Assessing Individual Differences in Experiential (Intuitive) and Rational (Analytical) Cognitive Styles

Even though it is argued that intuition has ‘come of age’ in the behavioral sciences, there are still unresolved issues regarding self‐report assessment of intuitive and analytical styles of information processing (cognitive styles). The unitary view proposes that intuition and analysis are opposite ends of a single continuum. The dual view proposes that intuition and analysis are independent (orthogonal) constructs. Moreover, within the dual view, it has been proposed that intuition and analysis can be further subdivided into ability and engagement subcomponents. The aim of this article was to test both of these claims and thereby move discussions regarding the assