I n f o r m a t i o n a l and Normative i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , Schroder and S u e d f e l d (1971) d i f f e r e n t i a t e d people as b e i n g a b s t r a c t or c o n c r e t e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s o r s . A b s t r a c t p r o c e s s o r s are seen t o have the a b i l i t y t o handle the c o g n i t i v e demands of complex prob-lems. As h i g h order compensatory p r o c e s s o r s , t h e s e people can r e a c h an e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n on a l i m i t e d amount of i n f o r m a t i o n . The crux of t h i s p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e i s the i n t e g r a t i o n of i n f o r m a t -Note, despite what appears to be conceptual s i m i l a r i t i e s between cognitive strategy and s t y l e , l i t t l e research has been conducted to show exactly how they are r e l a t e d ( B e r l i n & Languis, 1981). 17 i o n . In comparison, concrete p r o c e s s o r s are seen t o be h i g h l y s e n s i t i v e t o c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n , i n c l u d i n g t h a t which can occur a t t h e lower l e v e l s of d e c i s i o n a l complexity. As low o r d e r p r o c e s s -o r s , c o n c r e t e people are seen t o r e s t r i c t the amount of i n f o r m a t -i o n they are w i l l i n g t o p r o c e s s . Harren (1979) proposed people have t h r e e d i s t i n c t d e c i s i o n -making s t y l e s ; r a t i o n a l , i n t u i t i v e and dependent. The r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n maker i s seen t o base d e c i s i o n s on s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r -mation, i s h i g h l y a c t i v e i n seeking i n f o r m a t i o n , approaches d e c i s i o n making i n a l i n e a r f a s h i o n and w i l l i n g l y a c c e p t s p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r those d e c i s i o n s made. The i n t u i t i v e d e c i s i o n maker tends t o base d e c i s i o n s on emotional f e e l i n g s , i s h o l i s t i c a l l y c e n t r e d and, a l s o accepts p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s / h e r d e c i s i o n s . While the p r o c e s s i n g d i s t i n c t i o n s f o r the dependent d e c i s i o n maker are not as c l e a r l y d e f i n e d as they are f o r the r a t i o n a l or i n t u i t i v e d e c i s i o n maker, a c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e i s t h e i r tendency t o d e l e g a t e t o o t h e r s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . While Harren's typology does not f u l l y c o r r e s -pond t o Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , the a l l u d e t o s o c i a l component has important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r h i s Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . C o g n i t i v e S t y l e a n d R e s p o n s e V a r i a t i o n While c o g n i t i v e s t y l i s t s imply people have predominant modes of t h i n k i n g t h a t are s p e c i f i c onto themselves ( G u i l f o r d , 18 1967; W i t k i n , 1967, 1976; Pask, 1976; M i t r o f f , 1983; Hunt e t a l . , 1989), t h i s does not mean t h a t on o c c a s i o n a person c o u l d not e x h i b i t a d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e method (Robertson, 1985). However, i t i s important t o note, i t i s e x a c t l y t h i s n o t i o n of c o g n i t i v e v a r i a t i o n t h a t has r e s u l t e d i n c o g n i t i o n i s t s p l a y i n g down the t o p i c o f c o g n i t i v e s t y l e (Huber, 1983). T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g c o n s i d e r i n g e a r l y d e c i s i o n making t h e o r i s t s a l s o had problems w i t h c o g n i t i v e v a r i a t i o n when i t came t o e x p l a i n -i n g s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n (Payne e t a l . , 1993), a v a r i a t i o n t h a t was e v e n t u a l l y accounted f o r through the c o s t / b e n e f i t theorem (Beach & M i t c h e l l , 1978). Thus, i n a l i k e w i s e f a s h i o n , i f a c o g n i t i v e s t y l i s t i s t o c o n t r i b u t e p e r s o n o l o g i c a l l y t o d e c i s i o n making theory , he/she w i l l have t o account f o r the d e c i s i o n a l v a r i a b i l i t y t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s c o g n i t i v e s t y l e r e s e a r c h . That i s , the s t y l i s t must be abl e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e a c r o s s d e c i s i o n makers i n a l o g i c a l and c o n s i s t e n t f a s h i o n . In regards t o Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , an a d o l e s c e n t ' s d e c i s i o n a l v a r i a b i l -i t y i s e x p l a i n e d through a s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e component, the Aneed f o r c o g n i t i o n ' (Cacioppo & Petty , 1982, 1984). S E C T I O N I I : B E R Z O N S K Y ' S I D E N T I T Y - P R O C E S S I N G S T Y L E S S i n c e Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e account o f i d e n t i t y development i s a c t u a l l y a p r o c e s s e x t e n s i o n of M a r i c a ' s (1980, Marcia e t a l . , 1993) p s y c h o - s o c i a l t h e o r y , the l a t t e r i s b r i e f l y presented so as t o p r o v i d e f u r t h e r c o n c e p t u a l 19 c l a r i f i c a t i o n . M a r c i a ' s I d e n t i t y S t a t u s e s : B e r z o n s k y ' s T h e o r e t i c a l F o u n d a t i o n A c c o r d i n g t o E r i k s o n (1968) , the primary t a s k of adolescence i s t o e s t a b l i s h a c l e a r and s t a b l e sense of i d e n t i t y (Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1988); an i d e n t i t y t h a t i s not o n l y congruent w i t h the p a s t (childhood) but i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t and unique w i t h i n the p r e s e n t (adulthood) (Marcia, 1980). Of p a r t i c u l a r importance t o the a d o l e s c e n t p e r i o d i s the r e a l i z a t i o n of i d e n t i t y w i t h i n the world of work. How the adolescent a r r i v e s a t t h i s r e a l i z a t i o n i s seen t o depend on h i s / h e r p s y c h o - s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n where se a r c h and commitment p l a y a v i t a l r o l e . F o c u s i n g e x c l u s i v e l y on E r i k s o n ' s (1963, 1982) p s y c h o - s o c i a l stage of *ego i d e n t i t y versus i d e n t i t y c o n f u s i o n ' , through the p r o c e s s v a r i a b l e s of x e x p l o r a t i o n ' and * commitment', M a r c i a (1980, e t a l . , 1993) was a b l e t o d e l i n e a t e f o u r d i s t i n c t i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s : I d e n t i t y Achievement, Moratorium, F o r e c l o s u r e and I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n . While seen t o occur w i t h i n d i s t i n c t (themat-i c ) domains, each of these i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s r e p r e s e n t s i n sum a p a r t i c u l a r p s y c h o - s o c i a l r e s o l u t i o n or l e v e l of development. 4 For example, I d e n t i t y Achievement c o n s i s t s of a commitment ( b e l i e f 4Aside from the f a c t that occupation i s one of Marcia's (1980; et a l . , 1993) domains, t h e i r s p e c i f i c nature (ideology, r e l i g i o n , f r i e n d s h i p etc) i s not r e a l l y an issue i n t h i s t h e s i s . However, the reader should note that an adolescent could be at the same time Identity Achieved i n the occupation domain and Identity Diffused i n the r e l i g i o n domain etc (Matteson, 1975). It w i l l become apparent when describing the t h e s i s ' s processing exercise that i t i s set e n t i r e l y within the occupational domain. 20 system) t h a t has been x c o n s t r u c t e d ' through a c t i v e s e a r c h ; Moratorium c o n s i s t s of a commitment t h a t i s i n p r o c e s s where acute s e a r c h i s ongoing; F o r e c l o s u r e c o n s i s t s of a commitment t h a t has been e x t e r n a l l y x c o n f e r r e d ' i n the absence of s e a r c h and; I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n c o n s i s t s of l i t t l e o r no commitment where s e a r c h i s ongoing and a r b i t r a r y i n d i r e c t i o n . In psycho-a n a l y t i c terms, each i d e n t i t y s t a t u s r e f l e c t s a d i f f e r e n t degree of xego s t r e n g t h ' or p e r s o n a l competency. In o t h e r words, t o x c o n s t r u c t ' an i d e n t i t y through search i s t o a c q u i r e the p e r s o n a l competency (maturity) t o d e a l with the n o v e l , the unexpected or the ambiguous s i t u a t i o n . As such, i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n can be seen t o move from the c l o s e d to the open; from the f i x e d t o the dyna-mic; from the r i g i d t o the f l e x i b l e ; or, f o r M a r c i a , from the F o r e c l o s e d (super ego) t o the I d e n t i t y Achieved (ego i d e a l ) . Mature i d e n t i t y and i t s approximations t h e r e o f are s e a r c h con-t i n g e n t . F i n a l l y , i t i s important t o note, i n a r e c e n t book, Ma r c i a e t a l . (1993) i n d i c a t e d t h a t the i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s are not e x c l u s i v e t o a p s y c h o a n a l y t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , as dynamic and encompassing p r o p e r t i e s they can a l s o be viewed w i t h i n a s o c i a l -c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e (Berzonsky, 1988, 1990, Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992, 1993). E a r l y S o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e R e s e a r c h o n t h e I d e n t i t y S t a t u s Research i n d i c a t e s the i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s v a r y on a number of s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e dimensions ( S l u g o s k i e t a l . , 1984; Grotevant 21 & Adams, 1984; Read e t a l . , 1984). For example, S l u g o s k i e t a l . (1984) found I d e n t i t y Achieved and Moratorium people e x h i b i t e d g r e a t e r i n t e g r a t i v e complexity i n s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e r e a s o n i n g than F o r e c l o s e d and I d e n t i t y D i f f u s e d i n d i v i d u a l s . F o r e c l o s e d and I d e n t i t y D i f f u s e d people had d i f f i c u l t i e s c o n s i d e r i n g m u l t i p l e or c o n f l i c t i n g sources of i n f o r m a t i o n . Grotevant and Adams (1984) found F o r e c l o s e d and I d e n t i t y D i f f u s e d people tended t o take an o t h e r d i r e c t e d or e x t e r n a l l y d e r i v e d approach t o problem s o l v i n g or d e c i s i o n making. Read e t a l . (1984) found F o r e c l o s e d and I d e n t i t y D i f f u s e d i n d i v i d u a l s were apt t o i g n o r e r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n because of a r e s t r i c t e d a t t e n t i o n span. With l e s s r e s t r i c t e d a t t e n t i o n spans f o r I d e n t i t y Achieved and Moratorium people, i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g was found t o be more encompassing. Marc i a ' s (1980, e t a l . , 1993) c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the f o u r i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s has i n s p i r e d e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h . M a r c i a ' s c r i -t i c i s m of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t h a t i t tends t o focus on the output of a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u s , thereby i g n o r i n g i t s dynamic p r o p e r t i e s . In c a l l i n g f o r a new d i r e c t i o n i n r e s e a r c h , M a r c i a (1980) s t a t e d , "... i t may be p r o d u c t i v e t o begin t h i n k i n g of i d e n t i t y i n terms of on-going processes ... i n s t e a d of i d e n t i t y s t a t u s c a t e g o r i e s and t h e i r p r o l i f e r a t i o n " (p. 578). I t i s Berzonsky's (1988, 1990) r e s e a r c h i n s o c i a l - c o g n i t i o n t h a t d e p i c t s the i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s as dynamic p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . 22 B e r z o n s k y ' s I d e n t i t y - P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e s In a s s o c i a t i o n with Marcia's (1980, e t a l . , 1993) i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s , Berzonsky found people d i f f e r e d s t y l i s t i c a l l y when pro-c e s s i n g s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Combining M a r c i a ' s I d e n t i t y Achievement and Moratorium s t a t u s e s , Berzonsky proposed t h r e e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o c e s s i n g o r i e n t a t i o n s : an I n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e ; a Normative p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e and; a D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t p r o -c e s s i n g s t y l e . Making s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o K e l l y ' s (1955) p e r -s o n a l c o n s t r u c t theory, Berzonsky see each i d e n t i t y s t y l e as r e p r e s e n t i n g a d i s t i n c t schema or world view, a world view t h a t the person c o n t i n u a l l y v a l i d a t e s or changes through a s e l f - c o n -f i r m i n g e x e r c i s e . Again, p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a re seen t o be i n t r i c a t e l y connected. How an a d o l e s -cent p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y p e r c e i v e s the world i s very much a p a r t of how he/she w i l l x a c t ' upon the world. I n f o r m a t i o n a l P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e Berzonsky e t a l . (1992, 1993) see I n f o r m a t i o n - o r i e n t a t e d people as being h i g h l y a c t i v e i n g a t h e r i n g and p r o c e s s i n g s e l f -r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Since I n f o r m a t i o n a l s a re s e l f - d e f i n i n g i n an i n t r a - p e r s o n a l sense, t h e i r d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s i n g tends t o be e l a b o r a t e and i n t e n s e . At the c e n t r e o f t h i s p r o c e s s i n g o r i e n t a t i o n a re the v a l u e s , b e l i e f s , and g o a l s of M a r c i a e t a l . ' s (1993) I d e n t i t y Achievement and Moratorium s t a t u s e s . Because I n f o r m a t i o n a l s have a h i g h i n t e r n a l l o c u s o f r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y ( R o t t e r , 1966) , they seem t o e x h i b i t a comfortableness i n 23 d e a l i n g w i t h the ambiguous or novel s i t u a t i o n . In t h i s r e g a r d , Berzonsky sees I n f o r m a t i o n a l s as o b j e c t i v e p r o c e s s o r s where the v a l i d i t y of the data t o be processed i s of c e n t r a l concern (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Normative P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e Normative o r i e n t a t e d people are seen t o be s e l e c t i v e i n g a t h e r i n g and p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e informa-t i o n t o be processed i s thought t o t h r e a t e n some a s p e c t s of t h e i r c o r e s e l f (Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992). Since Normative people d e f i n e themselves through, and are h i g h l y p r o t e c t i v e o f , the e x p e c t a t -i o n s and p r e s c r i p t i o n s of others ( f a m i l y , peer group or s i g n i f i -c a n t o t h e r e t c ) , t h e i r d e c i s i o n making o f t e n has a c o n d i t i o n a l q u a l i t y t o i t . Where, f o r Normatives, data per se i s expected t o f u l f i l c e r t a i n * c o l l e c t i v e ' e x p e c t a t i o n s or g o a l s , t h i s data i n i t s own r i g h t may not always be v a l i d or r a t i o n a l l y sound. As ex-t e r n a l l y d e r i v e d people (Rotter, 1966), Normatives seem l e s s com-f o r t a b l e i n d e a l i n g with the ambiguous or novel s i t u a t i o n . In f a c t , i t i s w i t h the ambiguous s i t u a t i o n where the f u l l e x t e n t of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e r i g i d i t y becomes most apparent. As such, Berzonsky (1993) c o n s i d e r s Normatives t o be ^ b i a s e d ' p r o c e s s o r s ( P e t t y & Cacioppo, 1986). F i n a l l y , i t should be noted, the i d e n t -i t y s t a t u s t h a t uses t h i s p r o c e s s i n g o r i e n t a t i o n i s M a r c i a ' s (1980) F o r e c l o s e d s t a t u s . D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t o r i e n t a t e d people tend t o gather and p r o -24 cess i n f o r m a t i o n i n a seemingly haphazard f a s h i o n (Berzonsky, 1988, 1990, Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992, 1993). At one time, D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t people can be i n t e n s e and s e l e c t i v e , a t another time, they can be i n d i f f e r e n t or random. Berzonsky notes p r o c r a s t -i n a t i o n , avoidance and s u p e r f i c i a l i t y mark t h i s p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e . O ften, the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t w i l l determine the v a l i d i t y of h i s / her data on whether i t i s e x t r i n s i c a l l y rewarding or p u b l i c a l l y f u l f i l l i n g . In f a c t , much of a D i f f u s e / a d v o i d a n t ' s s e l f - d e f i n i t -i o n i s grounded i n x p u b l i c self-components' such as p o p u l a r i t y , r e p u t a t i o n , and impression management (Berzonsky, 1989, 1990). While D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t people are e x t e r n a l l y d e r i v e d ( R o t t e r , 1966), i n comparison t o Normatives, Berzonsky e t a l . (1992, 1993) imply t h i s as being more a t t r i b u t a b l e t o e g o c e n t r i c p u r s u i t than x c o l l e c t i v e ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Thus, depending on what the immediate s i t u a t i o n has t o o f f e r r e l a t i v i s t i c a l l y , D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t people can be both * o b j e c t i v e ' and * b i a s e d ' i n t h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . The i d e n t i t y s t a t u s t h a t uses t h i s p r o c e s s i n g o r i e n t a t i o n i s Marcia's (1980) I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n s t a t u s . S o c i a l - C o g n i t i v e F a c t o r s Through v a r i o u s t e s t s , Berzonsky e t a l . (1992, 1993) showed the i d e n t i t y s t y l e s are a s s e s s a b l e on f o u r s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e a s -p e c t s : the need f o r c o g n i t i o n (Cacioppo & P e t t y , 1982) ; i n t r o -s p e c t i v e n e s s ( H a n s e l l e t a l . , 1986); e x p e r i e n t i a l openness (Costa & McCrea, 1978); and p e r s o n a l versus s o c i a l i d e n t i t y emphasis 25 (Berzonsky, 1989, 1990; Creek & B r i g g s , 1982). S i n c e i n t r o -s p e c t i v e n e s s (as i n being open t o one's i n n e r s e l f ) i s con-c e p t u a l l y s i m i l a r t o e x p e r i e n t i a l openness (as i n b e i n g open t o the t o t a l i t y of one's experience as i t i s l i v e d ) , o n l y t h r e e s o c i a l c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s are addressed i n t h i s t h e s i s . In o t h e r words, one's i n t r o s p e c t i v e n e s s i s f e l t t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y r e p r e -sented w i t h i n the n o t i o n of e x p e r i e n t i a l openness. Need f o r c o g n i t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g (Cacioppo & Pett y , 1982), e f f e c t i v e problem s o l v i n g (Heppner e t a l . , 1983) and concrete or p o l a r i z e d e v a l u a t i o n s (Cacioppo e t a l . , 1984). The q u a l i t y of the data t o be processed i s h i g h l y i n f l u e n t i a l i n the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s (Cacioppo, 1983) . In a p e r s o n o l o g i c a l sense, the need f o r c o g n i t i o n p e r t a i n s t o one's l i k i n g or m o t i v a t i o n t o engage i n g e n e r a l c o g n i t i v e a c t -i v i t y . While need f o r c o g n i t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l l y viewed as a gen-e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (Cacioppo & P e t t y e t a l . , 1993), Berzonsky e t a l . (1992, 1993) make i t c o n d i t i o n a l t o the p r o c e s s i n g of s e l f -r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . E x p e r i e n t i a l openness i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an awareness of p e r s o n a l f e e l i n g s , b e l i e f s , ideas and v a l u e s (Costa & McCrae, 1978; H a n s e l l e t a l . , 1986). To be e x p e r i e n t i a l l y open i s t o be c r e a t i v e , i n s i g h t f u l and p e r s o n a l l y f l e x i b l e (McCrae, 1987; McCrae & Costa, 1985). Ego development or p e r s o n a l competency i s p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with one's e x p e r i e n t i a l openness (McCrae & Costa, 1980). 26 A p e r s o n a l versus s o c i a l ( c o l l e c t i v e or p u b l i c ) i d e n t i t y emphasis i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a heightened focus on t h e p r i v a t e s e l f o r an e q u a l l y s i m i l a r s e n s i t i v i t y f o r the s o c i a l s e l f (Cheek & B r i g g s , 1982). To d e f i n e one's s e l f w i t h a p e r s o n a l or s o c i a l emphasis i s t o take an i n t r a - p e r s o n a l or i n t e r - p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n . In a temporal sense, the p e r s o n a l and c o l l e c t i v e emphases are f a r r e a c h i n g and long termed whereas; the p u b l i c emphasis i s more s i t u a t i o n a l and s h o r t termed. In regards t o these s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t s , Berzonsky (1989, 1990, e t a l . , 1992, 1993) found I n f o r m a t i o n a l s expressed a h i g h need f o r c o g n i t i o n , were e x p e r i e n t i a l l y open and had a h i g h p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y emphasis; Normatives expressed a lower need f o r c o g n i t i o n , were e x p e r i e n t i a l l y open i n a c o n d i t i o n a l sense and had a s t r o n g c o l l e c t i v e emphasis and; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s e x p r e s s -ed a lowest need f o r c o g n i t i o n , seemed e x p e r i e n t i a l l y guarded or i n d i f f e r e n t and were r e s p o n s i v e t o p u b l i c s e n s i t i v i t i e s . D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n M a r c i a a n d B e r z o n s k y ' s T h e o r i e s I t i s important t o note, Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e model d i f f e r s from Mar c i a ' s (1980, e t a l . , 1993) i d e n t i t y s t a t u s theory i n the emphasis t h a t i t p l a c e s on * e x p l o r a t i o n ' versus xcommitment'. Where M a r c i a b e l i e v e s some people e x p l o r e , some are committed and o t h e r s are i n d i f f e r e n t , Berzonsky b e l i e v e s a l l people i n v a r y i n g degrees are i n a s t a t e of a c t i v e s e a r c h . Berzonsky i s i n t e r e s t e d i n how e f f e c t i v e people 27 are as e x p l o r e r s ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , how they s e a r c h and what they s e a r c h . M a r c i a i s more i n t e r e s t e d i n commitment through the r e s -o l u t i o n of a p s y c h o - s o c i a l c r i s i s where se a r c h p l a y s an important r o l e . F i n a l l y , w h i l e Marcia e t a l . (1993) see the s u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n of e a r l i e r p s y c h o - s o c i a l c r i s i s (an ego s t r e n g t h e n i n g process) as an e s s e n t i a l requirement f o r r e a l i z i n g a more mature i d e n t i t y s t a t u s ( I d e n t i t y Achievement), Berzonsky (1988, 1990) suggests a l l normal a d o l e s c e n t s are c o g n i t i v e l y capable of u s i n g h i s t h r e e i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . Only i n c h i l d h o o d does Berzonsky (1990, 1993) suggest t h a t c o g n i t i v e r e s o u r c e s are s u f -f i c i e n t l y l i m i t e d t o c o n s t r a i n the p r o c e s s i n g o r i e n t a t i o n used. In o t h e r words, f o r Berzonsky, r e g a r d l e s s of the a d o l e s c e n t ' s p a t t e r n of p s y c h o - s o c i a l r e s o l u t i o n , the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e used can a l s o be a t t r i b u t e d ( i n a predominant f a s h i o n ) t o p e r s o n a l , s o c i a l and m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s o n t o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e becomes obvious when s u g g e s t i n g c o u n s e l l i n g approaches designed t o f a c i l i t a t e d e c i s i o n making f o r the s p e c i f i c i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . In sum, t h i s t h e s i s i s suggesting an a d o l e s c e n t ' s i d e n t i t y -p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e has important consequences f o r d e c i s i o n making. For example, as i m p l i e d above, some a d o l e s c e n t s seem p r e d i s p o s e d t o g a t h e r w i t h depth, most of the s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t comprises a d e c i s i o n a l problem whereas, other a d o l e s c e n t s seem more s e l e c t i v e or even somewhat i n d i f f e r e n t i n g a t h e r i n g t h i s 28 i n f o r m a t i o n . However, i t i s t o be noted, whether an a d o l e s c e n t g a t h e r s a l a r g e or s m a l l amount of i n f o r m a t i o n does not neces-s a r i l y mean a good (accurate) or bad ( i n a c c u r a t e ) d e c i s i o n w i l l be made. T h i s w i l l depend on two a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s : a) whether the a d o l e s c e n t i s ^ w i l l i n g t o expend' the e f f o r t n e c e s s a r y t o p r o c e s s the a c q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n and; b) whether the a d o l e s c e n t has the e x p e r t i s e or c o n f i d e n c e t o process the i n f o r m a t i o n i n an e f f i c i e n t manner e t c . Herein, l i e s the d i s t i n c t i o n between the a d o l e s c e n t who makes the o f t e n without thought x q u i c k s o l u t i o n ' d e c i s i o n v e r s u s one who i s e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c i e n t and a d a p t i v e i n d e c i s i o n making ( P i t z & Harren, 1980; Payne e t a l . , 1993). Having d e s c r i b e d Berzonsky i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , t h i s author w i l l now p l a c e them w i t h i n the c o n t e x t of d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y ( P i t z & Harren, 1980). In doing so, the author w i l l r e l y h e a v i l y on the o p e r a t i o n a l r a t i o n a l e t h a t has come t o r e p r e s e n t d e c i s i o n making theory (Payne, 1976, e t a l . , 1993). However, as noted a t the beginning of t h i s chapter, where d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y i s seen t o emphasize c o g n i t i v e performance and t a s k p r o p e r t i e s (Simon, 1957; Tversky, 1969, 1972), t h i s author w i l l emphasize c o g n i t i v e performance r e l a t i v e t o the d e c i s i o n maker's p e r s o n o l o g i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n . S E C T I O N I I I : D E C I S I O N M A K I N G T H E O R Y A major theme i n r e s e a r c h on d e c i s i o n making i s t h a t d e c i s -i o n a l behaviour i s l a r g e l y c o n t i n g e n t on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of 29 the t a s k or context (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Newell & Simon, 1972; Payne, 1976; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981) - where a change i n the t a s k can evoke a corresponding change i n a person's d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s . C o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has i n v e s t i g a t e d the impact t a s k components have on d e c i s i o n making. Where topics, such as, t a s k complexity ( B i l l i n g & Marcus, 1983; Olshavsky, 1979; Payne, 1976), d i s p l a y format (Bettman & Kakkar, 1977, Schkade & Kleinmuntz, 1994), response mode ( B i l l i n g s & Scherer, 1988) and cue l e v e l s ( F i s h e r , 1995; Huber, 1980) have r e c e i v e d e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h , l e s s a t t e n t i o n has been d i r e c t e d a t what the d e c i s i o n maker b r i n g s p e r s o n o l o g i c a l l y t o the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s (Ford e t a l . , 1989). For those reviews t h a t d i d address the matter of decision-maker e f f e c t s , n o t h i n g s u b s t a n t i v e has been r e p o r t e d t o date (Abelson & L e v i , 1985; Ford e t a l . , 1989; Maule & Svenson, 1993; Zakay, 1990). As a r e s u l t , i t i s t h i s author's b e l i e f i f d e c i s i o n theory i s t o achieve a more complete x r e a l w o r l d ' understanding, r e s e a r c h e r s must i n c r e a s e t h e i r e f f o r t c o n c e r n i n g decision-maker e f f e c t s . L i m i t e d C a p a c i t y P r o c e s s i n g In d e c i s i o n making theory i t i s noted when people make d e c i s i o n s , they w i l l u t i l i z e c e r t a i n h e u r i s t i c s ( s t r a t e g i e s ) t h a t keep the p r o c e s s i n g demands of the t a s k w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f t h e i r c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y t o process i n f o r m a t i o n (Onken e t a l . , 1985; P i t z & Harren, 1980; Simon, 1957, 1979; Tversky, 1969, 30 1972) . Adapting Newell and Simon's (1972) problem s o l v i n g r a t -i o n a l t o the area of d e c i s i o n making, Payne (1976) e m p i r i c a l l y documented the d e c i s i o n maker's h e u r i s t i c usage. When exposed t o a complex d e c i s i o n , the d e c i s i o n maker w i l l reduce i t s ^ c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n ' through a ^ s i m p l i f y i n g ' non-compensatory procedure. With t a s k complexity reduced, the d e c i s i o n maker w i l l then apply a more i n - d e p t h and demanding compensatory procedure (Payne, 1976, Payne e t a l . , 1993). However, where t a s k complexity i s seen t o p r e d i c t s t r a t e g y usage, r e s e a r c h e r s note i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s are a l s o apparent. For example, Bettman and Kakkar (1977) , Payne (1976) and Klayman (1985) found a s i g n i f i c a n t number of s u b j e c t s d i d not v a r y i n t h e i r s t r a t e g y usage when exposed t o s t r o n g m a n i p u l a t i o n of the t a s k format. Noting the s a l i e n c y (Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980; G a t i , 1993) of Simon's (1957) x l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y ' argument, the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s how r e s e a r c h e r s can account f o r t h i s p r o c e s s i n g v a r i a t i o n ? I t i s t h i s author's o p i n i o n t h a t the answer may r e s i d e i n how the d e c i s i o n maker c o g n i t i v e l y r e p r e s e n t s and i n t e r p r e t s the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t comprises the d e c i s i o n a l s e t . R e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e T a s k P r o b l e m : C o s t / B e n e f i t A n a l y s i s T h e o r e t i c a l l y , the d e c i s i o n making model i s d e p i c t i n g a c l o s e d system where a l l normal d e c i s i o n makers are f e l t t o have the same c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y f o r making d e c i s i o n s (Simon, 1957, 1972) . However, t h e o r i z i n g t h a t everyone has the same c o g n i t i v e 31 c a p a c i t y does not mean d e c i s i o n makers w i l l use i t i n the same f a s h i o n ( G a t i , 1993). T h i s w i l l depend on how the i n d i v i d u a l c o g n i t i v e l y o r g a n i z e s and i n t e r p r e t s the incoming i n f o r m a t i o n . O f t e n , the d e c i s i o n maker w i l l o r g a n i z e the problem by mapping i t onto h i s / h e r v a l u e system. I t i s the mapping of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t p r o v i d e s the d e c i s i o n maker with a unique and meaningful template t o i n t e r a c t i n the world. Since the d e c i s i o n maker has a l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y t o process i n f o r m a t i o n , c a r e must be taken i n a l l o c a t i n g t h i s r e s o u r c e over i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t competes f o r a t t e n t i o n ( P i t z & Harren, 1980). As a r e s u l t , the d e c i s i o n maker i s c o n s t a n t l y b a l a n c i n g between one's l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y t o process i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h h i s / h e r d e s i r e t o r e a l i z e an o p t i m a l d e c i s i o n . In o t h e r words, a d e c i s i o n maker's u t i l i z a t i o n of a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y f o l l o w s a c o s t / b e n e f i t procedure - where the s e l e c t i o n of a s t r a t e g y i s a compromise between a d e c i s i o n maker's d e s i r e t o make an a c c u r a t e c h o i c e with h i s / h e r d e s i r e t o minimize i t s engendered c o g n i t i v e c o s t (Beach & M i t c h e l l , 1978; Ford e t a l . , 1989). Whether a d e c i s i o n maker uses a compensatory s t r a t e g y w i l l depends on the extent t h a t i t i n c r e a s e s or m a i n t a i n s d e c i s i o n a l a c c u r a c y (Onken e t a l . , 1985; P i t z & Harren, 1980). I f a c c u r a c y i s not improved or maintained then a l e s s c o g n i t i v e l y demanding non-compensatory s t r a t e g y w i l l be used i n s t e a d . For example, Krumboltz .et a l . (1982) and Payne e t a l . (1993) found d e c i s i o n makers w i l l e x p l o r e more i n f o r m a t i o n and take more time p r o c e s s i n g when the d e c i s i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e i n q u e s t i o n i s 32 p e r c e i v e d as being c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r u n d e r l y i n g v a l u e s . S i m i l a r l y , Beach and M i t c h e l l (1978) found the d e c i s i o n maker w i l l use a more a n a l y t i c a l compensatory search procedure i f the d e c i s i o n a l problem i s p e r c e i v e d as having h i g h importance. As a r e s u l t , i t seems the s e l e c t i o n of a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y i s not o n l y t a s k dependent per se, but i s a l s o d r i v e n by t h e d e c i s i o n maker's p e r c e p t i o n of the t a s k ( G a t i , 1993). M o d e l s o f D e c i s i o n M a k i n g The f u l l e xtent of a d e c i s i o n maker's s e l e c t i o n of a c o g n i -t i v e s t r a t e g y i s seen i n the compensatory and non-compensatory models ( P i t z & Harren, 1980). These models show t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n and g o a l r e a l i z a t i o n are as much a f u n c t i o n of the t a s k complexity as i t i s t o the d e c i s i o n maker's p r e f e r e n c e s . 1. The Compensatory Model In compensatory p r o c e s s i n g , the d e c i s i o n maker a s s e s s e s each c h o i c e a l t e r n a t i v e (e.g. doctor) through i t s d e f i n i n g a t t r i b u t e s (e.g. wage, working hours etc) where a disadvantage i n one a t t r i -bute (e.g. long working hours) i s compensated f o r by an advantage i n another a t t r i b u t e (e.g. h i g h wage). The a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h the h i g h e s t o v e r a l l r a t i n g i n the d e c i s i o n a l s e t i s the d e c i s i o n mak-e r ' s e v e n t u a l c h o i c e . The g o a l of compensatory p r o c e s s i n g i s t o s e l e c t t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t i s most compatible w i t h the d e c i s i o n maker's d e s i r e s . The two compensatory s t r a t e g i e s t h a t have r e c e i v e d the most a t t e n t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e are a d d i t i v e l i n e a r 33 and a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e . (See Appendix E f o r a p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n ) . In a d d i t i v e l i n e a r (AL) p r o c e s s i n g ( P i t z & Harren, 1980), the d e c i s i o n maker examines i n s i n g l e f a s h i o n each a l t e r n a t i v e (choice) t h a t comprises the d e c i s i o n a l s e t . Each a t t r i b u t e (value) w i t h i n the a l t e r n a t i v e i s comp a r a t i v e l y a s s e s s e d and i s then a s s i g n e d i n a compensatory f a s h i o n a s u b j e c t i v e weight. These weights are then summed t o g i v e an aggregate s c o r e f o r the a l t e r n a t i v e b e i n g assessed. The a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h the h i g h e s t aggregate r a t i n g i n the c h o i c e s e t i s the one the d e c i s i o n maker s e l e c t s . In a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e (AD) p r o c e s s i n g ( P i t z & Harren, 1980), the d e c i s i o n maker assesses two a l t e r n a t i v e s on one a t t r i -bute, then c o n t i n u e s t o compare the same two a l t e r n a t i v e s on the next a t t r i b u t e u n t i l a l l the a t t r i b u t e s between them have been as s e s s e d . Each a t t r i b u t e p a i r i n g i s noted f o r i t s d i f f e r e n c e . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s then weighted and summed i n a compensatory manner so as t o p r o v i d e an o v e r a l l s c o r e f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e . The a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h the h i g h e s t p o s i t i v e s c o r e i s then r e t a i n e d and a c t s as a base t o assess the next a l t e r n a t i v e i n the d e c i s -i o n a l s e t . The process continues u n t i l o n l y one a l t e r n a t i v e remains f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Because a d d i t i v e l i n e a r and a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e p r o c e s s i n g i n v o l v e i n - d e p t h comparison among the a l t e r n a t i v e s , d issonance i s 34 a common occurrence ( G a t i , 1993; Payne e t a l . , 1993). 5 To m i n i -mize the e f f e c t s of dissonance, the d e c i s i o n maker may r e p r i o r -i t i z e the a l t e r n a t i v e ' s d e f i n i n g a t t r i b u t e s . S i n c e i t i s theo-r e t i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e t o p e r f e c t l y match a d e c i s i o n maker's i d e a l c h o i c e ( G a t i , 1993), the n o t i o n of com-promise p l a y s an important r o l e i n compensatory p r o c e s s i n g . As a r e s u l t , i t i s expected.a d e c i s i o n maker who uses compensatory p r o c e s s i n g should have the p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n t o cope w i t h the dissonance engendered and have the w i l l i n g n e s s t o implement compromise and changes when the s i t u a t i o n demands i t . F i n a l l y , i n regards t o d e f i n i n g s e arch c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , both a d d i t i v e l i n e a r and a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e examine an equal amount of i n f o r m a t i o n over a l l c h o i c e a l t e r n a t i v e s . A d d i t i v e l i n e a r i s assessed i n an a l t e r n a t i v e - w i s e d i r e c t i o n ( i . e . examines a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s w i t h i n an a l t e r n a t i v e ) whereas a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i s processed i n an a t t r i b u t e - w i s e d i r e c t i o n ( i . e . examines a t t r i b u t e v a l u e s across the a l t e r n a t i v e s ) . Both s t r a t e g i e s are c o n s i d e r e d t o be h i g h l y demanding as t o the cog-n i t i v e e f f o r t necessary f o r t h e i r implementation (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; G a t i & T i b o t s k i , 1989; Zakay, 1990). As a r e s u l t , i n t h e o r y , both should have a h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y f o r r e a l i z i n g an o p t i m a l d e c i s i o n . 2. The Non-compensatory Model In non-compensatory p r o c e s s i n g ( P i t z & Harren, 1980), the 5No one a l t e r n a t i v e i s best on a l l the a t t r i b u t e s assessed. 35 d e c i s i o n maker determines from the onset a l e v e l of acceptance f o r each a t t r i b u t e category t h a t formulates the d e c i s i o n a l s e t . Any a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t i s seen t o have an a t t r i b u t e t h a t does not meet th e d e c i s i o n maker's pre-determined c r i t e r i a i s e l i m i n a t e d from f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . For example, an a l t e r n a t i v e (e.g. doctor) t h a t the d e c i s i o n maker i n i t i a l l y f i n d s a p p e a l i n g (e.g. x h i g h wage' combines with xgood use of s k i l l ' ) i s e l i m i n a t e d because of an i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y with another a t t r i b u t e (e.g. * l e n g t h y t r a i n i n g requirement'). In s u g g e s t i n g an yall or none' approach t o d e c i s i o n making, non-compensatory p r o c e s s i n g i s not open t o t r a d i n g - o f f between a t t r i b u t e s . As a r e s u l t , t h e p o t e n t -i a l f o r dissonance i s s l i g h t or n i l s i n c e no c o n f l i c t i n g a t t r i -bute i s p r e s e n t long enough t o generate i t (Payne e t a l . , 1993). The two non-compensatory s t r a t e g i e s mentioned most i n the l i t e r a -t u r e a r e c o n j u n c t i v e and e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t p r o c e s s i n g . (See Appendix E f o r a p i c t o r i a l i l l u s t r a t i o n ) . In c o n j u n c t i v e (CONJ) p r o c e s s i n g (Simon, 1957, 1979) the d e c i s i o n maker c o n s i d e r s each a l t e r n a t i v e one a t a time i n the o r d e r i t appears i n the d e c i s i o n s e t . Each r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e w i t h i n the a l t e r n a t i v e i s assessed f o r i t s a b i l i t y t o * s a t i s f y ' a d e c i s i o n maker's pre-determined minimum v a l u e . I f an a t t r i b u t e f a i l s t o meet t h i s minimum value, the a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t c o n t a i n s i t i s immediately dropped from f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . As i t i s w i t h e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t p r o c e s s i n g below, i n c o n j u n c t i v e p r o -c e s s i n g a weak a t t r i b u t e cannot be compensated f o r by a s t r o n g 36 a t t r i b u t e . In a s i t u a t i o n where none of the a v a i l a b l e a t t r i b u t e s meet the d e c i s i o n maker's c u t o f f p o i n t s , the l e v e l o f e v a l u a t i o n i s then lowered where the r u l e s of c o n j u n c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g a re ag a i n a p p l i e d . P r o c e s s i n g ceases as soon as the d e c i s i o n maker encounters the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e where a l l r e l e v a n t a t t r i b u t e s meet the d e c i s i o n maker's c u t o f f p o i n t s . Thus, a c h o i c e i s u s u a l l y made b e f o r e a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n i n the d e c i s i o n s e t has been assessed. Since c o n j u n c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g e s s e n t i a l l y i n v o l v e s a c o n d i t i o n a l assessment of an a l t e r n a t i v e , i t i s t h i s author's b e l i e f t h a t dissonance does p l a y an important r o l e i n i t s enact-ment. In o t h e r words, when a c o n d i t i o n a l l y s e n s i t i v e d e c i s i o n maker - one who ho l d s a c e r t a i n world view o r i e n t a t i o n - e x p e r i -ences dissonance, then the a l t e r n a t i v e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s o c c u r -rence i s d i s c a r d e d (Payne e t a l . , 1993). As a r e s u l t , the d e c i -s i o n maker does not have t o experience any p o t e n t i a l d i s c o m f o r t , nor n e g o t i a t e f o r any p o s s i b l e d e v i a t i o n from h i s / h e r p r e - e x i s t -i n g b e l i e f s . In e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t (EBA) p r o c e s s i n g (Svenson, 1979; Tversky, 1969, 1972), the d e c i s i o n maker i n i t i a l l y compares a l l the a l t e r n a t i v e s i n regards t o the most important a t t r i b u t e t h a t comprises the d e c i s i o n s e t . Any a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t does not meet the d e c i s i o n maker's l e v e l of acceptance f o r the a t t r i b u t e i n q u e s t i o n i s immediately e l i m i n a t e d from c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Those a l t e r n a t i v e s remaining are then judged on the next important a t t r i b u t e . E l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t p r o c e s s i n g c o n t i n u e s u n t i l o n l y 37 one a l t e r n a t i v e remains. I t i s important t o note, because e l i m i n -a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t does not i n v o l v e an in-depth comparison between a l t e r n a t i v e s , any dissonance generated from i t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be n i l (Payne e t a l . , 1993). E l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t s t r a t e g y , as d e s c r i b e d here, i s *easy t o apply, e x p l a i n , and defend t o one-s e l f as w e l l as t o others (Tversky, 1972, p. 298). However, i t s u n c r i t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n can l e a d t o sub-optimal d e c i s i o n s . I t i s expected i n d i v i d u a l s who p l a c e h i g h v a l u e on e f f o r t r e d u c t i o n or tend t o a v o i d making d e c i s i o n s c o u l d r e s o r t t o e l i m i n a t i o n - b y -a s p e c t c h o i c e s . In regards t o d e f i n i n g search c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , both con-j u n c t i v e and e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t p r o c e s s i n g are s e l e c t i v e as t o t h e amount of i n f o r m a t i o n assessed over d e c i s i o n a l t r i a l s . C o n j u n c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i s conducted i n an a l t e r n a t i v e - w i s e man-ner whereas e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t p r o c e s s i n g i s conducted i n an a t t r i b u t e - w i s e manner. Both s t r a t e g i e s are c o n s i d e r e d t o be low demanding as t o the c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t necessary f o r t h e i r imple-mentation (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; G a t i & T i b o t s k i , 1989; Zakay, 1990). C o g n i t i v e S t r a t e g i e s a n d I d e n t i t y - P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e S i m i l a r i t i e s From the t h e o r i e s reviewed, i t i s e v i d e n t t h a t p a r a l l e l s can be drawn between the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s of d e c i s i o n making and Berzonsky's (1988, 1989, 1990) i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . For example, as comparative processes, a d d i t i v e l i n e a r or a d d i t i v e 38 d i f f e r e n c e p r o c e s s i n g suggests the presence of s t r u c t u r e w i t h an xopen' or * u n c o n d i t i o n a l ' form of f l e x i b i l i t y ; c o n j u n c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g suggests s t r u c t u r e w i t h a x c l o s e d ' or x c o n d i t i o n a l ' form of f l e x i b i l i t y and; e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t suggests s t r u c t -ure w i t h an open/closed or u n c o n d i t i o n a l / c o n d i t i o n a l form of f l e x i b i l i t y . F o l l o w i n g t h i s reasoning, i t c o u l d be f u r t h e r sug-g e s t e d a d e c i s i o n maker who has * c o n s t r u c t e d ' h i s / h e r i d e n t i t y through s e a r c h c o u l d have a s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n t o use an a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e or a d d i t i v e l i n e a r procedure; th e d e c i s i o n maker who has x c o n f e r r e d ' h i s / h e r i d e n t i t y through o t h e r s c o u l d have a s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n t o use a c o n j u n c t i v e proced-ure and; the d e c i s i o n maker who i s xuncommitted' i n i d e n t i t y c o u l d have a s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e d i s p o s i t i o n t o use an e l i m i n a t i o n -by-aspect procedure (Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992, 1993; M a r c i a e t a l . , 1993). I m p l i c i t i n t h i s reasoning i s the i d e a t h a t the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s are a l s o e x p r e s s i o n s of the d e c i s i o n maker's under-l y i n g *world view' ( K e l l y , 1955). In other words, t h i s author i s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s are i n h e r e n t l y connected t o those c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t con-s t i t u t e d e c i s i o n making theory ( G a t i , 1993; Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980), the same c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t through-out the d e c i s i o n making l i t e r a t u r e have mainly been viewed w i t h i n a t a s k c o n t i n g e n t framework (Ford e t a l . , 1989; Payne, 1976). In c o u n t e r i n g these suggestions, d e c i s i o n t h e o r i s t s (Huber, 1983; McKenna, 1984) c o u l d argue t h a t Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o -39 c e s s i n g s t y l e s are nothing more than a d i f f e r e n t way of d e s c r i b -i n g the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . Where t h i s argument does have some v a l i d i t y (Hunt e t a l . , 1989; Robertson, 1985), i t i s important t o note, t o suggest t h i s viewpoint i s t o support t h e t a s k con-t i n g e n t r e a s o n i n g t h i s author t h i n k s i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d e c i s i o n maker not r e c e i v i n g g r e a t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i t h i n the d e c i s i o n making model. As a r e s u l t , i f the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s are a c t u a l l y c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , then i t i s l o g i c a l t o expect they should respond t o t a s k complexity i n the same f a s h -i o n as do the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s (Payne, 1976, Payne e t a l . , 1993) . On the other hand, i f i t i s found t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o the expected t a s k e f f e c t s t h a t the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s demon-s t r a t e p r o c e s s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t are c o n s i s t e n t t o Berzonsky's th e o r y , then i t would be apparent the author i s d e a l i n g w i t h another concept, a concept t h a t i s x d i s t i n c t from but a p a r t o f d e c i s i o n making theory. C o s t B e n e f i t A n a l y s i s a n d t h e x N e e d f o r C o g n i t i o n ' F i n a l l y , what i s important t o note about c o s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s i s t h a t i t g i v e s the d e c i s i o n maker a * p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a s o n ' or ^ d e s i r e ' (with or without awareness) t o p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner (Ford e t a l . , 1989). For t h i s author, t h i s * d e s i r e ' i s p e r c e i v e d as being s e m a n t i c a l l y s i m i l a r t o xneed' . .. r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h i s ^need' i s t o reduce c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n - a task c o n t i n g e n t phenomena or , i s 40 one's expressed w i l l i n g n e s s t o engage i n a heightened c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y - a person-centred phenomena. As such, t h i s author i s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t c o s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s and the xneed f o r c o g n i t -i o n ' are p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d - where a d e c i s i o n maker's c o g n i -t i v e response t o a complex ta s k i s a l s o r e l a t e d i n p a r t t o h i s / her xneed f o r c o g n i t i o n ' . In other words, as a t a s k c o n t i n g e n t premise, c o s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s i s s u b j e c t t o p e r s o n o l o g i c a l i n f l u e n c e s . T E C H N I Q U E S F O R S T U D Y I N G D E C I S I O N M A K I N G A S A P R O C E S S The method of c h o i c e f o r conducting r e s e a r c h i n d e c i s i o n making i s s t r u c t u r a l m o d e l l i n g ( B i l l i n g s & Marcus, 1983; Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; P i t z & Sachs, 1984) and p rocess t r a c i n g (Ford e t a l . , 1989; Payne, 1976, 1993). In s t r u c t u r a l m o d e l l i n g emphasis i s p l a c e d on the outcome of the d e c i s i o n a l p r o c e s s r a t h e r than on the i n t e r v e n i n g p r o c e s s i n g steps t h a t comprise the d e c i s i o n a l event. Through a c t i v e m a n i p u l a t i o n of the x i n p u t - o u t p u t ' f a c t o r s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e the d e c i s i o n a l problem, s t r u c t u r a l models are used t o draw i n f e r e n c e s about the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s ( P i t z & Harren, 1980; Svenson, 1979). In c o n t r a s t , the emphasis i n p r o -c e s s t r a c i n g i s on the i n t e r v e n i n g steps the d e c i s i o n maker used d u r i n g d e c i s i o n making. In process t r a c i n g , c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i s x i n f e r r e d ' from the b e h a v i o r a l u n i t s and s e a r c h sequences t h a t comprise the t a s k (Einhorn, 1979; Payne e t a l . , 1993). Because t h i s author i s i n t e r e s t e d i n an a d o l e s c e n t ' s p r e d e c i s i o n a l behav-41 i o u r as i t occurs d u r i n g the s e l e c t i o n of a c a r e e r , a p r o c e s s t r a c i n g technique i s used f o r i t s methodology. Process T r a c i n g Techniques Three main process t r a c i n g techniques are found i n the l i t e r a t u r e : v e r b a l p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s ( E r i c s s o n & Simon, 1980; Newell & Simon, 1972); eye movement mo n i t o r i n g (Russo, 1978) and; i n f o r m a t i o n board a n a l y s i s (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981; Johnson e t a l . , 1989; Payne, 1976). V e r b a l p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e s the d e c i s i o n maker t o ^ t h i n k a l o u d ' as he/she sim u l t a n e o u s l y performs the d e c i s i o n a l t a s k . The d e c i s i o n maker's v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of the procedure are taken as i n d i c a t o r s of h i s / h e r c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s ( E r i c s s o n & Simon, 1980; Newell & Simon, 1972). Problems common t o v e r b a l p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s are: a) i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a n a l y z e the data o b j e c t i v e l y (Russo e t a l . , 1985); b) i t has the p o t e n t i a l t o i n f l u e n c e the d e c i s i o n maker's eve n t u a l c h o i c e (Svensori, 1979); c) i t can be more i n d i c a t i v e of memory than c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g (Johnson e t a l . , 1989) and; d) i t i s l a b o u r - i n t e n s i v e thereby l i m i t i n g the number of s u b j e c t s i t can document a t any g i v e n time. A d e r i v a t i v e of v e r b a l p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s i s the r e t r o -s p e c t i v e w r i t t e n p r o t o c o l . Eye movement mon i t o r i n g p e r t a i n s t o a d e c i s i o n maker's eye f i x a t i o n s t h a t are recorded with cameras as he/she scans a v i s u a l d i s p l a y (Russo e t a l . , 1985). Meaning t h a t a person's eye f i x a t i o n s are c o n s i d e r e d t o be the i n d i c a t o r s of u n d e r l y i n g cog-42 n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s . C r i t i c i s m s concerning eye movement m o n i t o r i n g a r e : a) i t i s good a t i n d i c a t i n g what i n f o r m a t i o n the d e c i s i o n maker has ignored, but i s poor i n determining what i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o c e s s e d ; b) i t has d i f f i c u l t y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between * r e s -ponse r e a c t i v i t y ' and p r o c e s s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s and c) i t r e q u i r e s s o p h i s t i c a t e d equipment t h a t i s c o s t p r o h i b i t i v e . In a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n board a n a l y s i s r e c o r d s the d e c i s i o n maker's p r o c e s s i n g responses on a computerized m a t r i x (Johnson e t a l . , 1989; Payne, 1976). Every movement of the d e c i -s i o n maker's search process i s documented through computer-i n i t i a t e d responses. Again r e s e a r c h e r s who use the i n f o r m a t i o n board should be s e n s i t i v e t o the f a c t t h a t *response r e a c t i v i t y ' i s an i n e v i t a b l e p a r t of a s u b j e c t ' s f i n a l p r o c e s s i n g measure. However, as a s o p h i s t i c a t e d d e v i c e , the computerized i n f o r m a t i o n board i s h i g h l y capable of p r e c i s e and u s e f u l measurement. The i n f o r m a t i o n board i s easy to use and can be a d m i n i s t e r e d t o more than one s u b j e c t a t a time. Since v e r b a l p r o t o c o l has been c r i t -i c i z e d as b eing o b t r u s i v e i n i n t e r r u p t i n g s u b j e c t ' s thought p r o -c e s s , t h i s author w i l l u t i l i z e the i n f o r m a t i o n board and r e t r o -s p e c t i v e w r i t t e n p r o t o c o l i n t h i s study i n s t e a d . C O N C L U D I N G R E M A R K S & G E N E R A L Q U E S T I O N S Where d e c i s i o n making theory suggests c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i s m ainly a f u n c t i o n of t a s k complexity (Ford e t a l . , 1989; G a t i , 1993; Payne 1976, Payne e t a l . , 1993; P i t z & Harren, 1980), t h i s 43 author i s sug g e s t i n g i t i s a l s o a f u n c t i o n of the d e c i s i o n mak-er ' s p e r s o n a l i t y , i n p a r t i c u l a r ; h i s / h e r i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e (Berzonsky, 1988, 1990, Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992, 1993). In ot h e r words, the s e l e c t i o n of a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y i s not o n l y t a s k c o n t i n g e n t per se, but i s a l s o an e x p r e s s i o n o f a d e c i s i o n maker's p e r s o n a l world view - a world view t h a t i s developmental and s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e i n scope. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s statement i s the i d e a t h a t w i t h i n each of Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t p s y c h o - s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and f l e x i b i l i t y - a s t r u c t u r e and f l e x i b i l i t y t h a t i s seen i n pr o c e s s t o be s i m i l a r t o those c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s t h a t comprise d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y . As such, the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s can now be proposed: To what e x t e n t i s Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s r e l a t e d t o d e c i s i o n making theory? When exposed t o the same d e c i s i o n a l t a s k , do I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s demonstrate a g r e a t e r p r o -p e n s i t y t o engage i n compensatory p r o c e s s i n g than Normative or D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s ? S p e c i f i c a l l y , are I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s i n c l i n e d t o use a d d i t i v e l i n e a r or a d d i t i v e d i f f e r -ence procedures; Normative a d o l e s c e n t s i n c l i n e d t o use a con-j u n c t i v e procedure and; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s i n c l i n e d t o use an e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t procedure? To what e x t e n t are these p r o c e s s i n g i n c l i n a t i o n s t r u e f o r a d e c i s i o n t a s k t h a t i s seen t o va r y i n i n f o r m a t i o n a l complexity? F i n a l l y , i n r e f l e c t i n g d i s -t i n c t world views, do I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s show a q u a l i t a t i v e p r e f e r e n c e f o r c e r t a i n 44 types of i n f o r m a t i o n when making an o c c u p a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n ? D e v e l o p m e n t o f H y p o t h e s e s Based on the p r e c e d i n g q u e s t i o n s , two hypotheses can be f o r m a l i z e d as f o l l o w s : H ypothesis I: (A) I t i s hypothesized t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s who v a r y i n i d e n t -i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e w i l l d i f f e r i n s e a r c h behaviour f o r a d e c i s i o n a l task t h a t v a r i e s i n i n f o r m a t i o n a l complexity. (B) I t i s hypothesized t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are more compensatory i n the p r o c e s s i n g of o c c u p a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l than Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s -c e n t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an a d d i t i v e l i n e a r or a d d i t i v e d i f f e r -ence procedure; Normative a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use a c o n j u n c t i v e procedure and; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an e l i m i n a t i o n - b y -aspect procedure. Hypothesis I I : I t i s hypothesized t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s w i l l r e f l e c t a p r e f e r e n c e f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y c e n t r e d whereas Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s w i l l r e f l e c t a p r e f e r e n c e f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s e x t r i n s i c a l l y c e n t r e d . 45 C H A P T E R T H R E E M E T H O D O L O G Y The f o l l o w i n g study was designed t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between an ad o l e s c e n t ' s i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e and those p r e - d e c i s i o n a l processes he/she used when making an o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e . The study was conducted i n two s t a g e s . The f i r s t stage was used t o determine through t e s t b a t t e r i e s (ISI-3 and EOMEIS-2) the ad o l e s c e n t ' s i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e . Only those a d o l e s c e n t s who met a p r e - d e f i n e d c u t o f f p o i n t went on t o the second stage, a computerized i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e x e r c i s e (Johnson e t a l . , 1988). F i n a l l y , i t i s t o be noted an au t h o r -generated Work Value Survey was admi n i s t e r e d t o a s e p a r a t e sample of a d o l e s c e n t s so as t o p r o v i d e m a t e r i a l t h a t was f o r c o n s t r u c t -i n g t he i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e x e r c i s e . S T A G E O N E S A M P L E 409 v o l u n t e e r undergraduate a r t students were r e c r u i t e d from the classroom a t U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 77 stu d e n t s were excluded because of m i s s i n g responses on q u e s t i o n items or were found t o exceed the study's age l i m i t (18-24) . 6 The mean age f o r 6On the basis of i d e n t i t y status l i t e r a t u r e t h i s age range t h e o r e t i c a l l y represents the ' c r i t i c a l period' where i d e n t i t y formation i s f e l t to be occurring (Erikson, 1963, Waterman, 1982, Marcia et a l . , 1993). As such, for reasons stated above, these students should provide the necessary s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b i l i t y for i n v e s t i g a t i n g the information processing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Berzonsky's (1988, 1993) identity-processing s t y l e s . 46 the remaining 332 students was 19.78 (SD=1.62) y e a r s . Most were freshmen and sophomores (65.9%) wi t h 2.21 (SD=1.62) y e a r s of c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n . 7 The sample p o o l c o n s i s t e d of 116 males (34.9%) and 216 females (65.1%). To encourage f u t u r e p a r t i c i p a t -i o n i n t h e study's i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e x e r c i s e , t h e students were t o l d i f they completed a l l phases of the study they would be e l i g i b l e f o r a monetary p r i z e t o be awarded l a t e r . F i n a l l y , i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n , an a d d i t i o n a l 103 v o l u n t e e r undergraduate students were r e c r u i t e d so as t o p r o v i d e data t h a t was necessary f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g the study's i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e x e r c i s e . The c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i n g these students was the same as t h a t found above. I N S T R U M E N T A T I O N The f i r s t stage r e s e a r c h was conducted by way of a paper and p e n c i l t e s t b a t t e r y : Berzonsky's (1992) I d e n t i t y S t y l e Inventory (ISI3-Revised V e r s i o n ) , Adams, Bennion and Huh's (1989) Extended O b j e c t i v e Measure of Ego I d e n t i t y Status (EOMEIS-2) and an author-generated Work Value Survey (WVS). 1. M e a s u r e m e n t o f I d e n t i t y D e t e r m i n a t i o n A) The i d e n t i t y s t y l e i n v e n t o r y ( I S I 3 - r e v i s e d v e r s i o n ) Berzonsky's (1992) I d e n t i t y S t y l e Inventory (ISI3) i s a In noting the sample's educational status, i t seems reasonable to assume that these students should be search s e n s i t i v e i n regards to career p o s s i b i l i t i e s (Erikson, 1963, 1968, 1982). 47 p a p e r - a n d - p e n c i l instrument designed t o measure the Informat-i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t i d e n t i t y s t y l e s . I t con-s i s t s o f a 11-item I n f o r m a t i o n a l - s t y l e s c a l e , a 9-item Normative-s t y l e s c a l e ; a 10-item D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s c a l e and a 10-item Com-mitment s c a l e . Since the c e n t r a l concern o f t h i s study was t o examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i d e n t i t y s t y l e s and t h e i r s e a r c h p r o c e s s , the Commitment s c a l e was not addressed. In regar d s t o s c o r i n g , Berzonsky suggests i d e n t i t y s t y l e c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s c o u l d be made *by performing a z-score t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t he s u b j e c t s ' raw scores on the t h r e e s t y l e measures, u s i n g the i n d i v i d u a l ' s h i g h e s t z-score on the t h r e e s c a l e s as the b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g h i s or her i d e n t i t y s t y l e ' (p. 292), and the p r i n c i p l e i d e n t i t y s t y l e s c o r e i s t o be a t l e a s t h a l f a standar d d e v i a t i o n (0.5) g r e a t e r than the other two s c o r e s . Berzonsky (1992b) r e p o r t s t h a t the t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r t he ISI3 over a two-month p e r i o d (N=75) were: I n f o r m a t i o n a l (0.75), Normative (0.74), and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t (0.71). I n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t i e s (alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s ) were: D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t (0.73), I n f o r m a t i o n a l (0.62) and Normative (0.66). C o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i -c i e n t w i t h Adams-Grotevant I d e n t i t y S tatus Scores (1984) ranged from 0.31 t o 0.65 (Berzonsky, 1989). Alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h i s sample (N=332) ranged from 0.59 f o r Normative t o 0.72 f o r D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s . These were comparable t o Berzonsky's r e s u l t s (1992b) and appeared adequate f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h purpose. 48 B) The extended o b j e c t i v e measure of ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s (EOMEIS-2) The Extended O b j e c t i v e Measure of Ego I d e n t i t y S t a t u s (EOM-EIS-2) (Adams e t a l . , 1989) was i n c l u d e d t o examine t h e psycho-s o c i a l m a t u r i t y of the s u b j e c t s and t o v a l i d a t e the i d e n t i t y s t y l e s Berzonsky's (1992) ISI3 generated. 8 The EOMEIS-2 i s a s t a n d a r d i z e d p a p e r - a n d - p e n c i l instrument designed t o measure the ego s t a t u s of I d e n t i t y D i f f u s i o n , Fore-c l o s u r e , Moratorium and I d e n t i t y Achievement. The s h o r t form EOMEIS-2 c o n s i s t s of 32 items r e f l e c t i n g the presence or absence of c r i s i s and commitment i n the i d e o l o g i c a l domain, t h a t i s ; the i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e l i e f s t r u c t u r e i n the areas of o c c u p a t i o n , r e l i g -i o n , p o l i t i c s , and p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i f e s t y l e . There are two items f o r each ego s t a t u s i n the fou r i d e o l o g i c a l a r e a s . S c a l e s c o r e s f o r each i d e n t i t y s t a t u s are d e r i v e d by summing responses t o the a p p r o p r i a t e items (1 = S t r o n g l y Disagree, 6 = S t r o n g l y Agree). S u b j e c t s are then c l a s s i f i e d i n t o each i d e n t i t y s t a t u s by u s i n g s c o r i n g r u l e s s p e c i f i e d i n the s c o r i n g manual of the EOMEIS-2. B r i e f l y , i t i s suggested t h a t the sample mean p l u s one sta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n as the c u t - o f f p o i n t f o r each i d e n t i t y sub-s c a l e . S u b j e c t s s c o r i n g above the c u t - o f f p o i n t on a p a r t i c u l a r s c a l e , w h i l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s c o r i n g below the c u t - o f f p o i n t s on Q Since Berzonsky's (1992; 1993) i d e n t i t y s t y l e s are t h e o r e t i c a l l y grounded on Marcia et a l ' s (1980; 1993) i d e n t i t y statuses, the concurrent use of the EOMEIS-2 was to provide addi t i o n a l v a l i d a t i n g support, i n p a r t i c u l a r ; f o r what t h i s study means by 'pure' i d e n t i t y s t y l e types. 49 the o t h e r remaining s c a l e s would be c a t e g o r i z e d as b e i n g i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i d e n t i t y s c a l e . Those who scored more than one c u t - o f f p o i n t s i n the i d e n t i t y s c a l e s were c o n s i d e r e d t o be t r a n s i t i o n a l t y p e s . The EOMEIS-2 measure i s widely used i n i d e n t i t y s t a t u s r e -se a r c h and i s r e p o r t e d t o have impressive psychometric p r o p e r t i e s (Grotevant & Adams, 1984; Jones & S t r e i t m a t t e r , 1987). S t u d i e s from Jones and Hartmann (1985), Bennion and Adams (1986) i n d i -c a t e d an a c c e p t a b l e range of alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s from 0.75 ( D i f f u -s ion) t o 0.85 ( F o r e c l o s u r e ) , and from 0.62 ( D i f f u s i o n ) t o 0.75 ( F o r e c l o s u r e ) on the i d e o l o g i c a l s u b s c a l e s . E s t i m a t e s o f conver-g e n t - d i v e r g e n t v a l i d i t y ranged from 0.52 t o 0.80 (Bennion & Adams, 1986), and showed an e x c e l l e n t s t a b i l i t y w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s r a n g i n g from 0.82 t o 0.90 a c r o s s a 2-week t e s t i n t e r v a l i n B l u s t e i n e t a l . ' s (1989) study. Data from t h i s sample supported the f i n d i n g s of o t h e r r e s e a r c h . Alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h i s sample ranged from 0.62 ( D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ) t o 0.80 ( F o r e c l o s u r e ) . These e s t i -mates were comparable wi t h those appearing i n the l i t e r a t u r e , an i n d i c a t i o n o f the ap p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the EOMEIS-2 f o r examining the i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s . 2. M e a s u r e m e n t o f W o r k V a l u e A. Work Value Survey (WVSY The purpose of the Work Value Survey (WVS) was t w o - f o l d : f i r s t , t o p r o v i d e the i n f o r m a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s ( a t t r i b u t e s ) t h a t 50 would be used i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the study's p r o c e s s i n g exer-c i s e ; and second, t o a v o i d any i r r e l e v a n t *value' c a t e g o r i e s t h a t might decrease the v a l i d i t y of the study r e s u l t s . 9 T h e o r e t i c a l premise of the work va l u e survey While remaining s e n s i t i v e t o Berzonsky's u n d e r l y i n g r a t i o n a l e , the WVS took Ronen's (1978) p o s i t i o n t h a t a person's v a l u e system i s an x i n t e g r a l p a r t ' of the p e r s o n a l i t y and a * p a r t i a l p r o d u c t ' of the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l environment. In b e i n g a c o n s c i o u s and c e n t r a l component of the p e r s o n a l i t y , v a l u e s per se are seen t o g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e one's e v a l u a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r o c c u p a t i o n (Gottfredson, 1981; Super, 1962) . As such, i n c o n s t r u c t i n g the WVS, o n l y those v a l u e s t h a t have been de-f i n e d through p r e v i o u s t e s t i n g s and had o c c u p a t i o n a l r e l e v a n c e were s e l e c t e d ( B u t l e r , 1983; E l i z u r , 1984; Judge e t a l . , 1992; Rosenberg, 1956; Super, 1962, 1975). As a r e s u l t of such s e l e c -t i o n , , twelve w o r k - r e l a t e d v a l u e s comprised t h i s survey. (See Appendix A f o r the s e l e c t e d v a l u e i t e m s ) . E x t r i n s i c and i n t r i n s i c d e f i n i t i o n s f o r the work v a l u e s F o l l o w i n g S a r n o f f ' s (1966) premise t h a t v a l u e s can be d i v i d -ed i n t o the c a t e g o r i e s of *Aggrandizement' (wealth, p r e s t i g e , power) and * R e a l i z a t i o n ' (humanitarian, e q u a l i t a r i a n , a e s t h e t i c , i n t e l l e c t u a l ) , the WVS c l a s s i f i e d i t s twelve v a l u e s i n accordance t o whether they r e f l e c t e d an e x t r i n s i c , i n t e r - p e r s o n a l or i n t r i n -Since the WVS was constructed e s p e c i a l l y for t h i s study, i t i s necessary to b r i e f l y discuss t h e o r e t i c a l l y how i t was operationalized. Berzonsky's (1992) world view o r i e n t a t i o n should be apparent i n t h i s t h e o r i z i n g . 51 s i c , i n t r a - p e r s o n a l emphasis (Dyer & Parker, 1975). Values r e -f l e c t i n g an e x t r i n s i c , i n t e r - p e r s o n a l emphasis were d e f i n e d as t h o s e t h a t are * e x t e r n a l l y mediated by someone oth e r than the employee h i m s e l f (Deci, 1972); or t h e o r e t i c a l l y , as t h o se r e -f l e c t i n g Maslow's (1970) lower need s t a t e s such as pay, promotion and s e c u r i t y e t c . In other words, f o r those people who h e l d a pre-dominant e x t r i n s i c , i n t e r - p e r s o n a l p o s i t i o n , the a c t of work c o u l d be seen as being a 'means t o an end' p r o p o s i t i o n , t h a t i s ; i t i s i n s t r u m e n t a l i n f u n c t i o n . On the other hand, v a l u e s i n d i -c a t i n g an i n t r i n s i c , i n t r a - p e r s o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n were d e f i n e d as t h o s e t h a t are 'mediated by the person h i m s e l f ( D e c i , 1972); or t h e o r e t i c a l l y , as those r e f l e c t i n g Maslow's (1970) h i g h e r order needs such as s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t or s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . For these people, work i s valued f o r i t s a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e the o p p o r t u n i t y t o express one's a b i l i t i e s and p o t e n t i a l s . F i n a l l y , as f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g the WVS, a s u b j e c t ' s response was r e c o r d e d on a 7-point L i k e r t type s c a l e t h a t ranged from Very Unimportant (1) t o Very Important (7). The f o u r h i g h e s t i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s were s e l e c t e d f o r the study's i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e x e r c i s e . P R O C E D U R E While d i s t r i b u t i n g the t e s t b a t t e r i e s t o the c l a s s , the s t u d e n t s were t o l d t h a t the study concerned how young people go 52 about making o c c u p a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s . Each student r e c e i v e d a r e s e a r c h packet c o n t a i n i n g a demographic form (age, sex, year of u n i v e r s i t y e d u c a t i o n e t c ) , the I S I 3 (Berzonsky, 1992) and EOMEIS-2 (Adams e t a l , 1989) i d e n t i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The p r e s e n t a t i o n o r d e r of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i t h i n the packets always began wi t h the I S I 3 f o l l o w e d by the EOMEIS-2 e t c . While a l l s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h e r e was an i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g p a r t t o the study, the f a c t was, o n l y those students who met the p r e - d e f i n e d c u t o f f p o i n t on the i d e n t i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (see above) were e l i g i b l e f o r f u r t h e r t e s t i n g . A f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e i r packet, t h e s t u d e n t s were t o l d t o take i t home and f o l l o w the w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h e i r spare time. Once completed, they were t o r e t u r n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o the same c l a s s the f o l l o w i n g week f o r p i c k up. The b r i e f i n g ended by a s s u r i n g the students t h e i r c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y would always be a top experimental p r i o r i t y . F i n a l l y , d i s t r i b u t -i o n of the Work Value Assessment Survey t o d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s f o l l o w e d the same procedure as above with the e x c e p t i o n t h a t i t was completed i n c l a s s and c o l l e c t e d immediately t h e r e a f t e r . P R E L I M I N A R Y R E S U L T S 1. S u b j e c t I d e n t i t y D e t e r m i n a t i o n A. Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y s t y l e i n v e n t o r y ( i s i 3 - r e v i s e d v e r s i o n ) U s i n g Berzonsky's (1992) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedure out-l i n e d above, 184 (55.4%) of the respondents (N=332) met the 53 study's c r i t e r i o n f o r one of the t h r e e i d e n t i t y s t y l e s . Of these, 60 were I n f o r m a t i o n a l , 58 were Normatives and 66 D i f f u s e / a v o i d -a n t s . The r e s t were mixed types. B. Adams f Bennion and Huh's extended o b j e c t i v e measure of ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s (EOMEIS-2) Through computer c a l c u l a t i o n , the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedure reduced the i n i t i a l sample of 332 t o 180, t h a t i s ; 54.2% met the c r i t e r i a f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o one of the f o u r i d e n t i t y s t a t -uses: 40 s u b j e c t s were I d e n t i t y Achievement, 2 6 were Moratorium, 53 were F o r e c l o s u r e and 61 were I d e n t i t y D i f f u s e . The remaining s u b j e c t s c o n s t i t u t e d the t r a n s i t i o n a l t y p e s . C o r r e l a t i o n between the two i d e n t i t y measures s c o r e s Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t measure showed a low t o moderate range of agreement (from 0.37 f o r I n f o r m a t i o n a l t o 0.47 f o r Normative) between Berzonsky's ISI3 and Adams e t a l . ' s EOMEIS-2 s c o r e s . Three of the f o u r - s u b s c a l e s c o r e s i n Adams e t a l . ' s t e s t c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p< .05) and p o s i t i v e l y w i t h t h e expected s c a l e s c o r e s i n Berzonsky's ISI3 t e s t ( i . e . I n f o r -m a t i o n a l w i t h I d e n t i t y Achievement, Normative w i t h F o r e c l o s e d , D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t w i t h I d e n t i t y D i f f u s e d ) . However, t h e Moratorium s c a l e s c o r e i n EOMEIS-2 d i d not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h ISI3's I n f o r m a t i o n a l s c a l e s c o r e . F i n a l Sample Determination S u b j e c t s who expressed a dominant i d e n t i t y type from both Berzonsky's IS13 and Adams e t a l . ' s EOMEIS-2 were s e l e c t e d f o r 54 the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g experiment. Those who were i d e n t i f i e d i n one t e s t but not the other were excluded from f u r t h e r t e s t i n g . I d e n t i t y a c h i e v e d and Moratorium s u b j e c t s from the EOMEIS-2 were compared w i t h the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s , the F o r e c l o s e d w i t h the Norma-t e s t . T h i s comparison r e s u l t e d i n 89 s u b j e c t s (40 I n f o r m a t i o n a l s , 26 Normatives and 23 D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s ) who were q u a l i f i e d as 'pure' i d e n t i t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e x e r c i s e . For s t a t i s t i c a l expediency, 21 s u b j e c t s (13 females and 8 males) f o r each i d e n t i t y s t y l e group ( I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ) were s e l e c t e d . 2. W o r k V a l u e C a t e g o r i e s The r e s u l t from the Work Value Survey (N=103) i s summarized i n T a b l e 1 below. t i v e s ; and the D i f f u s e d with the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s of the ISI3 TABLE 1 Mean & Standard D e v i a t i o n (SD) of V a l ues by the C o l l e g e Sample (N=103) Mean SD I n t r i n s i c v a l u e s F e e l i n g of s e l f f u l f i l m e n t Chance t o use s k i l l s I n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t i o n Autonomy Op p o r t u n i t y f o r advancement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 6.45 5.97 5.82 5.49 5.48 5.46 0.88 1.14 1.23 1.26 1.69 1.23 55 E x t r i n s i c v a l u e s Wage/salary A f f i l i a t i o n (Being with people) Competent s u p e r v i s o r a t work p l a c e P r e s t i g e / S t a t u s A u t h o r i t y V a r i e t y of job d u t i e s 5.63 5.50 5.48 5.47 5.28 4.66 1.14 1.29 1.42 1.39 1.29 1.61 . The h i g h e s t r a t i n g of the f i r s t f o u r v a l u e dimensions i n the i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c s e c t i o n s were r e t a i n e d as a t t r i b u t e s f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n board. Since 'Competent s u p e r v i s o r a t work p l a c e ' was f e l t t o l e a n more towards j o b - r e l a t e d components than t o i n n e r o r p e r s o n a l f e e l i n g s , i t was excluded from b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n board. The e i g h t v a l u e s t h a t were s e l e c t e d as a t t r i b u t e s f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g e x e r c i s e were: F e e l i n g of s e l f f u l f i l m e n t , Chance t o use s k i l l s , I n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t -i o n , Autonomy, Wage, A f f i l i a t i o n , P r e s t i g e and A u t h o r i t y . 21 s u b j e c t s (13 females and 8 males) who met the c r i t e r i a from both i d e n t i t y measures were s e l e c t e d f o r each i d e n t i t y s t y l e group ( I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ) t o p a r t i c i -p a te i n t h e f o l l o w i n g stage. E X P E R I M E N T A L A P P A R A T U S The computerized i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n system MOUSELAB (Johnson e t a l . , 1989) was used t o presen t a c h o i c e s i t u a t i o n T H E S E C O N D S T A G E S A M P L E 56 where s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o assess s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n and then s e l e c t an a l t e r n a t i v e from a g i v e n group. The c h o i c e s i t u a t i o n was presented g r a p h i c a l l y i n the form of a m a t r i x of boxes. The rows of the matrix l i s t e d the c h o i c e a l t e r n a t i v e s whereas the columns of the matrix l i s t e d the s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , (see F i g . 1, p. 59) S T I M U L I A N D D E S I G N S t i m u l i c o n s i s t e d of a Uow' and ^high' t a s k c o m p l e x i t y c h o i c e problem. The xlow' complexity c h o i c e problem c o n t a i n e d t h r e e o c c u p a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s and e i g h t a t t r i b u t e s whereas the Miigh' complexity c h o i c e problem c o n t a i n e d s i x o c c u p a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s and e i g h t v a l u e a t t r i b u t e s . 1 0 Each c h o i c e problem had i t s own d i s p l a y of matrix. (See Appendix B f o r the d i s p l a y ) S i n c e Bettman and Park (1980) r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -s h i p s between a person's p r i o r knowledge of an o c c u p a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e and h i s / h e r depth of search, i t i s t h e r e f o r e e s s e n t -°Literature indicates t h i s amount of information i s considered to be low to moderate i n i t s p o t e n t i a l to exert cognitive s t r a i n (Gati, 1993). While t h e o r i s t s are mixed on whether more cognitive s t r a i n i s engendered when the number of the a l t e r n a t i v e s versus a t t r i b u t e s are a l t e r e d (Payne et a l . , 1993), t h i s researcher f e e l s greater v a r i a t i o n i n c o g n i t i v e perform-ance should be expected with the former. It i s l o g i c a l to think more pro-cessing e f f o r t i s required to 'close' on an a l t e r n a t i v e that i s comprised of many d i f f e r e n t or possibly c o n f l i c t i n g u t i l i t i e s than i t i s to 'close' on a s i n g l e themed a t t r i b u t e that only d i f f e r s i n regards to i t s own cue r a t i n g s . In other words, by i t s very nature, an a l t e r n a t i v e appears to be a more complex g e s t a l t than i s the a t t r i b u t e . While i n an empirical sense, t h i s idea would have to be subjected to t e s t , i t i s f e l t the reasoning put f o r t h i s s u f f i c i e n t enough to j u s t i f y varying only the a l t e r n a t i v e s ; thus, the number of a t t r i b u t e s across both experimental conditions w i l l remain constant. F i n a l l y , the number of a t t r i b u t e s was set at eight to roughly p a r a l l e l the previous work of Payne (1976), Dahlstrand et a l . (1984) and many others. 57 i a l t o c o n t r o l f o r p o t e n t i a l b i a s of p r i o r o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e f e r -ence. Thus, the o c c u p a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s comprised t h i s study's two m a t r i x d i s p l a y s were g i v e n the ' n e u t r a l ' t i t l e s ( i . e . Job #1, Job #2, Job #3 ... e t c . ) . In c o n t r a s t , the e i g h t a t t r i b u t e s used t o d e s c r i b e the o c c u p a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s were those p r o c u r e d from the Work Value Survey (WVS). Each a t t r i b u t e was r e p r e s e n t e d i n i t s a p p r o p r i a t e m e t r i c (e.g. wage i n d o l l a r s $ per year) and t h r e e o r d i n a l l e v e l s (e.g. high, moderate and low). The cue v a l u e s ( i . e . high, moderate and low) f o r the a t t r i b u t e s were randomly a s s i g n e d . However, attempts were made t o ensure an equal number of the cue va l u e s o c c u r r e d f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e ; t h a t i s , no a l t e r n a t i v e was s u p e r i o r or i n f e r i o r t o any o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e . The o r d e r o f the a t t r i b u t e s on the matrix d i s p l a y were a l s o randomly a s s i g n e d . A l l s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o complete both c h o i c e e x e r c i s e s and the order of p r e s e n t i n g the d e c i s i o n t a s k was counterbalanced a c r o s s s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each group. Each experimental c o n d i t i o n s t a r t e d w i t h two p r a c t i c e s e s -s i o n s and an experimental t r i a l . The p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s ( i . e . ' r e n t i n g an apartment' and 'buying a c a r ' c h o i c e set) were g i v e n p r i o r t o the experimental t r i a l t o f a m i l i a r i z e s u b j e c t s w i t h the t a s k procedures. Once s u b j e c t s f e l t c omfortable w i t h t h e t a s k and expe r i m e n t a l apparatus, they c o u l d proceed t o the exp e r i m e n t a l t a s k a t t h e i r own pace. At the begin n i n g of the experimental t r i a l , a l l the i n f o r m -a t i o n c e l l s t h a t comprised the i n f o r m a t i o n board m a t r i x were 58 blank, t h a t i s , o n l y the a l t e r n a t i v e and a t t r i b u t e headings on each a x i s were v i s i b l e . The i n f o r m a t i o n u n d e r l y i n g a m a t r i x c e l l was r e v e a l e d when the s u b j e c t moved the c u r s o r w i t h the mouse t o the c e l l of i n t e r e s t . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n would remain on the scree n u n t i l the s u b j e c t moved the c u r s o r out of the ma t r i x c e l l and on-t o the oth e r c e l l . Over the course of the exp e r i m e n t a l t r i a l , a s u b j e c t c o u l d r e v i s i t a p r e v i o u s l y opened c e l l , and thus r e v e a l -i n g i t s i n f o r m a t i o n again. (See F i g . 1 below). The computer monitored each mouse movement: the order of the c e l l s opened, the amount of time spent i n each c e l l , the t o t a l c h o i c e time and the chosen o p t i o n . (See Appendix C f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n ) . No time l i m i t s were imposed on the s u b j e c t s due t o the d e s i r e t o r e a l i s t i c a l l y s i m u l a t e the c o n d i t i o n of c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making. F i n a l l y , a f t e r each s e a r c h s e s s i o n , s u b j e c t s were asked t o respond t o a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s t h a t i n c l u d e d the reasons why they made the occupat-i o n a l c h o i c e they d i d , as w e l l as d e s c r i b i n g the procedure they took t o make t h a t c h o i c e . (See Appendix G f o r samples of w r i t t e n p r o t o c o l s ) . F i g . 1 Example of Stimulus D i s p l a y of the 3 x 8 Task M a t r i x Chance lo Feeling of Intellectual . , Self Wage Authority Affllation Prestige stimulation A u t o n o m y Use Skills Job # 1 Job # 2 Job #3 Fulfilment Choose One: Job # 1 Job # 2 Job #3 59 P R O C E D U R E Upon a r r i v i n g a t the l a b , s u b j e c t s were g i v e n a computer d i s k t h a t c o n t a i n e d the MOUSELAB progam and a p r e - a s s i g n e d con-d i t i o n . A gain they were t o l d t h a t the purpose o f the experiment was t o l e a r n how young people make d e c i s i o n s . With MOUSELAB program on t h e i r computer screens, s u b j e c t s read the w r i t t e n i n s t r u c t i o n s and then completed the two p r a c t i c e c h o i c e s e t s . A f t e r the p r a c t i c e s e s s i o n s , s u b j e c t s were t o l d v i a t h e i r computer screens t h a t i n the experiment t o f o l l o w , they c o u l d look a t any i n f o r m a t i o n they wished; i n any amount or order, and were t o stop o n l y when they f e l t they had s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t o make t h e i r f i n a l c h o i c e . They were t o l d t h e r e was no time c o n s t r a i n t and no r i g h t or wrong answer t o the e x e r c i s e . When i t was c l e a r t o the r e s e a r c h e r t h a t the s u b j e c t s understood the ta s k , then the a c t u a l experiment s t a r t e d . One t o t h r e e s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d a t a time. Each s u b j e c t completed two separate i n d i v i d u a l s e s s i o n s o f approximately t e n minutes i n d u r a t i o n , scheduled a t l e a s t a week a p a r t . Procedures f o r both s e s s i o n s were e q u i v a l e n t and s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d feedback a f t e r t he second s e s s i o n . The experimental s e s s i o n s were h e l d i n the computer l a b o r a t o r i e s on the u n i v e r s i t y campus. M E A S U R E S O F D E C I S I O N P R O C E S S The b a s i c system employed t o analyze i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n 60 behaviour was t h a t developed by Payne (1976). Four q u a n t i t a t i v e dependent measures were c o l l e c t e d from the computerized d e c i s i o n t a s k s . These measures were used t o summarize the s u b j e c t ' s s e a r c h behaviour and t o c a t e g o r i z e the search sequence i n t o r e c o g n i z a b l e d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . 1. I n f o r m a t i o n Search Behaviour The f o u r most wi d e l y used measures of s e a r c h behaviour i n d e c i s i o n l i t e r a t u r e are: P r o p o r t i o n of I n f o r m a t i o n Search (PIS); Latency of Search (LS); V a r i a b i l i t y of Search of A l t e r n a t i v e (VSA) and D i r e c t i o n of Search (DS). (See Appendix D f o r the computation of search measures). A. P r o p o r t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n search (PIS) P r o p o r t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n search (PIS) i n d i c a t e s the degree of i n f o r m a t i o n searched by each s u b j e c t . A h i g h number of PIS s i g n i f i e s an i n - d e p t h search with the l i k e l i h o o d of compensatory s t r a t e g y usage whereas a low number PIS suggests a l e s s i n - d e p t h s e a r c h w i t h the p r o b a b i l i t y of a non-compensatory s t r a t e g y usage. The PIS i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by c o u n t i n g the number of boxes examined and d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of boxes on the board m a t r i x . For i n s t a n c e , i f 3 6 of 48 boxes are opened on the matrix, then the p r o p o r t i o n of search i s : 36/48 =0.75 B. Latency of search (LS) The l a t e n c y of search (LS) r e f e r s t o the amount of time the 61 s u b j e c t spent on the t a s k t o make a c h o i c e . T h i s i s the aggregate time of each box opened. L i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s l a t e n c y of s e a r c h i s u s u a l l y employed as a surrogate measure of c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t (Jarvenpaa, 1989) or as a t t e n t i o n i n d i v i d u a l s devote t o an a t t r i -bute (Hawkins, 1994). A h i g h value of LS i m p l i e s g r e a t e r c o g n i -t i v e e f f o r t or a t t e n t i o n t o an a t t r i b u t e whereas a low v a l u e of LS denotes l e s s c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t or l e s s a t t e n t i o n t o an a t t r i b u t e i n search. C. V a r i a b i l i t y of search of a l t e r n a t i v e (VSA) The v a r i a b i l i t y of search of a l t e r n a t i v e (VSA) h e l p s t o i d e n t i f y the type of c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y being employed. Payne (1976) notes t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between a compensatory and non-compensatory s t r a t e g y i s found i n the amount of s e a r c h each a l t e r n a t i v e r e c e i v e s . D e c i s i o n makers who use compensatory s t r a t e g i e s w i l l search e x a c t l y the same i n f o r m a t i o n on each a l t e r n a t i v e ( i . e . constant s e a r c h ) , so t h a t the v a r i a b i l i t y of s e a r c h w i l l be zero. However, i f g r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y of s e a r c h i s found on each a l t e r n a t i v e , then a non-compensatory s t r a t e g y may be o c c u r r i n g . VSA i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as the p e r c e n t o f i n f o r m a t -i o n searched per a l t e r n a t i v e and then computing the s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n of these percentages f o r the a l t e r n a t i v e s (3 or 6) on the m a t r i x board. VSA i s d i r e c t l y measured as " ( ( £ x j V n n / n } 1 ' 2 where n = number of t o t a l a l t e r n a t i v e s and X ; = p r o p o r t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e searched. 62 D. D i r e c t i o n of search (PS) The d i r e c t i o n of search (DS) i n d i c a t e s the e x t e n t of a l t e r -n a t i v e - b a s e d or a t t r i b u t e - b a s e d p r o c e s s i n g t h a t a s u b j e c t demon-s t r a t e s d u r i n g the search sequence. T h i s DS measure i s u s e f u l i n i t s a b i l i t y t o d i s t i n g u i s h d i f f e r e n t search s t r a t e g y . The p r e s e n -t a t i o n of an o v e r a l l tendency of a s u b j e c t ' s s e a r c h p a t t e r n com-bin e d w i t h the above VSA measure renders powerful i n d i c a t o r s of which s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y was being used. O p e r a t i o n a l l y , the DS index was c a l c u l a t e d by the number of a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d moves minus the number of a t t r i b u t e d - b a s e d moves and then d i v i d e d by the sum of these two numbers (Payne, 1976). A s c o r e of -1.0 r e p r e s e n t s a s t r i c t l y a t t r i b u t e - b a s e d s e a r c h p a t t e r n , whereas a score of +1.0 an a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d s e a r c h p a t t e r n . ALTERN - ATTRIB DS Index = : ALTERN + ATTRIB 2. D e c i s i o n S t r a t e g i e s 1 1 In t h i s study, the s u b j e c t s ' p r o c e s s i n g was c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r usage of the r u l e s as suggested by Payne (1976), Olshavsky (1979), Svenson (1979), B i l l i n g s and Marcus The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of information search patterns to one of the d e c i s i o n r u l e s i n d i c a t e s which strategy could have dominated throughout the d e c i s -ion process. However, t h i s does not imply that one search strategy was used c o n s i s t e n t l y throughout. In fact, multistage strategy can be observed during the search process (Appendix F). Since multi-stage strategy was not the f o c a l point of the present study, t h i s author w i l l therefore concent-rate on the dominant strategy that was prevalent i n the subject's search. 63 (1983). The f o u r p r o t o t y p i c a l c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n d e c i s i o n l i t e r a t u r e are: A d d i t i v e L i n e a r (AL), A d d i t i v e D i f f e r e n c e (AD), C o n j u n c t i v e (CONJ), and E l i m i n a t i o n - B y - A s p e c t s (EBA). These d e c i s i o n r u l e s are d e f i n e d by the combination of the p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e v a l u e of DS (+) p l u s a c o n s t a n t (0) or v a r i e d v a l u e (>0) of VSA. For i n s t a n c e , a p o s i t i v e DS ( i . e . a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d processing) and a constant s e a r c h of informa-t i o n a c r o s s a l t e r n a t i v e ( i . e . VSA=0) i s compatible w i t h the a d d i t i v e l i n e a r r u l e . A negative DS ( i . e . a t t r i b u t e - b a s e d p r o c e s s i n g ) and a constant amount of search a c r o s s a l t e r n a t i v e ( i . e . VSA=0) s i g n i f i e s an a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e r u l e . A p o s i t i v e DS (+) w i t h a v a r i a b l e VSA (>0) i m p l i e s a c o n j u n c t i v e r u l e . F i n a l l y , i f DS i s n e g a t i v e (-) and VSA i s not zero (>0), use of e l i m i n -a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t i s i m p l i e d . (See Appendix E f o r a p i c t o r i a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s t r a t e g i e s ) . The f o u r d e c i s i o n r u l e s are f u r t h e r c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r v a r y i n g l e v e l s of complexity, from the simple non-compensa-t o r y s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . CON and EBA) t o more s y s t e m a t i c and a n a l y -t i c a l compensatory s t r a t e g i e s ( i . e . AL and AD). These two l e v e l s of d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s are used as measures f o r t e s t i n g the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s 1(B) of the study. R E S E A R C H H Y P O T H E S E S Two hypotheses were f o r m a l l y t e s t e d f o r : 64 H y p o t h e s i s I : (A) I t i s hypothesized t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s who v a r y i n i d e n t -i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e w i l l d i f f e r i n s e a r c h behaviour f o r a d e c i s i o n a l t a s k t h a t v a r i e s i n i n f o r m a t i o n a l complex-i t y . (B) I t i s hypothesized, I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are more compensatory i n the p r o c e s s i n g of o c c u p a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l than Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an a d d i t i v e l i n e a r or a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e procedure; Normative a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use a c o n j u n c t i v e procedure and; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t procedure. H y p o t h e s i s I I : I t i s hypothesized t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s w i l l r e f l e c t a p r e f e r e n c e f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y c e n t r e d whereas Normative and D i f f u s e / avoidant a d o l e s c e n t s w i l l r e f l e c t a p r e f e r e n c e f o r occu-p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s e x t r i n s i c a l l y c e n t r e d . D A T A A N A L Y S I S The d e s i g n f o r t e s t i n g the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s (IA) of i d e n t i t y s t y l e s and se a r c h behaviour was a oneway m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) model with t h r e e l e v e l s of the independent 65 v a r i a b l e ( I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ) and f o u r dependent v a r i a b l e s (PIS, LS, VSA and DS). The reason f o r u s i n g MANOVA i s due t o the p o t e n t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s of the- dependent v a r i a b l e s . MANOVA repeated-measure was a l s o used t o examine the e f f e c t of t a s k r e p e t i t i o n and i t s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the t h r e e i d e n t i t y s t y l e groups. A l l s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s were s e t a t the s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l o f p_=.05. To t e s t the f i r s t h y pothesis (IB) i n terms of the frequency of s t r a t e g y usage a c r o s s the t h r e e groups, a Pearson Chi-square was used. The r a t i o n a l e of u s i n g Pearson Chi-square i s based on the f a c t t h a t the dependent v a r i a b l e s are of nominal n a t u r e . Three l e v e l s of independent v a r i a b l e ( I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ) and two dependent v a r i a b l e s (compensatory, non-compensatory) were used. To examine whether i d e n t i t y s t y l e s d i f f e r i n t h e i r s e a r c h of va l u e a t t r i b u t e s , a stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was performed. The employment of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s i s based on i t s v e r s a t i -l i t y i n de t e r m i n i n g which s e t of continuous v a r i a b l e s b e s t cap-t u r e s or c h a r a c t e r i z e s group d i f f e r e n c e s (Betz, 1987; Tabachnick e t a l . , 1989). In order t o achieve t h i s o b j e c t i v e , the l a t e n c y o f search (LS) measure was summed a c c o r d i n g t o the a t t e n t i o n i n d i v i d u a l s put on each e i g h t v a l u e a t t r i b u t e s and was renamed as l a t e n c y of search per a t t r i b u t e (LSPA). (See Appendix C, F i g . 2 f o r an example of LSPA). LSPA sc o r e s were then used as independent v a r i a b l e s t o p r e d i c t the group membership's s e l e c t i v -66 i t y of the v a l u e a t t r i b u t e search. W i l k s ' lambda was used as the s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r e n t e r i n g the LSPA s c o r e s i n t o the a n a l y -s i s . Group mean sco r e s on the r e s u l t i n g f u n c t i o n s were compared and p a t t e r n s of v a l u e a t t r i b u t e s were analyzed. 67 C H A P T E R F O U R R E S U L T S The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o examine the d i f f e r e n t s e a r c h b e h a v i o r among the t h r e e groups of d e c i s i o n makers, the type of s t r a t e g i e s used, and the degree of s e l e c t i v i t y i n t h e i r c o n t e n t s e a r c h o f *value' dimension. H Y P O T H E S I S I : (A) I t i s hypothesized t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s who v a r y i n i d e n t -i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e w i l l d i f f e r i n s e a r c h b e h a v i o r f o r a d e c i s i o n a l task t h a t v a r i e s i n i n f o r m a t i o n a l complex-i t y . (B) I t i s hypothesized, I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are more compensatory i n the p r o c e s s i n g of o c c u p a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l than Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s . S p e c i -f i c a l l y , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an a d d i t i v e l i n e a r or a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e procedure; Normative a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use a c o n j u n c t i v e procedure and; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t procedure. HYPOTHESIS I (A) Ad o l e s c e n t s of d i f f e r e n t i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e d i f f e r i n t h e i r search behaviour a c r o s s t a s k s . To determine whether I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s d i f f e r i n t h e i r search behaviour f o r a c h o i c e t a s k t h a t v a r i e d i n c o g n i t i v e complexity, a oneway m u l t i -v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) was performed. The r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d i n Table 2. The o v e r a l l F - r a t i o was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 0.05 l e v e l (Wilks' lambda = 0.57, p_<.05). Because the o v e r a l l MANOVA was s i g n i f i c a n t , the u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f each s e a r c h dependent measure was examined t o determine the nature of i t s 6 8 c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the e f f e c t of the a d o l e s c e n t s ' i d e n t i t y -p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s . Moreover, the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f such r e s u l t s w i l l p r o v i d e a f u l l e r understanding of the phenomenon under study. F i n a l l y , a post-hoc Sc h e f f e m u l t i v a r i a t e t e s t was used t o determine the s p e c i f i c l o c u s of the group d i f f e r e n c e . TABLE 2 MANOVA Summary of Task Among the Three Groups (S=2, M=2 1/2, N=25 1/2) Name Value F df p>f Wi l k s 0.63 1.74 16.00 0.05* U n i v a r i a t e Summary of D e c i s i o n Measures among the Three Groups wi t h (2. 60) d f LOW TASK HIGH TASK U n i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s F F PIS 2.15 6.04* LS 2.53 4.37* VAS 2.67 2.10 DS 3.09* 4.96* Note * i s s i g n i f i c a n t at p< .05 l e v e l T h e F o u r S e a r c h M e a s u r e s A. P r o p o r t i o n of Information Search (PIS) A r c s i n e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n was used f o r the p r o p o r t i o n of i n f o r -mation s e a r c h d a t a . 1 2 P r o p o r t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h (PIS) was r e l a t i v e l y h i g h o v e r a l l , averaging 90.5% (M=1.25, SD=0.34) of In order to meet the formal requirement for the analyses of variance, raw proportions are subjected to an arcsine transformation (Kirk, 1982, p.82; Howell, 1987, p.304). 6 9 a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n on the s m a l l e r board (3 a l t e r n a t i v e s x 8 a t t r i b u t e s ) and 79.3% (M=1.03, SD=0.39) on the l a r g e r board (6 a l t e r n a t i v e s x 8 a t t r i b u t e s ) f o r the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e groups. T h i s c o i n c i d e s with other s t u d i e s ( B i l l i n g s & Marcus, 1983; Davidson, 1991; Klayman, 1985; Payne, 1976; Sundstrom, 1987) where the d e c i s i o n maker's b a s i c response t o t a s k complex-i t y i s t o use a s m a l l e r amount of a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . When examining the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e groups i n d e t a i l w i t h u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t s , the author found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e amongst them f o r the low i n f o r m a t i o n c o n d i t i o n (F(2,60) = 2.15, p_> .05) but a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the h i g h i n f o r m a t i o n c o n d i t i o n (F(2, 60) = 6.04, p_< - 0 5 ) (See T a b l e 2). S c h e f f e m u l t i p l e comparison t e s t s showed o n l y the I n f o r m a t i o n a l and Normative group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n searched when i n the high t a s k c o n d i t i o n . Although no d i f f e r e n c e was found i n the low t a s k c o n d i t i o n , t h i s author d i d observe t h a t the l a r g e s t amount of i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h was c a r r i e d out by the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s , as p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 3. In f a c t , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s e x p l o r e d the l a r g e s t amount of i n f o r m a t i o n i n both low and h i g h i n f o r m a t i o n t a s k c o n d i t i o n s (94%, M=1.37, SD=0.28 and 90%, M=1.25, SD=0.34), whereas Normatives and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s showed a g r e a t e r decrease of i n f o r m a t i o n search from the low t o h i g h c o n d i t i o n s (88% t o 74% f o r the Normatives, and 87% t o 78% f o r the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s ) . The steady performance of the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s on the amount of 70 i n f o r m a t i o n search (94% t o 90%) i n both t a s k s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the change of i n f o r m a t i o n l o a d d i d not have a s t r o n g e f f e c t on t h i s group f o r no d r a s t i c decrease i n search performance was observed. Moreover, the h i g h number of i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h s i g n i f i e s t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l s may have a g r e a t e r r e a d i n e s s t o use compensatory r u l e s when compared t o the other groups. The decrease of i n f o r m -a t i o n s e a r c h from low t o h i g h t a s k c o n d i t i o n s f o r Normatives and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s demonstrated a s h i f t t o non-compensatory s t r a t e g y when i n f o r m a t i o n l o a d became too complex. T h i s was confirmed i n the r e s u l t of the f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s ( I B ) . TABLE 3 Mean & SD of P r o p o r t i o n of Information Search (PIS) f o r the Three I d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g S t y l e groups Low Task High Task Mean SD Mean SD I n f o r m a t i o n a l 1.37 0.28 1.25 0.34 Normative 1.21 0.36 0.87 0.38 D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t 1.18 0.34 0.99 0.36 Note Low task : F(2, 60)=2.15, £> 0.05, ns High task: F(2, 60)=6.04, p< 0.05, s i g n i f . *p_ < .05 on univariate F-test B. Latency of search (LS) The amount Of time being consumed by the t h r e e groups had an average of 101.18 and 166.89 seconds f o r the low and h i g h t a s k s . U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g -n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among the groups i n the low t a s k c o n d i t i o n (F(2, 60) = 2.53, p_> .05) but s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n c o n d i t i o n 71 of h i g h i n f o r m a t i o n l o a d (F(2, 60) = 4.37, p_< -05) (See T a b l e 4 ) . When examining each group i n d i v i d u a l l y , r e s u l t s showed t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l s spent c o n s i s t e n t l y more time p r i o r t o c h o i c e (M=114.52, M=206.22) than d i d the Normatives (M=105.77, M=l55.87) or the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s (M=83.26, M=138.57). D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s spent the l e a s t amount of time and with the s m a l l e s t v a r i a t i o n among the groups ac r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . S c h e f f e m u l t i p l e comparison t e s t showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between I n f o r m a t i o n a l s and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s , but not wit h Normatives i n the h i g h i n f o r m a t -i o n c o n d i t i o n . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l s may e x e r t more c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t when con f r o n t e d with a complex s i t u a t i o n whereas D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s w i l l t r y t o get an easy and q u i c k s o l u t i o n t o the problem. To f u r t h e r the c l a i m t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l s may have e x e r t e d more c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t a c r o s s t a s k s , the author examined the average amount of time i n d i v i d u a l pondered on each box (See Table 4 A ) . As was congruous with the p r o p o r t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h (PIS) s e c t i o n , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s d i d not seem f a z e d by the change i n the i n f o r m a t i o n load, they; i n f a c t , showed an i n c r e a s e o f time spent i n each box (1.43, 1.47 seconds). Normatives and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s e x h i b i t e d a decrease of time spent per box as t a s k became more complicated. S t i l l , t h i s decrease o f time consumption was not as d r a s t i c f o r the Normatives (from 1.33 seconds t o 1.31 seconds) as t h a t of the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s (from 1.36 seconds t o 1.21 seconds). 72 TABLE 4 Latency o f Search f o r a Choice D e c i s i o n among the Three Groups Amount of Time Consumed ( i n Seconds u n i t ) Low Task High Task Mean SD Mean SD I n f o r m a t i o n a l 114.52 37.62 206.22 88.57 Normative 105.77 56.49 155.87 82.90 D i f f u s e / A v o i d a n t 83.26 43.38 138.57 55.56 Note Low task : F(2, 60)=2.53, 2>.05, ns. High task : F(2, 60)=4.37, p<.05, s i g n i f . TABLE 4 (A) Mean & SD of Average Time Spent ( i n seconds) Per Box among the Groups Low Task High Task Mean SD Mean SD I n f o r m a t i o n a l 1.43 0.44 1.47 0.42 Normative 1.33 0.33 1.31 0.33 D i f f u s e / A v o i d a n t 1.36 0.49 1.21 0.39 C. V a r i a b i l i t y of search by a l t e r n a t i v e (VSA) The VSA measure i n t h i s study showed a r i s e i n v a r i a b i l -i t y as t a s k complexity i n c r e a s e d . The average VSA a c r o s s the t h r e e groups were 0.10 (SD=0.11) f o r the 3 x 8 board and 0.17 (SD=0.13) f o r the 6 x 8 board. T h i s suggested t h a t more non-compensatory s t r a t e g i e s were being used i n the h i g h c o n d i t i o n . However, u n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -f e r e n c e among the groups i n both low (F(2, 60) = 2.67, p_> .05) and h i g h (F (2, 60) = 2.10, p_> .05) i n f o r m a t i o n t a s k s (See Tab l e 73 5). Yet, when examining each group s p e c i f i c a l l y , we found I n f o r m a t i o n a l s possess the lowest v a r i a b l e s c o r e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h (0.05, 0.12) under both c o n d i t i o n s among the groups. T h i s s i g n i f i e s t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l s may employ more compensatory s t r a t -e g i e s i n s o l v i n g problems, though t h i s use of h i g h - p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s may be somewhat reduced as the t a s k l o a d i n c r e a s e d . Normatives d i s p l a y e d more v a r i a b i l i t y (0.12, 0.20) as the t a s k s p r o g r e s s e d , i m p l y i n g t h a t Normatives may have a l t e r e d t h e i r s t r a t e g y and searched l e s s a c r o s s a t t r i b u t e s w i t h i n an a l t e r n a -t i v e as they proceeded from one ta s k t o another. T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n accordance w i t h those i n the PIS s e c t i o n . The D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s e x h i b i t e d l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y s c o r e s a c r o s s t a s k s , s i g n a l l i n g a c o n c e i v a b l e h i g h employment of non-compensatory s t r a t e g i e s . These were s u b s t a n t i a t e d i n h y p o t h e s i s ( I B ) . TABLE 5 Mean & SD of V a r i a b i l i t y of Search (VSA) f o r each I d e n t i t y Group Low Task Hicrh Task Mean SD Mean SD I n f o r m a t i o n a l Normative D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t 0.05 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.12 Note Low task : F(2, 60)=2.67, £>.05, ns High task: F(2, 60)=2.10, p_>.05, ns D. D i r e c t i o n of search (DS) The d i r e c t i o n of search was dominated by a l t e r n a t i v e -based search, t h a t i s , s u b j e c t s searched i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n a l t e r n a t i v e s , but acr o s s a t t r i b u t e s (M=0.36, M=0.34). Informat-74 i o n a l s and Normatives had a mean search p a t t e r n index which c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d an a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d s e a r c h p a t t e r n i n both low and h i g h t a s k c o n d i t i o n s ; w h i l e D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s a l s o showed an a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d p a t t e r n , but t h e i r mean search index was con-s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r (0.08 and 0.05) and c l o s e r t o an a t t r i b u t e -based p a t t e r n than the other two groups. U n i v a r i a t e F - t e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among groups i n both low (F(2, 60) = 3.09, p_ =.05) and h i g h (F(2, 60) = 4.96, p_< .05) t a s k s (See Table 6). Sch e f f e t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between I n f o r m a t i o n a l s and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s i n t h e i r search p a t t e r n i n hig h c o n d i t i o n . Informat-i o n a l s were more i n c l i n e d t o use the a l t e r n a t i v e mode of search whereas D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s leaned more towards an a t t r i b u t e s t y l e o f s e a r c h . T h i s was congruent with the other s e a r c h c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s mentioned so f a r . The constant use of a l t e r n a t i v e - w i s e s e a r c h f o r the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s suggests t h a t the q u a n t i t y o f i n f o r m a t i o n may not determine the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s ' s e a r c h behaviour but the u n d e r l y i n g p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r does. TABLE 6 Mean & SD of D i r e c t i o n of Search (PS) f o r each I d e n t i t y -P r o c e s s i n g S t y l e Low Task High Task I n f o r m a t i o n a l Normative D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t Mean 0.49 0.52 0. 08 SD 0.71 0.62 0.75 Mean 0.65 0.31 0.05 SD 0.58 0.56 0. 68 Note Low task : F(2, 60)=3.09, p=.05, s i g n i f . High task: F(2, 60)=4.96, p<.05, s i g n i f . 75 S U M M A R Y O F H Y P O T H E S I S I ( A ) To summarize the above f i n d i n g s , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the Normatives and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s i n terms of the depth, d i r e c t i o n and l a t e n c y of s e a r c h . In r e g a r d s t o the depth of i n f o r m a t i o n search on the low and h i g h t a s k c o n d i t i o n s , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s accessed 94% t o 90% of informa-t i o n , Normatives accessed 88% t o 74% and D i f f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s accessed 87% t o 78%. I n f o r m a t i o n a l s ' search p a t t e r n was l a r g e l y a l t e r n a t i v e based (M=0.49, M=0.65), i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s e a r c h might be more compensatory i n nature. A l s o , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s spent more time i n s e a r c h (114.52 and 206.22 seconds) r e l a t i v e t o the o t h e r groups. Though no d i f f e r e n c e s were found among the groups i n s e a r c h v a r i a b i l i t y , t e s t r e s u l t s d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t l e s s v a r i a t i o n was found a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s (M=0.05, M=0.12) f o r the I n f o r m a t i o n -a l s , another m a n i f e s t a t i o n of a h i g h e r degree of compensatory s t r a t e g y usage. Normatives r e v e a l e d a change of search behaviour as the t a s k became more complicated. They reduced the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h (from 1.21 t o 0.87), and thus; i n c r e a s e d the v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e i r s e a r c h p a t t e r n (from 0.12 t o 0.20). However, such a r e d u c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n search d i d not come wit h a c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e c l i n e of time spent i n each box (1.33 t o 1.31 seconds), i n f a c t ; compared t o the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n searched, Normatives might have maintained or expanded t h e i r c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t as the t a s k become more demanding. F i n a l l y , i n terms of s e a r c h d i r e c t -7 6 i o n s , Normatives' s t y l e of search was p r i m a r i l y a l t e r n a t i v e -based. D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s d i s p l a y e d the l e a s t amount of i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h or time spent throughout, hence; a l a r g e v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e i r s e a r c h p a t t e r n was observed. A l s o , t h i s group's s e a r c h p a t t e r n i s b a s i c a l l y a t t r i b u t e i n c l i n e d , s i g n a l l i n g a h i g h e r frequency of noncompensatory s t r a t e g i e s usage i n h a n d l i n g t a s k s . In order t o e x p l i c a t e which p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y was being u t i l i z e d by the groups, a more d e t a i l e d measure was used. Hypothesis I (B): I t i s hypothesized, I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are more compensatory i n the p r o c e s s i n g of o c c u p a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l than Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s . S p e c i f i -c a l l y , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an a d d i t i v e l i n e a r or a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e procedure; Norm-a t i v e a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use a c o n j u n c t i v e p r o -cedure and; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s are i n c l i n e d t o use an e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t procedure. In o r d e r t o examine p o s s i b l e between-group d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n , a Pearson c h i - s q u a r e was used f o r each t a s k . The b a s i c assumption of independence, n o r m a l i t y and i n c l u s i o n of non-occurrences of c h i - s q u a r e were a l l met (Howell, 1987), thus; i t r e v e a l s no t h r e a t s of u s i n g such a procedure. T e s t r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n among the groups of s t r a t e g y p r e f e r e n c e i n the low t a s k X2 (2, N = 57) = 3.22, p_> .05, but a s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between-group d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n under h i g h i n f o r m a t i o n l o a d X2 (2, N = 62) = 8.33, p.< .05. These f i n d i n g s were congruent w i t h those found i n the h y p o t h e s i s 1(A) above. 7 7 A comparison of compensatory s t r a t e g i e s among the groups demonstrated a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of compensatory s t r a t e g y was used by the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s (N=10) than the Normatives (N=2) or D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s (N=4) i n the h i g h t a s k (See Tab l e 7 ) . When the comparison was made a t the i n d i v i d u a l s t r a t e g y l e v e l , Informat-i o n a l s showed a roughly even s p l i t on both t a s k s i n t h e i r use of compensatory and non-compensatory s t r a t e g i e s (11 v e r s u s 8 and 10 ve r s u s 11) whereas Normatives and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s demonstrated an i n c r e a s e i n non-compensatory p r o c e s s i n g (from 11 t o 18 and from 12 t o 17) a c r o s s t a s k s . Normatives y i e l d e d mostly conjunc-t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n both t a s k s i t u a t i o n s (8 and 14), and the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s presented the l a r g e s t number of e l i m i n a t i o n - b y -a s p e c t s t r a t e g y usage (4 and 9) among the groups. Under low i n f o r m a t i o n load, t h e r e was an approximately equal number of compensatory and non-compensatory s t r a t e g y usage f o r the whole sample (26 versus 31), but i n the h i g h i n f o r m a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , the use of compensatory s t r a t e g y usage f e l l t o 25.8% (16 v e r s u s 46). The frequency of d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s used under each group i s presented i n Table 7 below. 78 TABLE 7 Fr e q u e n c i e s of D e c i s i o n S t r a t e g i e s Employed by the Three I d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g Groups i n Low and High I n f o r m a t i o n Tasks Compensatory AL Low Task 1 2 3 High Task 1 2 3 10 1 3 AD 2 0 4 0 1 1 T o t a l 1 1 6 8 1 0 2 4 Non-compensatory CONJ 6 8 8 9 14 8 EBA 2 3 4 2 4 9 T o t a l 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 7 T O T A L * 1 9 1 7 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 1 Note l=Informational 2=Normative 3=Diffuse/avoidant * Column f i n a l TOTAL did not add up to N=21 because some subjects' search sequence was u n i d e n t i f i a b l e . S U M M A R Y O F H Y P O T H E S I S I ( B ) To conclude, the above data supported the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l s used more compensatory r u l e s ( a d d i t i v e l i n e a r ) than Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s when d e a l i n g w i t h h i g h l y complex t a s k s . F i n d i n g s showed t h a t the d e c i s i o n behaviour among groups was r a t h e r c o n s i s t e n t throughout the s i t u a t i o n s . Informat-i o n a l s are l i k e l y t o examine more i n f o r m a t i o n , spend more time, and generate more r u l e s when i n t e g r a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n than Normat-i v e s and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s . Thus, the l a r g e s t number of a d d i t i v e 7 9 l i n e a r s t r a t e g y usage was observed. Normatives d i s p l a y e d a s h i f t from a d d i t i v e l i n e a r t o c o n j u n c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g from low t o h i g h t a s k c o n d i t i o n s , and h e l d the l a r g e s t number of c o n j u n c t i v e s t r a -tegy usage of a l l the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e groups. D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s demonstrated the h i g h e s t frequency of e l i m i n a t i o n - b y -a s p e c t s t r a t e g y usage ac r o s s t a s k s . L a s t l y , r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the most p r e f e r r e d s t r a t e g y was the c o n j u n c t i v e s t r a t e g y (44.9%), and the l e a s t p r e f e r r e d s t r a t e g y was the a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s t r a t e g y (6.8%) among the t h r e e i d e n t i t y groups. Although no formal hypothesis was p o s i t e d r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t of t a s k s on w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s search behaviour, d e c i s i o n making l i t e r a t u r e has r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d t h a t s e a r c h behaviour i s mainly t a s k c o n t i n g e n t (Payne, 1976; Payne e t a l . , 1993). To i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t of t a s k s on a d o l e s c e n t ' s way of p r o -c e s s i n g , a MANOVA repeated-measure was used. The t h r e e person-a l i t y t y p es were used as the main e f f e c t between-subjects mea-sures and the two t a s k s as dependent w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s measures. T e s t s f o r homogeneity of v a r i a n c e and s p h e r i c i t y ( f o r e f f e c t s i n v o l v i n g r e p e t i t i o n s ) were conducted and i n some cases these assumptions appeared t o be v i o l a t e d . Since t e s t s of homogeneity of v a r i a n c e are very s e n s i t i v e t o departures from n o r m a l i t y i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the dependent v a r i a b l e s (Tabachnick e t a l . , 1989), and the author i s u n c e r t a i n t o the e x t e n t of such v i o l a t -i o n s , a c o n s e r v a t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l (p_= .01) was adopted t o compensate f o r t h i s u n c e r t a i n t y . Greenhouse-Geisser e p s i l o n (p_= 8 0 .38) i n d i c a t e d no s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n of compound symmetry. TABLE 8 MANOVA SUMMARY TABLE OF WITHIN-SUBJECT ACROSS TASKS Wilks F DF E Between-Subj e c t (A) 0. 69 2.94 8.00 0.01 * Within-Subj e c t (B) 0.10 125.72 4.00 0. 00 * A x B 0.70 2.76 8.00 0.01 * Note * s i g n i f i c a n t at p_<.05 l e v e l A s i g n i f i c a n t between-group d i f f e r e n c e was found i n the MANOVA r e s u l t s , t h i s suggested t h a t the t h r e e i d e n t i t y s t y l e s group d i d d i f f e r i n the way they process i n f o r m a t i o n . However, the w i t h i n - g r o u p r e s u l t i n d i c a t e d t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s a l s o m o d i f i e d t h e i r manner of p r o c e s s i n g when the tas k became more complicated. Because of the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between the two v a r i a b l e s , one c o u l d not c l a i m e i t h e r v a r i a b l e s (task or s t y l e d i f f e r e n c e s ) as the s o l e cause of i n f l u e n c i n g how the a d o l e s c e n t s p r o c e s s e d i n f o r m a t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e both f a c t o r s have c o n t r i b u t e d t o a d o l e s c e n t s ' manner of p r o c e s s i n g . H Y P O T H E S I S I I : I t i s hypothesized t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s w i l l r e f l e c t a p r e f e r e n c e f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y c e n t r e d whereas Normative and D i f f u s e / avoidant a d o l e s c e n t s w i l l r e f l e c t a p r e f e r e n c e f o r occu-p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s e x t r i n s i c a l l y c e n t r e d . In o r d e r t o examine how the t h r e e i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r search concerning the work v a l u e a t t r i b u t e s , a 8 1 stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n a n a l y s i s was performed. The e i g h t 'value' a t t r i b u t e s (Autonomy, P r e s t i g e , F e e l i n g of S e l f - f u l f i l -ment, Wage, A u t h o r i t y , I n t e l l e c t u a l S t i m u l a t i o n , A f f i l i a t i o n and Chance t o use S p e c i a l S k i l l s ) i n both low and h i g h t a s k s were used as p r e d i c t o r s of membership f o r each of the t h r e e i d e n t i t y -p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e types. The s e l e c t i o n r u l e f o r the stepwise d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s on t h i s sample was t o minimize W i l k s ' lambda. Ten p r e d i c t o r s met the W i l k s ' lambda c r i t e r i o n of e n t r y were s e l e c t e d . The t e n p r e d i c t -o r s , by t h e i r order of e n t r y i n t o the d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s a re shown i n the Table 9 below. TABLE 9 S e l e c t e d Independent V a r i a b l e s Entered i n t o the D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n f o r F i n a l A n a l y s i s W i l k s Lambda 1. F e e l i n g of s e l f f u l f i l m e n t (b) 0.72 2. Wage (b) 0.54 3. I n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t i o n (a) 0.47 4. Wage (a) 0.42 5. Autonomy (b) 0.38 6. A u t h o r i t y (a) 0.35 7. Chance t o use s k i l l s (a) 0.34 8. F e e l i n g of s e l f f u l f i l m e n t (a) 0.32 9. P r e s t i g e (b) 0.30 10. A f f i l i a t i o n (a) 0.29 Note : Key (a) = low task (b) = high task E< .01 for a l l the above variables Of the two p o s s i b l e d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n s , both were s t a -t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . The two f u n c t i o n s accounted f o r 73.7% and 26.3% o f the between-group v a r i a b i l i t y i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g among 8 2 the t h r e e i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e types (See T a b l e 10). The f i r s t f u n c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t a t l e s s than the p_ = .00 l e v e l , and the second f u n c t i o n ; a f t e r removing f u n c t i o n one; was s i g -n i f i c a n t a t the p_ = .01 l e v e l . A varimax r o t a t i o n was performed t o s i m p l i f y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n t f u n c t i o n s . The r o t a t e d l o a d i n g matrix of c o r r e l a t i o n between the t e n p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s on both t a s k s and the two d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t -i o n s showed t h a t the primary p r e d i c t o r s ( i . e . r > | .30 \) f o r the f i r s t d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n are the * F e e l i n g o f S e l f - f u l f i l -ment', x I n t e l l e c t u a l S t i m u l a t i o n ' and *Autonomy'. S i n c e the r e s u l t o f the group c e n t r o i d s (See Table 10) i n d i c a t e d t h a t the f i r s t and l a r g e s t f u n c t i o n separates the I n f o r m a t i o n a l ( l a r g e p o s i t i v e c e n t r o i d = 1.50) from the Normative group ( l a r g e nega-t i v e c e n t r o i d = -1.01); the hi g h e r scores of these p r e d i c t o r s ( i . e . ^ F e e l i n g o f S e l f - f u l f i l m e n t ' , i n t e l l e c t u a l S t i m u l a t i o n ' and *Autonomy') were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the I n f o r m a t i o n a l group v e r s u s the Normative group (See Table 11). Wage, as shown i n Ta b l e 11, was not a major c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s i n jo b s e l e c t i o n . The D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s s c o r e s a l s o c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h the f i r s t f u n c t i o n , w i t h t h e i r group c e n t r o i d f a l l i n g between the I n f o r m a t i o n a l and Normative groups. On the second d i s c r i m i n a n t f u n c t i o n , the primary p r e d i c t o r s i n c l u d e d xWage', x A u t h o r i t y ' , * F e e l i n g of S e l f F u l f i l m e n t ' and ^ P r e s t i g e ' . T h i s f u n c t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d Normative from D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s i n d i v i d u a l s . The hig h scores of these p r e d i c t o r s ( i . e . 83 Wage, A u t h o r i t y etc) r e f l e c t e d the main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Normative group, and the low scores i n 'Autonomy' and 'Chance t o use s k i l l s ' i n d i c a t e d these f a c t o r s were t r i v i a l t o t h i s Normative group. TABLE 10 Group C e n t r o i d and D i s c r i m i n a n t S t r u c t u r e M a t r i x f o r DA of Value Dimensions among Three I d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g Groups D i s c r i m i n a t i o n f u n c t i o n 1 2 Group c e n t r o i d I n f o r m a t i o n a l 1.50 - 0.15 Normative - 1.01 0.98 D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t - 0.49 - 0.83 TABLE 11 Rotated Loadings Between D i s c r i m i n a t i n g V a r i a b l e s and Can o n i c a l D i s c r i m i n a n t F u n c t i o n s V a r i a b l e s F u n c t i o n 1 F u n c t i o n 2 F e e l i n g o f s e l f f u l f i l m e n t (b) 0 . 5 9 * 0. 14 Autonomy (b) 0 . 3 9 * 0. 03 I n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t i o n (a) 0 . 3 5 * 0. 16 Chance t o use s p e c i a l s k i l l s (a) 0. 23 0. 03 Wage (a) 0. 04 0 . 5 3 * A u t h o r i t y (a) 0. 15 0 . 5 0 * F e e l i n g o f s e l f f u l f i l m e n t (a) 0. 30 0 . 4 3 * P r e s t i g e (b) 0. 17 0 . 3 3 * Wage (b) 0. 00 0 . 3 2 * A f f i l i a t i o n (a) 0. 22 0. 24 Note Variables ordered by size of c o r r e l a t i o n within function with highest c o r r e l a t i o n for each v a r i a b l e s i n b o l d f a c e . Rc = 0.76 (X2 = 73.69, df = 20, E < -°0) Rc = 0.57 (X2 = 26.31, df = 9, E< .01) Key : (a) = Low Task (b) = High Task 8 4 S U M M A R Y O F H Y P O T H E S I S I I To conclude, r e s u l t s of the above i n v e s t i g a t i o n support the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t c e r t a i n types of o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n may have a potent e f f e c t among the t h r e e i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g groups i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . For the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s , ^ F e e l i n g of S e l f F u l f i l m e n t ' , xAutonomy' and x I n t e l l e c t u a l S t i m u l a t i o n ' are important f a c t o r s when d e c i d i n g upon a job. These f a c t o r s are components of the i n t r i n s i c world view o r i e n t a t i o n . For the Normatives, xWage', x A u t h o r i t y ' , ^ P r e s t i g e ' are the c r i t e r i a of s e l e c t i o n i n t h e i r j o b c h o i c e p r o c e s s . These c r i t e r i a happen t o l e a n towards the e x t r i n s i c v a l u e o r i e n t a t i o n . For the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s , t h e i r c r i t e r i a f o r j ob s e l e c t i o n are not as w e l l - d e f i n e d as those o f the I n f o r m a t i o n a l s or the Normatives, they do, however; d i s p l a y an e x t r i n s i c tendency i n job search. Anyhow, due t o t h i s group's ambiguous stand i n t h e i r v a l u e p r e f e r e n c e , any c o n c l u s i o n drawn f o r t he D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s should be viewed w i t h c a u t i o n . 8 5 C H A P T E R F I V E D I S C U S S I O N A n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s lends support f o r the hypotheses t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s who vary i n i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e do d i f f e r i n t h e i r s e a r c h behaviour and s t r a t e g i e s usage when making an o c c u p a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n . I t was found p r i o r t o c h o i c e t h a t I n f o r -m a t i o n a l type a d o l e s c e n t s assessed more i n f o r m a t i o n , i n a con-s t a n t f a s h i o n , f o r a longer p e r i o d of time whereas; Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t type a d o l e s c e n t s assessed l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n , i n a v a r i a b l e f a s h i o n , f o r a s h o r t e r p e r i o d of time. In r e g a r d s / i t o s e a r c h d i r e c t i o n , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s and Normatives appeared t o be a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d whereas D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t appeared t o be a t t r i b u t e - b a s e d . As a r e s u l t , i n a d e f i n i t i o n a l sense (see chap-t e r two), I n f o r m a t i o n a l s were more a d d i t i v e l i n e a r ; Normatives were more c o n j u n c t i v e and; D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s were more e l i m i n -a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t i n t h e i r p r o c e s s i n g . As compensatory i n c l i n e d p r o c e s s o r s , I n f o r m a t i o n a l s seemed t o e x h i b i t a f l e x i b i l i t y a c r o s s the d e c i s i o n a l s e t f o r u s i n g and g e n e r a t i n g p r o c e s s i n g r u l e s ; t h a t i s , they seemed t o express a c o g n i t i v e w i l l i n g n e s s t o make what they f e l t was an informed d e c i s i o n . On the o t h e r hand, as non-compensatory i n c l i n e d p r o c e s s o r s , Normatives seemed l e s s f l e x i b l e i n u s i n g and g e n e r a t i n g p r o c e s s i n g r u l e s , and e x e r t e d themselves o n l y when the task demand i s minimal. D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s seemed l e s s w i l l i n g or i n t e r e s t e d i n e x e r t i n g them-8 6 s e l v e s c o g n i t i v e l y i n making a d e c i s i o n . For these people, the method of c h o i c e was an e f f o r t r e d u c i n g x q u i c k s o l u t i o n ' approach ( G i l l i l a n d e t a l . , 1993; Russo & Dosher, 1983; Todd & Benbasat, 1992) . F i n a l l y , i t i s important t o note, these r e s u l t s c o n c e r n i n g the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y usage were t r u e o n l y f o r the h i g h t a s k complexity c o n d i t i o n i n t h i s t h e s i s . Pro-c e s s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the i d e n t i t y s t y l e s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from each other i n the low t a s k complexity c o n d i t i o n . In r e g a r d s t o a d o l e s c e n t s of d i f f e r e n t i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s h a v i n g a q u a l i t a t i v e p r e f e r e n c e f o r c e r t a i n t y pes of data ( B l a y l o c k & Rees, 1984), i t was found t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s of I n f o r m a t i o n a l o r i e n t a t i o n p l a c e d a g r e a t e r emphasis on i n t r i n s i c t y p e s of a t t r i b u t e s ( i . e . , F e e l i n g of S e l f - f u l f i l m e n t , I n t e l l e c -t u a l S t i m u l a t i o n , Autonomy etc.) whereas f o r the most p a r t , Normative type a d o l e s c e n t s p l a c e d a g r e a t e r emphasis on e x t r i n s i c t y p e s of a t t r i b u t e s ( i . e . , Wage, A u t h o r i t y , P r e s t i g e and F e e l i n g of S e l f - f u l f i l m e n t e t c ) . As was t h e o r e t i c a l l y expected, D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t type a d o l e s c e n t s seemed ( i n almost random f a s h i o n ) t o o s c i l l a t e between the two value o r i e n t a t i o n s . For the most p a r t , the r e s u l t s i n t h i s t h e s i s do support Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , and i n d o i n g so, p r o v i d e d e c i s i o n making theory with a p e r s o n o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e . As Berzonsky's t h e o r y suggests, when i t comes t o p r o c e s s i n g s e l f -r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s were found t o be 8 7 i n t e r n a l l y c e n t r e d ( i n t r a - p e r s o n a l ) , open, u n c o n d i t i o n a l and ' o b j e c t i v e ' whereas; Normative a d o l e s c e n t s were found t o be e x t e r n a l l y c e n t r e d ( i n t e r - p e r s o n a l ) , c l o s e d , c o n d i t i o n a l or ' b i a s e d ' ( P e t t y & Cacioppo, 1986). While appearing i n c o n c l u s i v e i n r e g a r d s t o t h e i r l o c u s of c o n t r o l ( i n t r a - o r i n t e r - p e r s o n a l ) , D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s appeared ' o b j e c t i v e ' and/or 'bi a s e d ' over the course of t h e i r p r o c e s s i n g . F i n a l l y , t a k i n g the e x t e n t of one's p r o c e s s i n g as an i n d i c a t o r of Cacioppo & P e t t y ' s (1982, 1993) 'need f o r c o g n i t i o n ' , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s appear t o be h i g h e r i n t h i s need than Normative or D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s -c e n t s . R e l a t i o n s h i p t o P r e v i o u s S t u d i e s I t i s important t o note t h a t the r e s u l t s of t h i s t h e s i s are compatible w i t h other f i n d i n g s concerning i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and d e c i s i o n making. For i n s t a n c e , i n a marketing study of con-sumer pr o d u c t s , Verplanken et a l . (1992), Verplanken (1994), Leone and D a l t o n (1988) found h i g h 'need f o r c o g n i t i o n ' i n d i v i d -u a l s tended t o e l a b o r a t e more e x t e n s i v e l y on the i n f o r m a t i o n , generate more t a s k - r e l a t e d c o g n i t i v e responses and were more p e r s i s t e n t i n t h e i r search e f f o r t than low 'need f o r c o g n i t i o n ' s u b j e c t s . Furthermore, i n a study concerning the 1984 U.S. p r e -s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n ( A h l e r i n g & Parker, 1989), s u b j e c t s w i t h h i g h 'need f o r c o g n i t i o n ' tended t o be l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e t o a primacy e f f e c t i n impression formation and more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n b e l i e f s 8 8 than i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h low xneed f o r c o g n i t i o n ' tendency. F i n a l l y , r e s e a r c h a l s o shown t h a t s u b j e c t s p o s s e s s i n g an i n t e r n a l l o c u s of c o n t r o l ( L e f c o u r t , 1972), a low degree of dogmatism (Lambert and Durand, 1977) and a r e f l e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y s t y l e (Kagan c i t e d i n Weinman e t a l , 1985) were more d e l i b e r a t e i n t h e i r s e a r c h a c t i -v i t y than those s u b j e c t s who had an e x t e r n a l l o c u s , a h i g h degree of dogmatism and an i m p u l s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y s t y l e . A l l t h e s e f i n d -i n g s were analogous t o Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s as determined i n t h i s t h e s i s . I t was suggested i n the opening chapter t h a t whether one i s t a l k i n g about p e r s o n a l i t y type or c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g t h a t both are a d a p t i v e p r o c e s s e s . For p e r s o n a l i t y theory, the e x t e n t of t h i s a d a p t a t i o n has a macro scope as i n one's world view ( K e l l y , 1955) whereas f o r d e c i s i o n making theory i t i s micro i n scope as i n b e i n g t a s k c o n t i n g e n t or s i t u a t i o n a l l y c e n t r e d (McKenna, 1984; Messick e t a l . , 1976; Wright, 1985). In r e c e n t development of d e c i s i o n theory, Payne e t a l . (1993) suggest t h a t t a s k c o n t i n g e n t p r o c e s s i n g as i t p r e s e n t l y appears i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s e s s e n t i a l l y a f i x e d , top-down p r o -c e s s i n g procedure. Meaning t h a t when the d e c i s i o n maker i s f a c e d w i t h a d e c i s i o n t a s k t h a t v a r i e s i n complexity, he/she w i l l i n -t u i t i v e l y s e l e c t from a r e p e r t o i r e of p o s s i b l e responses an a p p r o p r i a t e c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y . Payne e t a l . (1993) f u r t h e r suggest t h i s s e l e c t i o n procedure c o u l d a l s o be e x p l a i n e d through a c o n s t r u c t i v e , bottom-up procedure. In t h i s case, the d e c i s i o n 8 9 maker does not simply s e l e c t a standard c o g n i t i v e procedure, but v a r i e s h i s / h e r p r o c e s s i n g approach by c o n s t r u c t i n g the s t r a t e g y from elements s t o r e d i n memory i n a unique and c r e a t i v e manner. Payne e t a l (1993) r e f e r t o t h i s d e c i s i o n a l uniqueness as b e i n g an example of the 'adaptive p r o c e s s o r ' , a p r o c e s s o r who appears t o be l e s s c o n f i n e d t o t a s k and more p e r s o n o l o g i c a l i n emphasis. In t h i s context, an i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n was noted when a n a l y z i n g the s u b j e c t s ' search p r o f i l e s . F i r s t , i t was found i n the h i g h t a s k complexity c o n d i t i o n t h a t most s u b j e c t s used i n v a r y i n g degrees - a 'two stage' procedure. (See Appendix F and H). They began the t a s k by u s i n g a non-compensatory procedure so as t o e s t a b l i s h a s m a l l e r s e t of a l t e r n a t i v e s , and then s h i f t e d t o a more thorough compensatory procedure t o . e v a l u a t e t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s . While these o b s e r v a t i o n s are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h d e c i s i o n making theory (Bettmen e t a l . , 1991; Gertzen, 1992; Olshavsky, 1979; Payne, 1976), i t was noted t h a t a l a r g e number of I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s seemed t o embrace a ' m u l t i - p a s s ' t e c h n i q u e . E s s e n t i a l l y , they accessed and a n a l y z e d the whole data-base, f o l l o w e d by a two-stage process, then concluded w i t h a s e a r c h f o r a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n long a f t e r i t seemed (based on the number of passes over the same information) a c h o i c e had a l -ready been m e n t a l l y formulated. T h i s ' m u l t i - p a s s ' procedure i s p u z z l i n g s i n c e by i t s very nature runs counter t o the r a t i o n a l e of c o s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s (Beach & M i t c h e l l , 1979). Whether the I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t i s adapting t o a dissonance r e s u l t i n g 9 0 from comparative a n a l y s i s (Frey, 1981), or i s e x h i b i t i n g a cog-n i t i v e c a p a c i t y f o r a m u l t i - p a s s procedure i s not e m p i r i c a l l y c l e a r . What i s c l e a r i s t h a t Normative and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ado-l e s c e n t s do not engage i n t h i s procedure t o the same e x t e n t as I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s . In other words, t h i s author i s sug-g e s t i n g t h a t Berzonsky's (1990, 1993) I n f o r m a t i o n a l s c o u l d be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Payne e t a l . ' s (1993) ^adaptive p r o c e s s o r ' . T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s Based on the r e s u l t s of the t h e s i s c e r t a i n p e r s o n o l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s suggest themselves f o r viewing d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y . 1. In regards t o the a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d s e a r c h schema; how do we view the a t t r i b u t e i n c l i n e d s e a r c h p a t t e r n of the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t adolescent? In the r a t i o n a l e s e c t i o n , i t was suggested as w o r l d views ( K e l l y , 1955), Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s r e p r e s e n t a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d search schema, schema t h a t m i r r o r s i n a G e s t a l t e n f a s h i o n the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s ' u n d e r l y i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e (Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1988). While r e -s u l t s showed t h a t I n f o r m a t i o n a l and Normative type a d o l e s c e n t s were a l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d ( a d d i t i v e l i n e a r and c o n j u n c t i v e ) i n t h e i r s e a r c h , t h i s was not the case f o r the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t type ado-l e s c e n t who appeared more a t t r i b u t e - b a s e d ( e l i m i n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t ) i n h i s / h e r s e a r c h . In other words, D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s were seen t o express a search p a t t e r n t h a t was cue ( s i t u a t i o n -9 . 1 a l l y ) based, a search p a t t e r n t h a t when viewed a c r o s s the study's c o n d i t i o n s of complexity appears e s s e n t i a l l y t a s k c o n t i n g e n t i n emphasis. Thus, a t l e a s t on the s u r f a c e , i t seems the G e s t a l t e n premise of t h i s t h e s i s i s somewhat weak u n t i l the above f a c t i s s u b j e c t e d t o f u r t h e r comment. Noting t h a t Berzonsky (1992) theo-r e t i c a l l y p o r t r a y s the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s as having a l e s s mature or o r g a n i z e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l stance, i t seems l o g i c a l t o expect these people would n a t u r a l l y g r a v i t a t e t o c l o s i n g w i t h an a t t r i b u t e (task-contingent) search approach. However, i t i s not so much t h a t the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s are a t t r i b u t e i n c l i n e d , as i t i s t h e i r world view has a narrower scope. 2. To what extent does t a s k complexity show t h a t Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s are d i s t i n c t e n t i t i e s t h a t are separate from, but a p a r t of compensatory and non-compensatory procedures? I m p l i c i t i n t h i s q u e s t i o n i s the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s are nothing more than d i f f e r e n t des-c r i p t o r s of the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , meaning t h a t i f t r u e , i t i s l o g i c a l t o expect t h a t they should respond t o the i s s u e of t a s k c o m p l e x i t y i n the same manner as the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s do i n d e c i s i o n making theory. In other words, r e l a t i v e t o h i g h and low t a s k complexity, I n f o r m a t i o n a l s , Normatives and D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s s h o u l d be i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from each other i n u s i n g compensatory and non-compensatory procedures. Study r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h i s i s t r u e o n l y f o r the low t a s k complexity c o n d i t i o n . In the h i g h t a s k c o m p l e x i t y c o n d i t i o n , the a d o l e s c e n t s are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from 9 2 each o t h e r . However, because the d i r e c t i o n of the r e s u l t s i s i n c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s the t a s k c o n d i t i o n s , any c o n c l u s i o n s upport-i n g the c o n c e p t u a l d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s from the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s has be t o q u a l i f i e d . For example, i t i s p o s s i b l e the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s w i l l o n l y m a n i f e s t themselves when a c e r t a i n amount of c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n i s p r e s e n t , a c r i t e r i o n t h a t may not be p r e s e n t i n the low t a s k com-p l e x i t y c o n d i t i o n . In f a c t , l i t e r a t u r e notes t h a t the e f f e c t s of p e r s o n a l i t y on behaviour are l i k e l y t o be g r e a t e s t when s i t u a t -i o n a l p r e s s u r e s are moderate and l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e (Monson, Hesley & Chernick, 1982). The s i x - a l t e r n a t i v e by e i g h t - a t t r i b u t e c o n d i t -i o n i n t h i s study i s a t b e s t regarded as b e i ng i n t e r m e d i a t e i n c o g n i t i v e s t r a i n ( G a t i , 1993; Russo & Rosen, 1975). In f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , so as t o v e r i f y the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s i n r e g a r d s t o the c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , i t i s suggested th e above i n t e r m e d i a t e c o n d i t i o n c o u l d serve as a low t a s k complexity c o n d i t i o n . 3. I n t r i n s i c and E x t r i n s i c data p r e f e r e n c e s , how do we e x p l a i n f o r the f a c t t h a t they were somewhat ambigu-ous? Somewhat a t v a r i a n t t o the t h e o r e t i c a l premise t h a t the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s have p r e f e r e n c e f o r c e r t a i n types of d ata when d e c i d i n g upon jobs, i t was noted i n the r e s u l t s t h a t Normative a d o l e s c e n t s were a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n x F e e l i n g of s e l f f u l f i l m e n t ' ( i n t r i n s i c ) dimension t o the same e x t e n t as they were i n t e r e s t e d i n P r e s t i g e ( e x t r i n s i c ) dimension. In f a c t , t h i s 93 s l i g h t b l u r r i n g of i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c p r e f e r e n c e s was a l s o seen t o occur f o r the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t s . However,, i t i s t o be noted, s i n c e the sample of t h i s study i s comprised of u n i v e r s i t y students, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t i n t r i n s i c d a t a such as ' F e e l i n g of s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t ' would have a s t r o n g a p p e a l . To c l a r i f y t h i s i s s u e , r e s e a r c h with n o n - u n i v e r s i t y a d o l e s c e n t s s h o u l d be conducted. 4. To what extent i s the d e c i s i o n c o n t e x t - a p a r t from t a s k complexity or content - important t o Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s ? M a c A l l i s t e r e t a l . (1979) suggest other extraneous f a c t o r s b e s i d e s t a s k complexity or cue content c o u l d impact on a person's d e c i s i o n making process - t h a t is> the ' i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y ' of the t a s k ; the ' s i g n i f i c a n c e ' of the t a s k and; the ' a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ' of the t a s k . In o t h e r words, when the d e c i s i o n maker p e r c e i v e s a d e c i s i o n i n t h i s manner, p r o c e s s i n g tends t o be compensatory i n d i r e c t i o n . While i n a s t r i c t c o g n i t i v e sense, t h e r e i s no reason t o expect t h a t t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n would not h o l d f o r Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , the f a c t i s , the r e s u l t s found i n t h i s t h e s i s do suggest other p o s s i b i l i t i e s . For example, i t i s p o s s i b l e the ' i r r e v e r s i b l e ' or 'accountable' d e c i s i o n c o u l d have an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t meaning and thereby p r o c e s s i n g approach ( i . e . , compensatory or non-compensatory) f o r the a d o l e s c e n t who i s e i t h e r I n f o r m a t i o n a l , Normative or D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t . Having g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r dissonance, the I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t c o u l d be more a t ease c o g n i t i v e l y w i t h the ' i r r e v e r s i b l e ' or 9 4 x a c c o u n t a b l e ' d e c i s i o n than the Normative or D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t . In other words, how an a d o l e s c e n t goes about making a d e c i s i o n c o u l d depend i n p a r t on how i t s ^ d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s ' f i t p s y c h o - s o c i a l l y i n t o h i s / h e r i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e . In s i t u a t i o n s where the e d u c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r d e t e c t s a need t o frame the c h o i c e s e t so as t o f a c i l i t a t e s e a r c h be-h a v i o u r , he/she should take i n t o account the a d o l e s c e n t ' s i d e n t -i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e . While t h e o r e t i c a l l y s p e c u l a t i v e , i t i s p o s s i b l e the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t adolescent c o u l d be encouraged t o s e a r c h more i f the c h o i c e s e t i s proposed w i t h a x r e v e r s i b l e ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c or a p p l i e s some other dissonance r e d u c i n g i n t e r -v e n t i o n . While f o c u s i n g on Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , t h i s t h e s i s has shown t h a t d e c i s i o n making i s understandable beyond the t a s k c o n t i n g e n t argument. P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s and i n f o r m a t i o n a l content are a l s o important determinants i n c o g n i -t i v e s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n . Some of the t h e o r e t i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t h i s study w i l l now be a p p l i e d t o i t s a d o l e s c e n t sample. P r a c t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s From an a p p l i e d e d u c a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , what has been gained from showing t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s who v a r y i n i d e n t i t y p r o -c e s s i n g s t y l e d i f f e r i n how they e x p l o r e and p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n ? I t s h o u l d be apparent t o the reader t h a t an important assumption of t h i s t h e s i s i s t h a t Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s 9 5 c o u l d a c t as u s e f u l i n d i c a t o r s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r s who work w i t h a d o l e s c e n t s t h a t are p r e d e c i s i o n a l i n t h e i r occupa-t i o n a l e x p l o r a t i o n . Noting t h a t the g o a l of c o u n s e l l i n g i s t o support and f a c i l i t a t e a c l i e n t ' s e x p l o r a t o r y behaviour, Berzonsky's i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l i n s i g h t f o r f u r t h e r i n g t h i s endeavour. C o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r C o u n s e l l i n g For the e d u c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r who has a D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s c e n t as a c l i e n t , by d e f i n i t i o n , the problem i s one of i n d i f f e r e n t and/or premature c e s s a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n a l s e a r c h . While on the s u r f a c e , i t i s tempting t o suggest i n t e r v e n t i o n has o n l y t o focus on d e c i s i o n a l framing (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, 1990), i n f o r m a t i o n a l content ( B l a y l o c k & Rees, 1984) and/or cog-n i t i v e s t r a t e g y awareness, the f a c t i s , more l a s t i n g consequences c o u l d be achieved i f the c e n t r a l i s s u e of the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y 1 ( s t r u c t u r e and f l e x i b i l i t y ) was a l s o addressed. In t a k i n g t h i s p o s i t i o n , i t i s important t o note, D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s are not as r e c e p t i v e t o r e l a t i o n s h i p s of a u t h o r i t y (e.g. educat-i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r s ) as they are t o the i n f l u e n c e s of the peer group (Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992). As such, i t i s from w i t h i n peer group t h a t the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t should begin h i s / h e r o c c u p a t i o n a l s e a r c h , f i e l d t r i p s , groups e x e r c i s e s , d i s c u s s i o n groups and so f o r t h . Once having gathered some i n f o r m a t i o n t o work with, im-p r o v i n g the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t ' s awareness of the c o g n i t i v e s t r a -t e g i e s c o u l d then be i n t r o d u c e d . Throughout the c o u n s e l l i n g p r o -9 6 c e s s , the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t adolescent should be encouraged t o a l -t e r and/ or expand h i s / h e r o c c u p a t i o n a l data base. In sum, coun-s e l l i n g the D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t adolescent i s e s s e n t i a l l y a c t i o n o r i e n t a t e d through group e x e r c i s e s . Depending on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of c o u n s e l l i n g r e s o u r c e s , p r e l i m i n a r y ego i d e n t i t y work i s a l s o suggested (Marcia, 1980; Marcia e t a l . , 1993). For Normative a d o l e s c e n t s , the problem i s not i n d i f f e r e n t s e a r c h but premature c e s s a t i o n of search, a c e s s a t i o n t h a t comes from embracing the * c o n f e r r e d ' g o a l s or v a l u e s of o t h e r s . Cogni-zant of the f a c t t h a t Normative a d o l e s c e n t s are s e n s i t i v e t o ex-p l o r a t o r y e x e r c i s e s of a p e r s o n a l nature (Berzonsky e t a l . , 1992, 1993), when c o u n s e l l i n g , care should be taken not t o immediately c h a l l e n g e t h i s group's u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e and f l e x i b i l i t y . Es-s e n t i a l l y , i n regards t o p e r s o n a l development, the g o a l of coun-s e l l i n g i s t o a s s i s t Normative a d o l e s c e n t s t o examine th e authen-t i c i t y o f t h e i r " c o n f e r r e d " values and i n t e r e s t s . Without such e x p l o r a t i o n , Normative a d o l e s c e n t s c o u l d prematurely l o c k i n t o o c c u p a t i o n s t h a t need t o be re-addressed i n the f u t u r e (Levinson, 1978). T h i s i s not t o say anything about the Normative student who i s unable t o f u l f i l the * c o n f e r r e d ' e x p e c t a t i o n s of the s i g -n i f i c a n t o t h e r s (e.g. parent, s o c i e t y ) . In sum, c o u n s e l l i n g the Normative a d o l e s c e n t i s e s s e n t i a l l y a one-on-one ( c o u n s e l l o r t o student) e x e r c i s e , an e x e r c i s e t h a t s t r o n g l y encourages a x c o n -s t r u c t i v e ' o r i e n t a t i o n . F i n a l l y , f o r the I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t , the problem i s 9 7 not i n d i f f e r e n t or premature c e s s a t i o n of search, but i s one of a s s u r i n g the e f f i c a c y of the d e c i s i o n a l process and e v e n t u a l c h o i c e . Where c o u n s e l l i n g D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t s and Normatives may i n v o l v e i s s u e s of ego i d e n t i t y ( E r i k s o n , 1963, 1968), t h i s i s not as much of a concern f o r the I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s . For these a d o l e s c e n t s , more a t t e n t i o n should be d i r e c t e d a t r e f i n i n g t h e i r c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s , as i n e f f e c t i v e c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y usage. For d i f f e r e n t reasons t h a t suggested f o r D i f f u s e / a v o i d a n t a d o l e s -c e n t s , I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t s c o u l d b e n e f i t g r e a t l y from the group c o u n s e l l i n g s i t u a t i o n , a s i t u a t i o n t h a t i s conducive t o ex-p l o r i n g and exchanging one's o c c u p a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and i d e a s w i t h o t h e r s . To conclude, i t i s important t o note t h a t the above idea s are merely suggestions f o r c o u n s e l l i n g and n o t h i n g more. What i s important i s t h a t they suggest e d u c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r s c o u l d view p s y c h o - s o c i a l t h e o r y as a means f o r a s s i s t i n g a d o l e s c e n t s i n be-coming more e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n makers. The Information board as a c o u n s e l l i n g d e v i c e To what extent c o u l d the computerized i n f o r m a t i o n board be a r e s o u r c e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r s i n h e l p i n g a d o l e s c e n t s who are p r e - d e c i s i o n a l i n t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l search? S i n c e the i n f o r -mation board i s a r e c o r d i n g d e v i c e , i t s data c o u l d p r o v i d e the base f o r c o u n s e l l o r and student t o i d e n t i f y e f f e c t i v e d e c i s i o n a l procedures; t o d e t e c t i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s t h a t may i n -f l u e n c e e v e n t u a l c h o i c e ; t o f u r t h e r c l a r i f y an a d o l e s c e n t ' s p e r -9 8 s o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s and; t o i d e n t i f y o c c u p a t i o n a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t were u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y overlooked. F i n a l l y , c o u n s e l l o r s c o u l d see how the data i n the i n f o r m a t i o n board f i t o t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s they may have of the adolescent. In sum, as an a c t i v e d e v i c e t h a t demands the s u b j e c t t o t h i n k i n i t s usage, w i t h r e f i n e m e n t ; the computerized i n f o r m a t i o n board c o u l d be a very powerful c o u n s e l l -i n g t o o l (Jacoby e t a l . , 1987; K i v l i g h a n e t a l . , 1994). L a s t l y , i n f o r m a t i o n board methodology can a l s o be used f o r r e s e a r c h i n a wide range of d e c i s i o n - b a s e d , s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l phenomena (Jacoby e t a l . , 1987). Phenomena l i k e a t t i t u d e forma-t i o n , c o g n i t i v e dissonance, impression f o r m a t i o n and so f o r t h may b e n e f i t from a p p l y i n g t h i s technique t o u n r a v e l the u n d e r l y i n g mechanisms people use i n forming t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . As such, i n f o r -mation board methodology, as t h i s author b e l i e v e s ; p r o v i d e s a p r o m i s i n g avenue f o r s t r e n g t h e n i n g many areas of i n q u i r y i n s o c i a l psychology, and i n t u r n ; b e t t e r our un d e r s t a n d i n g of the phenomena a t hand. L i m i t a t i o n s a n d F u t u r e R e s e a r c h T h i s t h e s i s , l i k e any e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s , i s not without i t s l i m i t a t i o n s . S e v e r a l caveats must be addressed when i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s . 1. L e v e l o f M e t h o d o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s In t h i s t h e s i s , the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the c o g n i t i v e s t r a -t e g i e s was o b t a i n e d by combining two d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s i n d i c a t o r s 9 9 ( D i r e c t i o n of Search, DS and V a r i a b i l i t y of Search, VS) so as t o g i v e a ' g l o b a l ' e v a l u a t i o n of the c h o i c e p r o c e s s (Biggs e t a l . , 1985; Jarvenpaa, 1989, Todd & Benbasat, 1991). While l i t e r a t u r e notes t h i s ' g l o b a l ' method has proven v a l u a b l e i n c a p t u r i n g over-a l l s t r a t e g y usage, i t might not be as e f f e c t i v e when i t comes t o i d e n t i f y i n g the more i n t r i c a t e s u b - s t r a t e g i e s t h a t a person may use w i t h i n the s p e c i f i c stages of d e c i s i o n making. In f a c t , ' g l o -b a l ' assessment o f . t h e s t r a t e g i e s o f f e r s the danger of b e i n g r e -d u c t i o n i s t i c , f o r i t assumed t h a t the d e c i s i o n maker employs the same c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n as he/she,does i n the p r o c e s s i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n . A review of the s e a r c h p r o f i l e s i n the study i n d i c a t e s t h i s might not be the case. (See Appendix H). A m a j o r i t y of s u b j e c t s demonstrated remarkable f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n behaviour by s h i f t i n g back and f o r t h among s t r a t e g i e s when a c q u i r i n g and p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a c r o s s t a s k s . To s u b j e c t t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n t o t e s t , a f i n e r l e v e l of s t r a t e g y assessment i s needed, one t h a t can p r o v i d e a d e t a i l e d synopsis of the s t r a t e g i e s used as the c h o i c e p r o c e s s proceeds. S y s t e m i c a l l y breaking down the s e a r c h p r o f i l e s i n t o s m a l l e r segments (see Appendices F and H) and a n a l y z e the type or number of s t r a t e g i e s implemented c o u l d h e l p i n t h i s endeavour. 2. Experimental Design Problems A. Task s i z e One p o t e n t i a l l i m i t a t i o n i n the experimental d e s i g n of t h i s 1 0 0 study concerns the unequal number of a l t e r n a t i v e s i n comparison t o the a t t r i b u t e s ( 3 x 8 and 6 x 8 ) . In some cases, t h i s uneven balance a c r o s s the task matrix can impact on the d i r e c t i o n o f s e a r c h (DS) index; t h a t i s , the DS measure may p o t e n t i a l l y b i a s towards an a l t e r n a t i v e - w i s e or an a t t r i b u t e - w i s e s e a r c h (Bettman & Jacoby,. 1976; Bockenholt & Hyman, 1994; Todd & Benbasat, 1993). While t h i s uneven t a s k s i z e had not posed a r e a l t h r e a t t o the dat a o f the study, i n some cases, t h i s r e s e a r c h e r d i d r e l y on a few w r i t t e n p r o t o c o l s (see Appendix G) t o formulate a d d i t i o n a l i d e a s about a s u b j e c t ' s search sequence. B. Time f a c t o r The experimental t a s k s i n t h i s t h e s i s were c a r r i e d out wit h no time c o n s t r a i n t s . Subjects were f r e e t o f o l l o w t h e i r i n c l i n a t -i o n s and se a r c h as much as they wanted. However, r e s e a r c h notes t h a t time p r e s s u r e can e x e r t an e f f e c t on a person's d e c i s i o n making where: a) i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g i s a c c e l e r a t e d ; b) i n f o r -mation i s f i l t r a t e d or; c) changes i n d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g y usage o c c u r s (Ben Zur and B r e z n i t z , 1981; Payne e t a l . , 1988; Wright, 1974,). Future r e s e a r c h c o u l d e x p l o r e whether Berzonsky's t h r e e i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s respond t o time p r e s s u r e i n the same f a s h i o n . Or, i s i t p o s s i b l e the I n f o r m a t i o n a l a d o l e s c e n t i s the more p r o f i c i e n t d e c i s i o n maker even when under time c o n s t r a i n t s ? C. Task g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y I t s hould be noted t h a t t h i s study attempts t o model x r e a l w o rld' d e c i s i o n making through a h y p o t h e t i c a l o c c u p a t i o n a l exer-1 0 1 c i s e . In r e l y i n g on an experimental e x e r c i s e f o r data, two prob-lems are apparent i n regards t o i t s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y : a) i n everyday l i f e , a d o l e s c e n t s seldom f i n d themselves i n a s i t u a t i o n where they can choose an occupation from s e v e r a l t h a t are a v a i l -a b l e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y and b) everyday d e c i s i o n s tend t o have a g r e a t e r degree of ' a c c o u n t a b i l i t y ' or ' i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y ' a s s o c i -a t e d w i t h them than what i s found with those d e c i s i o n s t h a t made up the experimental e x e r c i s e . The extent t h a t ' r e a l w o r l d ' a d o l e s c e n t s u t i l i z e c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n the same manner as those i n t h i s t h e s i s can o n l y be addressed through f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . Such r e s e a r c h should take measures t o b e t t e r a p p r o x i -mate ' r e a l w o rld' s i t u a t i o n s where everyday d e c i s i o n making i s found, t h a t i s , whether t h i s d e c i s i o n making concerns occupa-t i o n a l c h o i c e or something e l s e . D. Content q e n e r a l i z a b i l t y S i m i l a r t o the p r e v i o u s i s s u e of task g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , the work v a l u e p r e f e r e n c e s l i s t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s are the product of u n i v e r s i t y sample. Since the c o l l e g e environment i s r e l a t i v e l y l i b e r a l i n thought and e x p r e s s i o n (Munro & Adams, 1977), i t i s u n c e r t a i n whether these v a l u e s found can be g e n e r a l i z e d t o the l a r g e r ' r e a l world' p o p u l a t i o n . In other words, the c o n c r e t e n e s s of the working world i s more l i k e l y t o f o s t e r up a 'right-wrong' p e r s p e c t i v e which might i n s t i l l a d i f f e r e n t work v a l u e o r i e n t a -t i o n . Whether these v a l u e s w i l l c a r r y beyond the c o l l e g e e n v i r o n ment i s y e t t o be e x p l o r e d . 1 0 2 3. The Issue of Using a N o n - p r o b a b i l i s t i c Sample Because s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r i d e n t -i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s , the study d i d not have the b e n e f i t of e x p e r i m e n t a l randomization, t h a t i s , unforeseen extraneous f a c t -o r s c o u l d have had an impact on the study r e s u l t s . For example, n o t i n g the i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e s of the s u b j e c t s was determined through two i d e n t i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (ISI3 & EOMEIS-2), i t was found a s i g n i f i c a n t number of the Normatives i n t h i s study were of A s i a n or M i d d l e - e a s t descent. As a r e s u l t , a t l e a s t f o r the Normatives, c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d have important consequences f o r the f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study. I d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n and o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e i s f e l t t o have a d i f f e r e n t meaning when i t i s viewed w i t h i n a f a m i l y (or s o c i e t y ) t h a t i s c u l t u r a l l y f o r e c l o s e d (Marcia e t a l . , 1993). For t h e A s i a n or M i d d l e - e a s t a d o l e s c e n t , o c c u p a t i o n a l c h o i c e i s not the same s e l f -a c t u a l i z i n g p rocess as i t i s f o r the Western a d o l e s c e n t (Standley, 1971; Super e t a l . , 1963). In o t h e r words, s e l f -a c t u a l i z i n g f o r the f o r e c l o s e d f a m i l y means f u l f i l l i n g one's c o l l e c t i v e o b l i g a t i o n (Rosenberg, 1979). As such, the i n d i v i d u a l i t y suggested by Berzonsky's I n f o r m a t i o n a l p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e c o u l d be viewed as an a b b e r a t i o n or s i g n of immaturity t o a f a m i l y t h a t i s c u l t u r a l l y f o r e c l o s e d ( T r i a n d i s , 1989). In t h i s case, i t i s the Normative adolescent who i s the a d a p t i v e p r o c e s s o r (Payne e t a l . , 1993). A d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i s needed t o examine how c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s p l a y a p a r t i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p 1 0 3 between i d e n t i t y formation and c a r e e r development. C o n c l u s i o n L i m i t a t i o n s w i t h s t a n d i n g , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study do support the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t d e c i s i o n making i s not o n l y t a s k c o n t i n g e n t but i s a l s o s u b j e c t t o p e r s o n o l o g i c a l i n f l u e n c e s , i n f l u e n c e s t h a t i n an a d a p t i v e sense r e f l e c t the d e c i s i o n maker's p e r s o n a l 'world view' ( K e l l y , 1955). How an a d o l e s c e n t makes a d e c i s i o n and what he/she c o n s i d e r s t o be important i n t h a t d e c i s i o n i s v e r y much connected t o h i s / h e r i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e (Berzonsky, 1990; 1993). I t i s apparent from t h i s study t h a t f u r t h e r work i s needed concerning i t s l e v e l of methodologi-c a l a n a l y s i s , the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the f i n d i n g s under d i f f e r -ent time c o n d i t i o n s , other t o p i c s of d e c i s i o n problems, and other samples of d e c i s i o n makers. As a r e s u l t , i t i s f e l t r e s e a r c h i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d e c i s i o n maker's p e r s o n o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y usage w i l l not o n l y i n c r e a s e our understanding of d e c i s i o n making p a s t the t a s k c o n t i n g e n t argument (Payne, 1976; Payne e t a l . , 1993), but w i l l a l s o suggest p e r s o n o l o g i c a l means f o r improving the d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s . R e s u l t s i n t h i s t h e s i s are encouraging enough t o suggest f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h on i d e n t i t y - p r o c e s s i n g s t y l e and d e c i s i o n making t h e o r y i s warranted. 1 0 4 G L O S S A R Y O F T E R M S 1. A l t e r n a t i v e i s the c h o i c e o p t i o n of a problem s e t . 2. A t t r i b u t e i s the r e l e v a n t c h a r a c t e r i s i t i c o f the c h o i c e a l t e r n a t i v e . 3. A l t e r n a t i v e - b a s e d s e a r c h i s searched i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n an a l t e r n a t i v e a c r o s s a t t r i b u t e s . 4. A t t r i b u t e - b a s e d s e a r c h i s searched i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t a c r o s s d i f f e r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s along the same a t t r i b u t e . 5. C o m p e n s a t o r y r u l e i n v o l v e s a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n about each a l t e r n a t i v e being combined together i n t o one r a t i n g , such t h a t a poor aspect on one a t t r i b u t e (e.g. long working hours) can be compensated f o r by a good aspect on another (e.g. h i g h wage). Compensatory r u l e i s based on an e x h a u s t i v e , compre-h e n s i v e search where g r e a t e r c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t i s r e q u i r e d . 6. C o n s t a n t s e a r c h means search of equal amount of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r every a l t e r n a t i v e and a t t r i b u t e . 7. C o s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s i s the procedure where s t r a t e g y s e l e c t i o n i s t o maximize d e c i s i o n q u a l i t y w i t h minimize e f f o r t . 8. N o n - c o m p e n s a t o r y r u l e i s based on on l y a subset of informa-t i o n , w i t h each aspect o f t e n processed i n a s i m p l e r way. No t r a d e - o f f s between a weak and s t r o n g a t t r i b u t e i n t h i s r u l e . Non-compensatory r u l e i s a s i m p l i f y s e a r c h where c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t i s reduced t o minimum. 9. P e r s o n o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h c o n s i s t s of s t a b l e p e r s o n - c e n t r e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( t r a i t s , world views, c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s ) t h a t i n f l u e n c e or determine b e h a v i o r a l v a r i a t i o n . 10. S t r a t e g y i s a s e t of o p e r a t i o n s used t o t r a n s f o r m knowledge from an i n i t i a l s t a t e t o the f i n a l s t a t e , where the d e c i s i o n maker f e e l s the problem i s s o l v e d . S t r a t e g y , r u l e and h e u r i s -t i c are used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y i n t h i s study. 11. T a s k c o m p l e x i t y denotes by the changing number of a l t e r n a -t i v e s and/or the number of a t t r i b u t e s . 12. V a r i a b l e o r s e l e c t i v e s e a r c h means se a r c h of unequal amount of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r every a l t e r n a t i v e and a t t r i b u t e . 13. W o r l d v i e w s are s t r u c t u r e d schemata which a s s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s t o i n t e r p r e t the event and c h a r t t h e i r course o f a c t i o n . 1 0 5 R E F E R E N C E S Abelson, R. P., & L e v i , A. (1985). D e c i s i o n making and d e c i s i o n t h e o r y . In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of s o c i a l psychology (Vol.1, pp. 231-309), New York: Random House. Adams, G. R., Bennion, L., & Huh, K. (1989). O b j e c t i v e measure of ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s : A r e f e r e n c e manual. A h l e r i n g , R. F., & Parker, L. D. (1989). Need f o r c o g n i t i o n as a moderator of the primacy e f f e c t . J o u r n a l of Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 23, 3i3-317. A l k e r , H. A. (1971). Relevance of person p e r c e p t i o n t o c l i n i c a l psychology. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g C l i n i c a l Psychology. 37, 167-176. Beach, L. R., & M i t c h e l l , T. R. (1978). The c o n t i n g e n c y model f o r the s e l e c t i o n of d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Academy of Management Review, 3, 439-447. Bennion, L. D., & Adam, G. R. (1986). A r e v i s i o n of t h e extended v e r s i o n of the o b j e c t i v e measure of e g o - i d e n t i t y s t a t u s : An i d e n t i t y instrument f o r use w i t h l a t e a d o l e s c e n t s . J o u r n a l of A d o l e s c e n t Research, 1, 183-198. Ben Zur, H., & B r e z n i t z , S. J . (1981). The e f f e c t o f time pres--sure on r i s k y c h o i c e behaviour. A c t a P s y c h o l o g i c a , 47, 89-104. B e r l i n , D. F., & Languis, M. L. (1981). Hemispheric c o r r e l a t e s of rod and frame t e s t . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 52, 35-41. Berzonsky, M. D. (1988). S e l f - t h e o r i s t s , i d e n t i t y s t a t u s e s , and s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n . In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Powers (Eds.), S e l f , ego and i d e n t i t y : I n t e g r a t i v e approaches (pp. 243-262). New York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . 1 0 6 Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). I d e n t i t y s t y l e : C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and measurement. J o u r n a l of Adolescent Research, 4 ( 3 ) , 268-282. Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). S e l f - c o n s t r u c t i o n over the l i f e s p a n : A p r o c e s s p e r s p e c t i v e on i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n . In G. J . Neimeyer & R. A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances i n p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t t h e o r y ( V o l . 1, pp. 155-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Berzonsky, M. D. (1992a). A process p e r s p e c t i v e on i d e n t i t y and s t r e s s management. In G. R. Adams, T. P. G u l o t t a , R. Montemayor (Eds.), Advances on a d o l e s c e n t development: Ad o l e s c e n t i d e n t i t y formation (Vol.4, pp. 193-215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Berzonsky, M. D. (1992b). I d e n t i t y s t y l e and c o p i n g s t r a t e g i e s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y . 60, 771-789. Berzonsky, M. D. (1993). I d e n t i t y s t y l e , gender, and s o c i a l -c o g n i t i v e r e a s o n i n g . J o u r n a l of A d o l e s c e n t Research, 8(3), 289-294. Berzonsky, M. D ., & Neimeyer, G. J . (1988). I d e n t i t y s t a t u s and p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t systems. J o u r n a l of Adolescence, 11, 195-204. Berzonsky, M. D., R i c e , R. G., & Neimeyer, G. J . (1990). I d e n t i t y s t a t u s and s e l f - c o n s t r u c t systems: process X s t r u c t u r e i n t e r a c t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Adolescence. 13., 251-263. Berzonsky, M. D ., & S u l l i v a n , C. (1992). S o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e a s p e c t s of i d e n t i t y s t y l e : Need f o r c o g n i t i o n , e x p e r i e n t i a l open-ness, and i n t r o s p e c t i o n . J o u r n a l of A d o l e s c e n t Research, 7 ( 2 ) , 140-155. Bettman, J . R., & Jacoby, J . (1976). P a t t e r n s of p r o c e s s i n g i n consumer i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n . In B. B. Anderson (Ed), Advances i n consumer r e s e a r c h (pp. 315-320). 1 0 7 Bettman, J . R., & Park, C. W. (1980). E f f e c t s o f p r i o r knowledge and experience and phase of c h o i c e p r o c e s s on consumer d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s : A p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l o f Consumer Research. 7, 234-248. Biggs, S. F., Bedard, J . , Gaber, B. G., & Li n s m e i e r , T. J . (1985). The e f f e c t s of ta s k s i z e and s i m i l a r i t y on the d e c i s i o n behaviour of bank loan o f f i c e r . Management Science, 31(8), 970-987. B i l l i n g s , R. S., & Marcus, S. (1983). Measures of compensatory and noncompensatory models of d e c i s i o n behaviour: Process t r a c i n g versus P o l i c y c a p t u r i n g . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour and Human Performance, 31. 331-352. B i l l i n g s , R. S., & Scherer, L. L. (1988). The e f f o r t o f response mode and importance on d e c i s i o n making s t r a t e g i e s : judgment ve r s u s c h o i c e . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s e s . 41, 1-19. B l a y l o c k , B. K., & Rees, L. P. (1984). C o g n i t i v e s t y l e and the u s e f u l n e s s of i n f o r m a t i o n . D e c i s i o n S c i e n c e s . 15, 74-91. B l u s t e i n , D. L. (1989). The r o l e of g o a l i n s t a b i l i t y and c a r e e r s e l f - e f f i c a c y i n the c a r e e r e x p l o r a t i o n p r o c e s s . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behaviour. 35, 194-203. Bockenholt, U., & Hynan, L. S. (1994). Caveats on a p r o c e s s -t r a c i n g measure and a remedy. J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l D e c i s i o n Making. 7, 103-117. Brown, D. (1984). T r a i t and f a c t o r theory. In D. Brown, Brooks and a s s o c i a t e s (Eds). Career c h o i c e and Development pp. 8-30. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. B u l t e r , J . K. (1983). Value Importance as a moderator of the v a l u e f u l f i l m e n t - J o b s a t i s f a c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p : Group d i f f e r e n c e s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 68(3), 420-428. Cacioppo, J . T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need f o r c o g n i t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 42', 116-131. 1 0 8 Cacioppo, J . T., P e t t y , R. E., & M o r r i s , K. J . (1983). E f f e c t s of need f o r c o g n i t i o n on message e v a l u a t i o n , r e c a l l , and p e r s u a s i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 45. 805-818. Cacioppo, J . T., P e t t y , R. E., & Kao, C. (1984). The e f f i c i e n t assessment of need f o r c o g n i t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment. 48, 306-307. Cacioppo, J . T., P e t t y , R. E., F e i n s t e i n , J . A. & J a r i s , W. B. (1996). D i s p o s i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e m o t i v a t i o n : The l i f e and times of i n d i v i d u a l v a r y i n g i n need f o r c o g n i -t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 119(2), 197-253. Cheek, J . M., & B r i g g s , S. R. (1982). S e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s and a s p e c t s of i d e n t i t y . J o u r n a l of Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y . 16 401-408. Chung, R. (1991). C o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y or c o g n i t i v e s t y l e : A paper on formal d e c i s i o n making. Unpublished working paper, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1978). O b j e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y assessment. In M. Storandt, I. C. S i e g l e r , & M. F. E l i a s . (Eds.), The c l i n i c a l psychology of aging (pp. 119-143). New York: Plenum. Da h l s t r a n d , U., & Montgomery, H. (1984). I n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h and e v a l u a t i v e processes i n d e c i s i o n making: A computer-based p r o c e s s i n g - t r a c i n g study, Acta P s y c h o l o g i c a . 56. 113-123. Davidson, D. (1991). C h i l d r e n ' s d e c i s i o n making examined w i t h an i n f o r m a t i o n board procedure. C o g n i t i v e development. 6, 77-90. Dawis, R., & L o f q u i s t , L. (1984). A p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y of work adjustment. M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota. D e c i , E. L. (1972). The e f f e c t s of c o n t i n g e n t and non-contingent rewards and c o n t r o l s on i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance. 8, 217-229. 1 0 9 Dermer, J . D. (1973). C o g n i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the p e r c e i v e d importance of i n f o r m a t i o n . The Accounting Review. 511-519. Dyer, L., & Parker, D. F. (1975). C l a s s i f y i n g outcomes i n work m o t i v a t i o n r e s e a r c h : An examination of the i n t r i n s i c - e x t r i n -s i c dichotomy. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 60(4) , 455-458. Ei n h o r n , H. J . , Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Kleinmuntz, B. (1979). L i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n and p r o c e s s i n g t r a c i n g model of judgement. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 86, 465-485. Einh o r n , H. J . , & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). B e h a v i o r a l d e c i s i o n t h e o r y : Processes of judgement and c h o i c e . Annual Review of Psychology. 32. 53-88. E l i z u r , D. (1984). Facet of work v a l u e s : a s t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s i s of work outcomes. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 69(3), 379-389. E r i c s s o n , K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). V e r b a l r e p o r t s as data. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 87, 215-251. E r i k s o n , E. H. (1963). Childhood and s o c i e t y . 2nd E d i t i o n . New York: Norton. E r i k s o n , E. H. (1968). I d e n t i t y : Youth and c r i s i s . New York: Norton. E r i k s o n , E. H. (1982). The l i f e c y c l e completed: A review. New York: Norton. F i s h e r , G. W. (1995). Range s e n s i t i v i t y of a t t r i b u t e weights i n m u l t i a t t r i b u t e v a l u e models. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour & Human D e c i s i o n Processes. 62(3), 252-265. Ford, J . K., Schmitt, N., Schechtman, S. L., H u l t s , B. M., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). P r o c e s s i n g t r a c i n g methods: C o n t r i b -u t i o n s , problems and n e g l e c t e d r e s e a r c h i s s u e s . O r g a n i z a t -i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n P rocesses. 43 f 75-117. 1 1 0 Frey, F. (1981). P o s t - d e c i s i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e f o r d e c i s i o n r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of the competence of i t s source and the degree of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 17, 51-67. G a t i , I. (1993). Career compromise. J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology, 40(4), 416-424. G a t i , I . , & T i k o t z k i , Y. (1989). S t r a t e g i e s f o r c o l l e c t i o n and p r o c e s s i n g of o c c u p a t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n making c a r e e r d e c i s i o n s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 36 f 430-439. Gertzen, H. (1992). Component processes of phased d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . A c t a P s v c h o l o g i c a . 80. 229-246. G o t t f r e d s o n , L. S. (1981). C i r c u m s c r i p t i o n and compromise: A developmental theory of o c c u p a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 28, 545-579. G i l l i a n d , S. W., & Schmitt, N. (1993). I n f o r m a t i o n redundancy and d e c i s i o n Behaviour: A process t r a c i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Organ-i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s e s . 54., 157-180. Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (1984) . Development of an o b j e c t i v e measure t o assess ego i d e n t i t y i n adolescence: V a l i d a t i o n and r e p l i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Youth and A d o l e s -cence. 13., 419-438. G u i l f o r d , J . P. (1967). The nature of human i n t e l l i g e n c e . New York: McGraw-Hill. H a n s e l l , S., Mechanic, D., & Brondolo, E. (1986). I n t r o s p e c t -i v e n e s s and ado l e s c e n t development. J o u r n a l of Youth and Adolescence. 15, 115-132. Harren, V. A. (1979). A model of c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making f o r c o l l e g e students. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behaviour. 14., 119-133. I l l Hawkins, S. (1994). Information p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n r i s k l e s s p r e f e r e n c e r e v e r s a l s : The prominence e f f e c t . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n Processes, 59, 1-26. Heppner, P. P., & Krauskopt, C. J . (1987). An i n f o r m a t i o n -p r o c e s s i n g approach t o p e r s o n a l problem s o l v i n g . The C o u n s e l l i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t , 15, 371-417. Heppner, P. P., Reeder, B. L., & Larson, L. M. (1983). C o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a p p r a i -s a l : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c o u n s e l l i n g . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology. 30. 537-545. Howell, D. C. (1987). S t a t i s t i c a l method f o r psychology. 2nd E d i t i o n , Boston: Duxbury Press. Huber, G. P. (1980). The i n f l u e n c e of some t a s k v a r i a b l e s on c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s i n an i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g d e c i s i o n model. ACTA P s y c h o l o g i c a . 45, 187-196. Huber, G. P. (1983). C o g n i t i v e s t y l e as a b a s i s f o r MIS and DDS de s i g n s : Much ado about nothing? Management S c i e n c e . 29. 567-579. Hunt, R. G., K r z y s t o f a i k , F. J . , Meindl, J . R., & Yousry, A. M. (1989). C o g n i t i v e s t y l e and d e c i s i o n making, O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n Processes. 44, 436-453. Jacoby, J . , Chestnut, R. W., & F i s h e r , W. A. (1978). A b e h a v i o r a l p r o c e s s approach i n nondurable pu r c h a s i n g . J o u r n a l of Marketing Research. 15, 532-544. Jacoby, J . , J a c c a r d , J . , Kuss, A., Troutman, T., & Mazursky, D. (1987). New d i r e c t i o n s i n b e h a v i o r a l p r o c e s s r e s e a r c h : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i -mental S o c i a l Psychology. 23, 146-175. Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1989) The e f f e c t of ta s k demands and g r a p h i c a l format on i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s . The I n s t i t u t e of Management Sciences. 25, 285-303. 1 1 2 Johnson, E. J . (1985). E x p e r t i s e and d e c i s i o n under u n c e r t a i n t y : Performance and process. Unpublished manuscript, C a r n e g i e -M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y . Johnson, E. J . , Payne, J . W., Schkade, D. A., & Bettman, J . R. (1989). M o n i t o r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g and d e c i s i o n s : The mouselab system. Jones, R. M., & S t r e i t m a t t e r , J . L. (1987). V a l i d i t y and r e l i a -b i l i t y o f the EOM-EIS f o r e a r l y a d o l e s c e n t s . Adolescence, 22(87), 646-659. Jones, R. M., & Hartmann, H. (1988). Ego i d e n t i t y : Developmental d i f f e r e n c e s and experimental substance use among a d o l e s -c e n t s . J o u r n a l of Adolescence. 11, 347-360. Judge, T. A., & B r e t z , R. D. (1992). E f f e c t s of work v a l u e s on j o b c h o i c e d e c i s i o n s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 77(3), 261-271. Kagan, J . (1966). In J . Weinman, A. E l i t h o r n , & R. Cooper, (Eds.) (1985). P e r s o n a l i t y and problem s o l v i n g : The n a t u r e of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p l a n n i n g , scanning and v e r i f i c a t -i o n . P e r s o n a l i t y . I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e . 6(4) , 453-460. K e l l y , G. A. (1955). The psychology of p e r s o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . V o l s 1 and 2. New York: Norton. K i r k , R. E. (1982). Experimental Design: procedures f o r the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. K i v l i g h a n , D. M. j r . , Johnston, J . A., Hogan, R. S., & Mauer, E. (1994). Who b e n e f i t s from computerized c a r e e r c o u n s e l l i n g . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l l i n g & Development, 72, 289-292. Klayman, J . (1983). A n a l y s i s of p r e - d e c i s i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h p a t t e r n s . In P. C. Humphrey, 0. Svensori, & A. V a r i (Eds.) A n a l y z i n g and a i d i n g d e c i s i o n process pp. 401-414. Amster-dam: North H o l l a n d . 1 1 3 Klayman, J . (1985). C h i l d r e n ' s d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s and t h e i r a d a p t i o n t o ta s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Processes, 35., 179-201. K l e i n , C. & Wiener, W. (1977). I n t e r e s t congruency as a moderator of t he r e l a t i o n s h i p between job tenure and job s a t i s f a c t i o n and mental h e a l t h . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behaviour. 10, 91-98. Krumboltz, J . D., Rude, S. S., M i t c h e l l , L. K., Hamel, D. A., & Kinner, R. T. (1982). Behaviours a s s o c i a t e d w i t h "good" and "poor" outcomes i n a simulated c a r e e r d e c i s i o n . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behaviour. 21, 349-358. Lambert, Z. V., & Durand, R. M. (1977). Purchase i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i s i t i o n and c o g n i t i v e s t y l e . J o u r n a l o f Psychology. 97. 3-13. Leone, C. & Dalton, C. H. (1988). Some e f f e c t s o f the need f o r c o g n i t i o n on course grades. P e r c e p t u a l and Motor s k i l l s . 67 175-178. L e f c o u r t , H. M. (1972). Recent developments i n the study o f lo c u s of c o n t r o l . In B.A. Mahler (Ed.) Progress i n experimental p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . New York: Academic P r e s s . Le v i n s o n , D. J . (1978). The seasons of a man's l i f e . New York: Knopf. M a c A l l i s t e r , D. W., M i t c h e l l , T. R. & Beach, L. R. (1979). The contingency model f o r the s e l e c t i o n of d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s : An e m p i r i c a l t e s t of the e f f e c t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e , account-a b i l i t y , and r e v e r s i b i l i t y . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance. 24. 236-244. Maslow, A. H. (1970). M o t i v a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Row. Ma r c i a , J . E. (1980). I d e n t i t y i n adolescence. In J . Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley. 1 1 4 M a r c i a , J . E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., A r c h e r , S. L. & O r l o f s k y , J . L. (1993). Ego i d e n t i t y : A handbook f o r psycho-l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . New York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . Maule, A. J . , & Svenson, 0. (1993). T h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l approach t o b e h a v i o r a l d e c i s i o n making and t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o time c o n s t r a i n t . In 0. Svenson & A. J . Maule (Eds). Time p r e s s u r e and s t r e s s i n human judgment and d e c i s i o n making. New York: Plenum Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., j r . (1980). Openness t o exper i e n c e and ego l e v e l i n Loevinger's sentence completion t e s t : D i s p o s i t i o n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o developmental models of p e r s o n a l i t y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 39. 1179-1190. McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T., j r . (1985). Openness t o e x p e r i -ence. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), P e r s p e c t i v e s i n p e r s o n a l i t y (Vol.1, pp. 145-172). Greenwich, CT:JAI. McCrae, R. R. (1987). C r e a t i v i t y , d i v e r g e n t t h i n k i n g , and open-ness t o experience. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 52, 1258-1265. McKenna, F. (1984). Measures of f i e l d dependence: C o g n i t i v e s t y l e or c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y . S o c i a l Behaviour. P e r s o n a l i t y . 11, 147-151. Messick, S. and a s s o c i a t e s . (1976). I n d i v i d u a l i t y i n l e a r n i n g . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. M i s c h e l , W. (1973). Toward a c o g n i t i v e s o c i a l l e a r n i n g r e c o n -c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. ( J u l y ) , 252-283. M i t c h e l l , T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job s a t i s f a c t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e and e f f o r t : A t h e o r e t i c a l , method-o l o g i c a l and e m p i r i c a l a p p r a i s a l . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 81. 1053-1077. 1 1 5 M i t r o f f , I. I. (1983). A r c h e t y p a l s o c i a l systems a n a l y s i s : On the deeper s t r u c t u r e of human systems. Academy of Management Review. 8, 387-397. Montgomergy, H., & Svenson, 0. (1976). On d e c i s i o n r u l e s and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s f o r c h o i c e s among m u l t i -a t t r i b u t e a l t e r n a t i v e s . Scandinavian J o u r n a l of Psychology,, 17, 283-291. Munro, G., & Adams, G. R. (1977). Ego i d e n t i t y f o r m a t i o n i n c o l l e g e students and working youths. Developmental P s y c h o l -ogy, 13(5), 523-524. Neimeyer, G. J . , P r i c h a r d , S., & M e t z l e r , A. (1991). V o c a t i o n a l h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g : the r o l e of o c c u p a t i o n a l r e l e v a n c e and i d e n t i t y o r i e n t a t i o n . J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behaviour, 38, 318-332. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem s o l v i n g . Engle-wood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Olshavsky, R. W. (1979). Task complexity and c o n t i n g e n t p r o c e s s -i n g i n d e c i s i o n making: a r e p l i c a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance, 24., 300-316. Onken, J . , H a s t i e , R., & R e v e l l e , W. (1985). I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r -ences i n the use of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s i n a complex decision-making t a s k . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology: Human P e r c e p t i o n & Performance. 11(1), 14-27. Paquette, L., & Kida, T. (1988). The e f f e c t of d e c i s i o n s t r a t e g y and t a s k complexity on d e c i s i o n performance. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n Processes. 41, 128-142. Pask, G. (1976). S t y l e s and s t r a t e g i e s of l e a r n i n g . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 46, 128-148. 1 1 6 Payne, J . W. (1976). Task complexity and c o n t i n g e n t p r o c e s s i n g i n d e c i s i o n making: An i n f o r m a t i o n search and p r o t o c o l a n a l y -s i s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 366-387. Payne, J . W., Br a u n s t e i n , M. L., & C a r r o l l , J . S. (1978). E x p l o r -i n g p r e d e c i s i o n a l behaviour: An a l t e r n a t i v e approach t o d e c i s i o n r e s e a r c h . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance, 22., 17-44. Payne, J . W., & Bettman, J . R. (1988). A d a p t i v e s t r a t e g y s e l e c -t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology: L e a r n i n g . Memory and C o g n i t i o n . 14.(3), 534-552. Payne, J . W., Bettman, J . R., & Johnson, E. J . (1993). The adapt-i v e d e c i s i o n maker. New York: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . P e t t y , R. E., & Cacioppo, J . T. (1986). The e l a b o r a t i o n l i k e l i -hood model of p e r s u a s i o n . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l psychology. ( V o l . 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press. Phares, E. J . (1976). Locus of c o n t r o l i n p e r s o n a l i t y . Morristown, New J e r s e y : General L e a r n i n g P r e s s . P i t z , G. F., & Harren V. A. (1980). An a n a l y s i s o f c a r e e r d e c i -s i o n making from the p o i n t of view of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g and d e c i s i o n theory. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behaviour. 16. 320-346. P i t z , G. F. & Sacks, N. J . (1984). Judgment and d e c i s i o n : Theory and a p p l i c a t i o n s . Annual Review of Psychology. 35, 139-163. P r a t t , J . (1980). The e f f e c t s of p e r s o n a l i t y on a s u b j e c t ' s i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s : A comment. The Accounting Review. 55 501-506. Read, D., Adams, G. R., & Dobson, W. R. (1984). Ego i d e n t i t y s t a t u s , p e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s t y l e . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 46, 169-177. 1 1 7 Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. (1970). Models of development and t h e o r i e s of development. In L. R. Goulet and P. B. B a l t e s (Eds), L i f e span developmental psychology (pp. 115-145). New York: Academic Press. Reneau, J . H., & Gra b s k i , S. V. (1987). A review o f r e s e a r c h i n computer-human i n t e r a c t i o n and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n a model f o r r e s e a r c h i n accounting i n f o r m a t i o n systems. The J o u r n a l of Information Systems. 2(1), 33-53. Robertson, I. T. (1985). Human i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g s t r a t e g i e s and s t y l e . Behaviour and Information Technology. 4.(1), 19-29. Robey, D., & Taggart, W. (1981). Measuring managers' minds: The assessment of s t y l e i n i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . Academy of Management Review. 6, 375-383. Ronen, S. (1978). P e r s o n a l v a l u e s : A b a s i s f o r work m o t i v a t i o n a l s e t and work a t t i t u d e s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a l and Human Performance. 21, 80-107. Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and v a l u e s . Glencoe, I L : The Free p r e s s . Rosenberg, M. (1979). C o n c e i v i n g the s e l f . New York: B a s i c Books. R o t t e r , J . B. (1966). G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r n a l vs e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of reinforcement. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 80 ( S p e c i a l Issue, Whole No. 609). Russo, J . E., & Rosen, L. D. (1975). An eye f i x a t i o n a n a l y s i s of m u l t i - a l t e r n a t i v e c h o i c e . Memory and C o g n i t i o n . 3., 267-276. Russo, J . E. (1978). Eye f i x a t i o n can save the world: A c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n and a comparison between eye f i x a t i o n s and oth e r i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g methodologies. In H.K. Hunt, (Ed.), Advances i n consumer.research V o l . 5, pp. 561-570. New York: Academic Press. 1 1 8 Russo, J . E., & Dosher, B. A. (1983). S t r a t e g i e s f o r m u l t i -a t t r i b u t e b i n a r y c h o i c e . J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology: L e a r n i n g . Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 9, 676-696. Russo, J . E., Johnson, E. J . , & Stephens, D. L. (1985). When are v e r b a l p r o t o c o l s v a l i d ? Unpublished Working Paper. C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y . Ruble, T. L., & C o s i e r , R. A. (1990). E f f e c t s of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e and d e c i s i o n s e t t i n g on performance. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Processes. 44, 283-295. S a r n o f f , I. (1966). Human value s index. Unpublished q u e s t i o n n a i r e Psychology Department of New York U n i v e r s i t y . In S. Ronen, (1978). P e r s o n a l Values: A b a s i s f o r work m o t i v a t i o n a l s e t and work a t t i t u d e s . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a l and Human Performance. 21. 80-107. Schkade, D. A., & Kleinmuntz, D. N. (1994). I n f o r m a t i o n d i s p l a y s and d e c i s i o n processes: D i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f o r g a n i z -a t i o n , form and sequence. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour & Human D e c i s i o n Processes. 57, 319-337. Schroder, H. M., & Suedfeld, P. (1971). P e r s o n a l i t y t h e o r y and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . New York, Ronald P r e s s . Schweiger, D. M. (1983). Measuring managers' minds: A c r i t i c a l r e p l y t o Robey and Taggart. Academy of Management Review. 8 143-151. Sevenson, 0. (1979). Process d e s c r i p t i o n s of d e c i s i o n making. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour and Human Performance. 23, 86-112. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley, 1957. Simon, H. A. (1979). R a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making i n b u s i n e s s o r g a n i z a t i o n . The American Economic Review, 69, 493-513. 1 1 9 S l u g o s k i , B. R., Marcia, J . E., & Koopman, R. F. (1984). Cogni-t i v e and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ego i d e n t -i t y s t a t u s e s i n c o l l e g e males. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 47, 646-661. Standley, N. V. (1971). Kierkegaard and man's v o c a t i o n . Voca-t i o n a l Guidance Q u a r t e r l y , 20, 119-122. Stone, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1994). E f f e c t s of a t t r i b u t e s c a l e s on process and performance i n m u l t i a t t r i b u t e c h o i c e . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s e s . 59, 261-287. Sundstrom, G. A. (1987). Information search and d e c i s i o n making: The e f f e c t s of i n f o r m a t i o n d i s p l a y s . A c t a P s y c h o l o g i c a . 65, 165-179. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of c a r e e r s . New York: Harper & Row. Super, D. E. (1962). The s t r u c t u r e of work v a l u e s i n r e l a t i o n t o s t a t u s achievement, i n t e r e s t s and adjustment. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 46, 231-239. Super, D. E. (1975). V o c a t i o n a l guidance: Emergent d e c i s i o n making i n a changing s o c i e t y . B u l l e t i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i -a t i o n of E d u c a t i o n a l and V o c a t i o n a l Guidance. 29. 16-23. Super, D. E. (1980). A l i f e span, l i f e space approach t o c a r e e r development. J o u r n a l of V o c a t i o n a l Behaviour, 13. 281-298. Super, D. E. (1983). Assessment i n c a r e e r guidance: Toward t r u l y developmental c o u n s e l l i n g . The Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l . 61, 555-562. Super, D. E., S t a r i s h e v s k y , R., M a t l i n , N. & Jordaan, J . P. (1963). Career development: S e l f - c o n c e p t t h e o r y . New York: C o l l e g e Entrance Examination Board. 1 2 0 Svenson, 0. (1979). Process d e s c r i p t i o n s of d e c i s i o n making. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human Performance. 23. 86-112. Tabachnick, B. G. , & F i d e l l , L. S. (1989). Using m u l t i v a r i a t e s t a t i s t i c s . (2nd e d i t i o n ) . New York: Harper & Row. T a y l o r , R. N. ( 1 9 8 4 ). B e h a v i o u r i a l d e c i s i o n making. Glenview, I I : S c o t t , Foresman. T a y l o r , R i N . , & Benbasat, I. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A c r i t i q u e o f c o g n i t i v e s t y l e t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h . Proceedings of the F i r s t I n t e r -n a t i o n a l Conference on Information Systems. 8 2 - 9 0 , P h i l a d e l p h i a . . Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the impact o f computer based d e c i s i o n a i d s on d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s e s . Information Systems Research. 2 . ( 2 ) , 8 7 -1 1 5 . Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1992). The use of i n f o r m a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making: An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the impact of computer based d e c i s i o n a i d s . MIS Q u a r t e r l y . 16(3), Sept, 373-393. Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1993). An experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d e c i s i o n makers, d e c i s i o n a i d s and d e c i s i o n making e f f o r t . INFOR. 31(2), May, 80-101. Todd, P., & Benbasat, I. (1994). The i n f l u e n c e o f d e c i s i o n a i d s on c h o i c e s t r a t e g i e s : An experimental a n a l y s i s o f the r o l e of c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behaviour and Human D e c i s i o n Processes. 60, 36-74. T r i a n d i s , H. C. (1989). The s e l f and s o c i a l behaviour i n d i f f e r -i n g c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 96(3), 506-520. Tversky, A. (1969). I n t r a n s i t i v i t y of p r e f e r e n c e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 76, 31-48. 1 2 1 Tversky, A. (1972). E l i m i n a t i o n by a s p e c t s : A t h e o r y of c h o i c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 79, 281-299. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of d e c i s i o n s and the psychology of c h o i c e . Science, 211, 453-458. W i t k i n , H. A. (1976). C o g n i t i v e s t y l e i n academic performance and i n t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t r e l a t i o n s . In S. Messick & a s s o c i a t e s (Eds), I n d i v i d u a l i t y i n Learning. San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y -Bass. W i t k i n , H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). F i e l d dependent and f i e I d - i n d e p e n d e n t c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s and t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 1-64. Wright, P. L. (1974). The harassed d e c i s i o n maker: Time p r e s -s u r e s , d i s t r a c t i o n , and the use of evidence. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology. 59. 555-561. Wright, G. (1985). D e c i s i o n v a r i a n c e . In G. Wright, (Ed.) B e h a v i o u r a l Decision-making pp.45-61. Plenum P r e s s , New York. Wright, G. & Ayton, P. (1988). Immediate and s h o r t - t e r m judgment-a l f o r e c a s t i n g : Personologism, s i t u a t i o n i s m or i n t e r a c t i o n -ism? P e r s o n a l i t y , I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s . 9 ( 1 ), 109-120. Verplanken, B., Hazenberg, P. T., & Palenewen, G. R. (1992). Need f o r c o g n i t i o n and e x t e r n a l i n f o r m a t i o n s e a r c h e f f o r t J o u r n a l o f Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y . 26, 128-136. Verplanken, B. (1994). Need f o r c o g n i t i o n and e x t e r n a l i n f o r m a t -i o n s e a r c h : Responses t o time p r e s s u r e d u r i n g d e c i s i o n making. J o u r n a l of Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y . 27, 238-252. Zakay, D. (1990). The r o l e of p e r s o n a l t e n d e n c i e s i n the s e l e c t i o n of d e c i s i o n making s t r a t e g i e s . The P s y c h o l o g i c a l Record, 40, 207-213. 1 2 2 Zmud, R. W. (1979). I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s and MIS s u c c e s s : A review of the e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , Management S c i e n c e . 25. 966-979. 1 2 3 APPENDIX A PERSONAL WORK VALUE SURVEY >Below i s a l i s t of v a l u e outcomes t h a t you might ponder i n d e c i d i n g a job. Rate the val u e s a c c o r d i n g t o how important or d e s i r a b l e they are t o you when contemplating a j o b . ' C i r c l e the number you f e e l a p p l i c a b l e t o your s i t u a t i o n . KEY (1) Very Unimportant t o me. (3) Unimportant somewhat. (5) Important somewhat. (7) Very Important t o me. Very Unimportant Very Important 1. O p p o r t u n i t y f o r advancement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Wage/Salary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. P r e s t i g e / S t a t u s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. V a r i e t y i n job d u t i e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. A u t h o r i t y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Autonomy/Independence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. A f f i l i a t i o n (being with people) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t i o n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Chance t o use s p e c i a l s k i l l s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Competent s u p e r v i s o r s i n the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 workplace 12. F e e l i n g of s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 From the above value items, l i s t the 3 most important v a l u e s t o you. A. Item No, B. Item No. C. Item No. 1 2 4 APPENDIX B MATRIX DISPLAY OF TWO DECISION TASKS A 3 X 8 LOW TASK MATRIX S k i l l s F u l f i l Wage Autho A f f i l Prest I n t e l l Auton Job #1 Hi Lo 40K Mod Lo Mod Hi Lo Job #2 Lo Hi 38K Hi Mod Lo Mod Hi Job #3 Mod Mod 35K Lo Hi Hi Lo Mod A 6 X 8 HIGH TASK MATRIX Auton Prest F u l f i l Wage Autho I n t e l l A f f i l S k i l l s Job #1 Hi Mod Lo 34K Hi Hi Lo Mod Job #2 Mod Hi Lo 32K Mod Mod Hi Hi Job #3 Lo Mod Hi 40K Hi Lo Mod Lo Job #4 Hi Lo Hi 38K Lo Mod Mod Lo Job #5 Lo Lo Mod 39K Mod Hi Lo Hi Job #6 Mod Hi Mod 37K Lo Lo Hi Mod 125 APPENDIX C A SAMPLE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEARCH RECORD ON LOW TASK CONDITION Screen Time # 1 Spent 102 4r I 1 100 32.850 0.0 1 0.00 Subject # > (To?) 2 2 100 6.709 0.0 1 0.00 102 4 4 100 2.580 0.0 1 0.00 102 6 6 100 12.469 0.0 1 0.00 102 7 7 7 1.590 1.650 1 . Matrix Screen-> ALTs: 3 ATTs:8 102 7 7 15 0.440 0.440 2 . LOW INFORMATION CONDITION 102 7 7 23 1.039 1.150 3 102 7 7 15 0.389 0.389 4 102 7 7 7 1.480 1.592 5 Exper- 102 7 7 8 0.599 0.769 6 ment 102 7 7 7 0.709 2.520 7 » 102 102 © 7 7 7 6 5 0.439 0.939 2.471 5.330 8 9 102 7 7 4 0.541 1.151 10 102 7 7 3 1.150 1.541 11 102 7 7 2 1.699 2.029 12 102 7 7 10 2.199 3.180 13 102 7 7 15 5.330 5.439 14 Search Order 102 7 7 10 0.170 0.280 15 Box* 102 7 7, 4.279 4.720 16 Opened 102 102 7 7 7 7 11 12 0.770 0.991 1.759 2.689 17 18 102 7 7 10 0.660 0.709 19 102 7 7 17 0.441 0.611 20 102 7 7 18 1.870 1.870 21 102 7 7 22 0.379 0.379 22 102 7 7 23 2.041 2.041 23 102 7 7 26 2.089 3.621 24 Latency of Search 102 7 7 100 1 63.381] 0.0 25(2.00)^  Selected 102 8 8 100 293.740 0.0 1 0.00 Option F i c j . 2 Latency of search per a t t r i b u t e (LSPA) based on the above search record S k i l l F u l f i l Wage Autho A f f i l Prest I n t e l l Auton Job #1 - 1.70 1.15 0.54 2.47 0. 44 3. 78 0. 60 Job #2 4.80 3.03 0.77 1.76 - - 6. 16 -Job #3 0.44 1.87 - - - 0. 38 4. 12 -L S P A = 5.24 6.60 1.92 2.30 2.47 0.82 13.02 126 APPENDIX D A SAMPLE OF THE COMPUTATION OF INFORMATION SEARCH MEASURES Attributes A l t e r n - a b c d at i v e s A 1 9 — 2/4=0.50 B 2 8 - 2/4=0.50 C 3 7 - 2/4=0.50 D 4 5 6 3/4=0.75 =2.25 Numbers in the body of the table ind i cate which pieces of information were searched and the order i n which they were searched. THE FOUR SEARCH MEASURES 1. Proportion of Information Searched (PIS): Measured as the number of c e l l s examined divided by the t o t a l number of c e l l s . e.g. Proportion searched = 9/16 = 0.56 2. Latency of Search (LS): Measured as the t o t a l response time subject spent on the task. LS i s being recorded by the Mouselab program. 3. V a r i a b i l i t y of Search across a l t e r n a t i v e s (VSA): Measured as the population standard deviation of the proportion searched per a l t e r n a t i v e across the set of ava i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . { t i.*? "(( 2 x i ) 7 n ) ] / n }1/2 where n = number of t o t a l a l t e r n a t i v e s X ; = proportion of alt e r n a t i v e s i searched e.g. VSA = {[(1.31 - (5.06/7) ]/7}1/2 = 0.29 1 2 7 APPENDIX D -cont-A SAMPLE OF THE COMPUTATION OF INFORMATION SEARCH MEASURES D i r e c t i o n of Search (DS): Measured as (Altern- A t t r i b ) / (Altern + A t t r i b ) A l t e r n i s the number of alternative-wise moves within the same a l t e r n a t i v e , and A t t r i b i s the number of attribute-wise moves of the same a t t r i b u t e . A score of 1.0 represents a s t r i c t alternative-wise search, a score of -1.0 represents a s t r i c t attribute-wise search. e.g. D i r e c t i o n of Search = (2-6)/ (2+6)= -0.50 1 2 8 APPENDIX E A SAMPLE OF THE FOUR DIFFERENT STRATEGIES ADDITIVE LINEAR (Ah) A t t r i 1 A t t r i 2 A t t r i 3 A t t r i 4 A t t r i 5 Job 1 Job 2 11 12 . 13 14 15 Job 3 1 2 3 4 5 Job 4 Job 5 6 7 8 9 10 PIS = 9 / 2 5 = 0 . 3 6 VSA = 0 DS = +1 Each a l t e r n a t i v e i s weighted according to the i n d i v i d u a l component of the a l t e r n a t i v e , they are then summed to give an o v e r a l l value of the a l t e r n a t i v e . Comparisons are made between a l t e r n a t i v e s , the one with the highest value i s chosen. ADDITIVE DIFFERENCE (AD) A t t r i 1 A t t r i 2 A t t r i 3 A t t r i 4 A t t r i 5 Job 1 Job 2 r 1 > r 3 ^ r 5 -s r 7 ^ r 9 1 Job 3 4 ) 8 10 ) Job .4 Job 5 k l l >12 >• 13 14 L 15 VSA = 0 DS = - 1 Two a l t e r n a t i v e s are compared on one a t t r i b u t e , followed by comparison on another a t t r i b u t e . Comparison of the two a l t e r n a -t i v e s continues u n t i l a l l a t t r i b u t e s have been examined. The preferred a l t e r n a t i v e i s then used to compare to a new, t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e i n a repeated manner. The f i n a l choice i s the better of the f i n a l p a i r of a l t e r n a t i v e s . * The number i n the matrix represents the order of the box being opened 129 APPENDIX E - cen t -A SAMPLE OF THE FOUR DIFFERENT STRATEGIES CONJUNCTIVE (CONJ) A t t r i 1 A t t r i 2 A t t r i 3 A t t r i 4 A t t r i 5 Job 1 Job 2 1 2 3 Job 3 4 S 6 7 Job 4 Job S 8 9 PIS = 9/25 = 0.36 VSA =0.32 DS = +1 The d e c i s i o n maker e s t a b l i s h e s c e r t a i n minimum threshold l e v e l on a l l a t t r i b u t e s , and i f an a l t e r n a t i v e d i d not meet c e r t a i n minimum value on a l l of the relevant a t t r i b u t e s , i t i s r e j e c t e d . ELIMINATION BY ASPECT (EBA) A t t r i 1 A t t r i 2 A t t r i 3 A t t r i 4 A t t r i S Job 1 1 Job 2 5 2 Job 3 7 6 3 Job 4 4 Job 5 VSA =0.43 DS = -0.6 The most important a t t r i b u t e that the chosen a l t e r n a t i v e should have i s determined. A l t e r n a t i v e s that do not possess t h i s a t t r i -bute are eliminated. The remaining a l t e r n a t i v e s are then compared on the next most important a t t r i b u t e . This process continues u n t i l one a l t e r n a t i v e remains. * The number i n the matrix represents the order of the box being opened 130 APPENDIX F A SAMPLE OF AN INFORMATIONAL'S SEARCH RECORD 161 1 1 100 44.049 0.0 1 161 2 2 100 11.199 0.0 1 161 4 4 100 11.529 0.0 1 161 6 6 100 21.969 0.0 1 161 7 7 6 1.102 4.731 1 161 7 7 1 2.080 2.361 2 161 7 7 2 2.090 2.199 3 161 7 7 3 1.590 2.250 4 161 7 7 4 1.811 1.981 5 161 7 7 5 1.638 1.808 6 161 7 7 6 2.031 2.090 7 161 7 7 7 1.922 2.141 8 161 7 7 g 1.041 1.041 9 161 7 7 4 0.160 0.221 10 161 7 7 3 0.269 0.269 11 161 7 7 2 0.160 0.270 12 161 7 7 1 0.279 0.500 13 161 7 7 9 3.240 3.510 14 161 7 7 10 2.041 2.089 15 161 7 7 11 1.102 1.211 16 161 7 7 12 1.430 1.651 17 161 7 7 13 2.629 2.799 18 161 7 7 14 1.429 1.541 19 161 7 7 15 0.820 1.039 20 161 7 7 16 1.429 1.541 21 161 7 7 17 3.241 3.350 22 161 7 7 18 2.689 2.801 23 161 7 7 19 4.119 4.340 24 161 7 7 20 1.259 2.199 25 161 7 7 21 1.541 1.650 26 161 7 7 22 1.420 1.530 27 161 7 7 23 0.830 1.490 28 161 7 7 24 0.660 0.990 29 161 7 7 32 1.039 1.260 30 161 7 7 31 1.429 1.480 31 161 7 7 30 0.940 1.321 32 161 7 7 29 1.429 1.699 33 161 7 7 28 1.269 1.490 34 161 7 7 27 2.520 2.580 35 161 7 7 26 1.320 1.650 36 161 7 7 25 1.920 1.969 37 161 7 7 33 0.942 1.051 38 161 7 7 34 1.039 1.150 39 161 7 7 35 0.709 0.879 40 161 7 7 36 0.932 1.041 41 161 7 7 37 1.539 1.700 42 161 7 7 38 1.759 1.871 43 161 7 7 39 0.769 0.830 44 161 7 7 40 1.529 1.590 45 161 7 7 38 0.660 0.820 46 161 7 7 37 0.170 0.221 47 161 7 7 36 0.170 0.500 48 161 7 7 35 0.549 0.600 49 161 7 7 43 0.551 0.990 50 161 7 7 42 1.148 1.478 51 161 7 7 41 0.442 0.551 52 161 7 7 42 0.170 0.221 53 161 7 7 43 0.170 0.279 54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Matrix Screen -> ALTs: 6 ATTs: 8 . HIGH INFORMATION CONDITION V Open All STAGE ONE COMPENSATORY METHOD A u t o n P r e a t F u l f i l Wage Autho I n t e l l A f f i l S k i l l s J o b tl _ _ _ _ _ _ -J o b #2 _ _ _ _ _ - _ -J o b « _ _ _ _ - - -J o b ti _ _ _ - • _ - - -J o b /5 _ _ _ - - - -J o b f6 - - - -NB * > - ' indicates which box was opened * Refer to the computer record as to the sequence of the boxes opened 131 STAGE TWO NON-COMPENSATORY METHOD 161 7 7 44 0.660 0.770 55 161 7 7 45 0.551 1.420 56 161 7 7 46 0.941 1.050 57 161 7 7 47 2.690 2.959 58 161 7 7 48 1.932 2.041 59 161 7 7 47 0.430 0.760 60 161 7 7 39 0.770 0.881 61 161 7 7 31 1.430 1.709 62 161 7 7 23 0.381 0.711 63 161 7 7 30 2.689 2.908 64 161 7 7 29 0.772 0.820 65 161 7 7 28 0.391 1.211 66 161 7 7 27 0.769 0.820 67 161 7 7 3 0.330 0.379 68 161 7 7 11 0.391 0.611 69 161 7 7 27 0.769 0.939 70 161 7 7 35 0.379 0.660 71 161 7 7 43 0.379 0.491 72 161 7 7 35 0.218 0.709 73 161 7 7 19 3.191 3.240 74 161 7 7 20 0.170 0.170 75 161 7 7 23 0.272 0.330 76 161 7 7 22 0.772 1.041 77 161 7 7 30 0.391 1.539 78 161 7 7 38 3.522 3.571 79 161 7 7 39 1.099 1.210 80 161 7 7 40 0.491 0.600 81 161 7 7 32 0.940 1.320 82 161 7 7 24 0.661 0.719 83 161 7 7 32 0.488 0.599 84 161 7 7 40 0.661 0.940 85 161 7 7 39 1.041 1.150 86 161 7 7 38 1.100 1.209 87 161 7 7 34 1.211 1.481 88 161 7 7 35 0.930 0.990 89 161 7 7 27 2.250 2.750 90 161 7 7 17 0.378 0.378 91 161 7 7 25 1.920 2.032 92 161 7 7 26 0.830 1.049 93 161 7 7 27 1.919 2.080 94 161 7 7 37 0.281 0.500 95 161 7 7 29 1.371 1.541 96 161 7 7 30 1.699 1.808 97 161 7 7 31 1.701 1.701 98 161 7 7 32 5.661 5.770 99 161 7 7 24 0.490 0.820 100 161 7 7 48 0.219 0.549 101 161 7 7 40 1.481 2.092 102 161 7 7 39 1.039 1.148 103 161 7 7 38 1.602 1.651 104 161 7 7 37 0.381 0.551 105 161 7 7 36 0.990 1.099 106 161 7 7 35 0.551 0.660 107 161 7 7 34 1.481 1.530 108 161 7 7 35 0.880 2.041 109 161 7 7 27 0.439 0.548 110 161 7 7 35 1.090 1.372 111 161 7 7 27 0.330 0.548 112 161 7 7 19 0.161 0.491 113 161 7 7 11 0.330 0.880 114 161 7 7 3 0.331 0.389 115 161 7 7 11 0.221 0.272 116 161 7 7 35 0.378 0.539 117 161 7 7 43 0.720 0.880 118 Auton P r e s t F u l f i l Wage Autho I n t e l l A f f i l S k i l l s Job *1 _ Job #2 _ Job #3 _ _ _ _ _ Job #4 - - - - _ - - -Job #5 - - _ _ . -Job #6 - -STAGE TWO NB * ' - ' indi c a t e s which box was opened STAGE THREE NON-COMPENSATORY METHOD P r e s t F u l f i l Wage STAGE THREE Job tl _ -Job tZ - -Job #3 -Job ti _ _ _ _ - - -Job #5 _ - - - - -Job t6 - -NB indicates which box was opened 132 161 7 7 48 161 7 7 40 161 7 7 32 161 7 7 24 161 7 7 16 161 7 7 8 161 7 7 16 161 7 7 24 161 7 7 32 161 7 7 40 161 7 7 32 161 7 7 40 161 7 7 48 161 7 7 27 161 7 7 34 161 7 7 35 161 7 7 27 161 7 7 26 161 7 7 51 161 7 7 52 161 7 7 100 161 8 8 100 0.879 0.940119 . 0.541 0.759 120 . 0.282 0.551 121 . 0.391 0.500122 . 0.330 0.551 123 . 0.170 0.879 124 . 0.160 0.599 125 . 0.331 0.491 126 . 0.609 0.830 127 . 1.429 1.429 128 . 0.491 0.711 129 . 0.170 0.280 130 . 1.041 1.590 131 . 0.160 0.379 132 . 1.272 1.381 133 . 0.539 1.039 134 . 5.660 5.711 135 . 0.279 0.990 136 . 0.379 0.488 137 . 4.951 5.990 138 . 208.939 0.0 139 4.00 789.830 0.0 1 0.00 APPENDIX F - c o n t -A SMAPLE OF A NORMATIVE'S SEARCH RECORD 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 279 1 100 2 100 4 100 6 100 7 1 2 1 2 3 4 12 20 28 36 44 20 22 18 10 12 2 18 26 34 42 44 43 42 41 42 43 27 28 27 26 27 29 30 31 32 27 28 36 44 42 43 35 28 27 26 20 19 19 18 20 73.320 8.791 5.881 6.381 1.320 1.480 1.648 1.262 2.420 2.420 2.139 2.799 1.929 2.471 4.560 4.619 0.551 0.599 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.430 1.541 1.808 1.262 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Matrix Screen -> ALTs: 6 ATTs: 8 HIGH INFORMATION CONDITION 0.661 0.758 3.961 5.218 1.601 1.481 0.988 0.769 0.172 1.272 0.820 4.008 5.269 1.761 1.481 1.211 0.828 0.332 0.488 0.598 0.441 0.550 0.770 0.829 1.543 1.543 0.168 0.547 6.371 6.761 1.039 1.149 0.550 0.660 2.312 2.312 0.719 1.270 0.609 1.261 0.281 0.442 1.269 2.136 5.442 5.723 0.270 0.821 2.640 2.691 0.328 0.379 2.641 0.269 0.832 0.168 0.774 1.367 2.199 3.520 0.488 0.883 0.386 1.434 1.809 2.359 0.820 0.820 0.219 0.277 2.141 2.911 5.382 5.492 0.648 0.648 0.172 0.883 1.101 1.262 1.160 1.160 1.316 1.367 9 . 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 26 . 27 . 28 . 29 . 30 . 31 . 32 . 33 . 34 . 35 . 36 . 37 . 38 . 39 . 40 . 41 . 42 . 43 . 44 . 45 . 46 . 47 . 48 . 49 . 50 . 51 . P r e s t F u l f i l Wage Job #1 Job /2 *• Job f3 - - - • Job #4 - *• — Job #5 Job #6 - - -NB * » - ' indicates which box was opened * Refer to the computer record as to the sequence of the boxes opened 1 3 4 279 7 7 17 279 7 7 21 279 7 7 22 279 7 7 23 279 7 7 24 279 7 7 20 279 7 7 19 279 7 7 18 279 7 7 51 279 7 7 100 279 8 8 100 0.719 0.719 52 . 2.250 2.313 53 . 8.269 8.316 54 . 1.711 1.934 55 . 1.309 5.098 56 . 0.269 0.379 57 . 1.269 1.378 58 . 3.840 3.840 59 . 1.152 1.813 60 . 131.051 0.0 61 3. 527.832 0.0 1 0.( APPENDIX F - c o n t -A S A M P L E OF A D I F F U S E / A V O I D A N T " S S E A R C H RECORD 327 1 1 100 17.630 0.0 1 327 2 2 100 7.030 0.0 1 327 4 4 100 3.080 0.0 1 327 6 6 100 3.630 0.0 1 327 7 7 10 0.280 0.500 1 327 7 7 3 0.380 0.490 2 327 7 7 11 0.170 0.550 3 327 7 7 19 0.550 1.260 4 327 7 7 43 0.440 0.660 5 327 7 7 35 0.330 0.390 6 327 7 7 27 1.150 1.640 7 327 7 7 28 0.440 0.830 8 327 7 7 20 0.880 1.100 9 327 7 7 19 0.380 0.440 10 327 7 7 20 0.600 0.930 11 327 7 7 12 0.380 0.490 12 327 7 7 4 0.390 0.390 13 327 7 7 36 0.170 0.610 14 327 7 7 44 0.330 0.440 15 327 7 7 36 0.220 0.380 16 327 7 7 28 0.330 0.390 17 327 7 7 20 0:330 0.870 18 327 7 7 19 0.330 0.390 19 327 7 7 20 0.270 0.600 20 327 7 7 21 1.320 1.320 21 327 7 7 23 3.900 3.960 22 327 7 7 22 0.430 0.430 23 327 7 7 23 1.050 1.100 24 327 7 7 24 1.320 1.380 25 327 7 7 23 0.220 0.270 26 327 7 7 22 0.280 0.330 27 327 7 7 21 1.260 1.430 28 327 7 7 20 1.150 1.260 29 327 7 7 19 0.940 1.540 30 327 7 7 18 1.650 1.980 31 327 7 7 17 0.600 1.860 32 327 7 7 9 0.500 0.940 33 327 7 7 25 0.160 0.270 34 327 7 7 17 0.270 0.880 35 327 7 7 27 0.160 0.380 36 327 7 7 19 0.330 0.610 37 327 7 7 51 2.640 3.190 38 327 7 7 100 50.310 0.0 39 327 8 8 100 319.780 0.0 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Matrix Screen -> ALTs: 6 ATTs: i . HIGH INFORMATION CONDITION 3.00 0.00 P r e s t F u l f i l Wage Job / l Job #2 Job /3 _ — Job #4 Job #5 Job /6 -NB * » - ' indicates which box was opened * Refer to the computer record as to the sequence of the boxes opened 136 APPENDIX G I. SAMPLE OF AN INFORMATIONAL'S WRITTEN PROTOCOL Su b j e c t : 161.2 In choosing the job, I looked a t the c a t e g o r i e s t h a t were most important t o me, which were f e e l i n g of s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t , i n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t i o n , a f f i l i a t i o n and chance t o use s p e c i a l s k i l l s . The s t e p s t h a t I took were t h a t I f i r s t looked a t a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n c e l l s of each of the jobs t o make sure I know what the terms are. <COMPENSATORY> Then I narrowed i t down t o Job 4 and j o b 5 <ELIMINATION-BY-ASPECT> because they seemed t o r e p r e s e n t the h i g h e s t o v e r a l l r a t i n g s of the c a t e g o r i e s <COMPENSATORY> t h a t were important t o me. A f t e r t h a t , I compared j o b 4 and job 5 i n these f o u r c a t e g o r i e s , and i t seemed j o b 4 have the b e s t r a t i n g (high s e l f f u l f i l m e n t vs moderate; good a f f i l i a t i o n vs low). <ADDITIVE DIFFERENCE> I f my chosen job d i d e x i s t I t h i n k t h a t i t would be one t h a t r e q u i r e d some s o r t of u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g and, f o r me, i t would have t o be c h a l l e n g i n g and help people i n some way f o r me t o c o n s i d e r i t as p r o v i d i n g a f e e l i n g of s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t . I guess i t might r e p r e s e n t a form of i n s t r u c t o r - such as a t e a c h e r or e l s e a form of c o u n s e l l i n g . I t c o u l d a l s o r e p r e s e n t more independent work (not d e a l i n g w i t h too many people) such as an e d i t o r or a j o u r n a l i s t or a w r i t e r / l e c t u r e r . NB * < > St r a t e g y i n parentheses are added by author. * R e f e r t o Appendix F f o r a complete sequence of se a r c h . 137 APPENDIX G I I . SAMPLE OF A NORMATIVE'S WRITTEN PROTOCOL Su b j e c t 279.2 F i r s t I must admit I looked a t a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n under wages, then I looked a t p r e s t i g e . <ELIMINATION BY ASPECT> I t h i n k I was most concerned with wages because i n p l a n n i n g t o s a c r i f i c e as many years as i t takes t o get the b e s t e d u c a t i o n , I want t o be f i n a n c i a l l y secure the r e s t of my l i f e . T h i s does not mean t h a t I am greedy, i t j u s t means I want the b e s t f o r my f a m i l y i n being a b l e t o support them and myself as b e s t as I can. P r e s t i g e means a l o t t o me because I want t o be a b l e t o use a l l s k i l l s l e a r n t i n u n i v e r s i t y t o a c q u i r e p r e s t i g e and a u t h o r i t y . However, when I compared the * p r e s t i g e ' w i t h the * f e e l i n g of s e l f f u l f i l m e n t ' column i n , I r e a l i z e d the ^ p r e s t i g e ' was o n l y i n o t h e r s ' eyes. In t h a t case, I dropped job 6 and went w i t h the job t h a t had the b e s t wage and h i g h s e l f f u l f i l m e n t but moderate p r e s t i g e <CONJUNCTIVE>. I was h e s i t a n t between Job 3 and Job 4 a t f i r s t , j o b 4 had more freedom but a u t h o r i t y was low, Job 3 seemed t o have a b e t t e r package o v e r a l l <ADDITIVE LINEAR>. I'm not sure what job t h i s c o u l d be i n r e a l l i f e , because i t seemed somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y . For example, i t d i d not have a h i g h 1 i n t e l l e c t u a l s t i m u l a t i o n ' r a t i n g , y e t i t had a h i g h (?) x a u t h o r i t y ' r a t i n g . I suppose these f a c t o r s c o u l d c o - e x i s t , but as f o r myself, i f I had a u t h o r i t y , I'd probably f i n d some ways of making i t i n t e r e s t i n g . I'd probably guess t h i s c o u l d be a CEO p o s i t i o n i n a l a r g e company. NB * < > S t r a t e g y i n parentheses are added by author. * R e f e r t o Appendix F f o r a complete sequence of s e a r c h . 138 APPENDIX G I I I . SAMPLE OF A DIFFUSE/AVOIDANT'S WRITTEN PROTOCOL Su b j e c t : 327.2 1. F u l f i l m e n t must be hi g h when I'm working on a p a r t i c u l a r j o b . 2. Wage must be reasonable, job 3 p r o v i d e s h i g h wages, so I've a l r e a d y decided t o choose t h i s j o b . ELIMINATION BY ASPECT> 3. Other f a c t o r s are not important so I do not bother w i t h them. 4. Job e x i s t s i n the r e a l world would be a performer (musical) or a c t o r . NB * < > S t r a t e g y i n parentheses are added by author. * R e f e r t o Appendix F f o r a complete sequence of s e a r c h . 139 APPENDIX H PROBLEM WITH 'GLOBAL' STRATEGY CLASSIFICATION MEASURE 362 1 1 100 34.600 0.0 1 0.00 According to the strategy c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n l i t e r a t u r e , 362 2 2 100 3.900 0.0 1 0.00 t h i s s ubject's approach to task i s mainly elimi n a t i o n - b y - a s p e c t . 362 4 4 100 5.551 0.0 1 0.00 362 6 6 100 5.320 0.0 1 0.00 Job '1 362 7 7 1 1.811 4.500 1.151 1.430 1 . .Itih 11 362 7 7 3 2 . 362 7 7 11 0.490 0.820 3 . Jnh O * • • • • • • 362 7 7 19 0.661 0.940 4 . Job '4 • • • • • • • 362 7 7 27 0.551 0.711 5 . j..b n 362 7 7 35 0.490 0.820 0.770 0.879 6 . Job 16 • 362 7 7 43 7 . 362 7 7 19 1.980 2.420 8 . VSA = 0.36 362 7 7 18 0.490 0.549 9 . DS = -0.16 362 362 362 7 7 7 7 7 7 19 23 31 3.070 3.130 2.250 2.690 0.490 0.660 10 . 11 . 12 . However, when decomposing the above search v a r i e t y of su b - s t r a t e g i e s was found. record i n t o segments, a 362 7 7 39 0.490 0.660 13 . 362 7 7 47 0.660 0.879 14 . 1. ELIMINATION-BY-ASPECT APPROACH 362 7 7 39 0.271 0.381 15 . 362 7 7 31 0.218 0.439 16 . Job II 362 23 0.270 0.551 17 . 7 7 362 7 7 31 3.129 3.619 18 . Job 11 • 362 7 7 21 0.170 0.221 19 . Job O • 4 362 7 7 17 0.330 0.599 20 . Job n • 362 7 7 25 1.270 2.581 21 . 362 7 7 17 0.500 0.500 22 . 362 7 7 41 1.371 1.869 23 . Job 16 • • • • • • • • 362 7 7 42 0.600 0.820 24 . 362 362 7 7 7 7 43 44 2.590 2.690 1.271 1.320 25 . 26 . 2. CONJUNCTIVE APPROACH 362 7 7 36 0.500 0.721 27 . Job 11 362 7 7 28 0.330 0.439 28 . 362 7 7 20 0.381 0.490 29 . J.ih #2 362 7 7 12 0.330 0.391 30 . Job O * ft 362 7 7 4 44 0.270 0.320 0.159 0.609 31 . 32 . Job 1* • • 362 7 7 362 7 7 45 1.920 2.031 33 . Job #5 362 7 7 46 1.920 2.090 34 . job n » • • • • • 362 7 7 47 1.149 1.369 35 . 362 362 7 7 7 7 48 25 1.651 1.651 1.100 1.320 36 . 37 . i. ADDITIVE DIFFERENCE APPROACH 362 7 7 26 0.828 0.940 38 . Job #1 362 7 7 27 0.980 1.420 39 . 362 7 7 28 1.099 1.209 40 . Job 11 362 7 7 29 1.650 1.759 41 . Job n • * • 362 7 7 30 3.071 3.131 42 . Job It 1 a 362 7 7 31 0.660 0.881 43 . Job #5 362 7 32 2.090 2.139 44 . 7 362 7 7 17 4.670 4.779 45 . Job If, 362 7 7 18 2.420 2.641 46 . 362 362 7 7 7 7 19 20 0.709 0.869 0.771 0.881 47 . Types of 48 . s t r a t e g i e s used : El i m i n a t i o n by aspect, conjunctive a d d i t i v e d i f f e r e n c e . 362 362 7 7 7 7 21 22 4.119 4.119 2.310 2.420 49 . JQ Number of s t r a t e g i e s used: 3 140 362 7 7 23 1.871 2.031 51 362 7 7 24 0.769 0.820 52 362 7 7 23 1.160 1.270 53 362 7 7 22 0.709 0.820 54 362 7 7 23 0.549 0.660 55 362 7 7 22 0.440 1.369 56 362 7 7 23 2.420 2.530 57 362 7 7 24 0.611 0.771 58 362 7 7 32 0.440 0.490 59 362 7 7 48 2.420 2.689 60 362 7 7 47 1.320 1.481 61 362 7 7 46 2.089 2.199 62 362 7 7 45 3.740 3.840 63 362 7 7 44 1.211 1.541 64 362 7 7 43 1.379 1.539 65 362 7 7 42 6.981 7.800 66 362 7 7 41 1.481 1.540 67 362 7 7 42 0.660 0.660 68 362 7 7 42 1.750 1.920 69 362 7 7 43 1.151 1.260 70 362 7 7 44 0.660 0.660 71 362 7 7 45 2.530 2.690 72 362 7 7 46 3.740 3.851 73 362 7 7 47 1.860 2.520 74 362 7 7 48 2.090 2.260 75 362 7 7 47 0.980 1.089 76 362 7 7 48 0.551 0.940 77 362 7 7 47 0.600 0.930 78 362 7 7 48 3.521 3.900 79 362 7 7 15 0.549 0.609 80 362 7 7 34 0.170 0.279 81 362 7 7 25 1.321 1.539 82 362 7 7 26 1.432 1.481 83 362 7 7 25 0.930 0.990 84 362 7 7 26 0.490 0.881 85 362 7 7 27 0.660 1.148 86 362 7 7 19 0.391 0.721 87 362 7 7 27 0.211 0.320 88 362 7 7 28 0,551 1.161 89 362 7 7 20 0.490 0.709 90 362 7 7 21 0.830 1.050 91 362 7 7 29 0.600 0.760 92 362 7 7 30 0.330 0.660 93 362 7 7 22 0.440 0.881 94 362 7 7 30 0.549 1.649 95 362 7 7 23 0.330 0.490 96 362 7 7 31 0.441 1.099 97 362 7 7 24 0.331 0.391 98 362 7 7 32 2.359 2.410 99 362 7 7 48 5.271 5.771 100 362 7 7 54 0.709 0.879 101 362 7 7 47 0.269 0.381 102 362 7 7 100 166.871 0.0 103 362 g 8 100 697.390 0.0 1 1 4 1 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0088067/manifest

Comment

Related Items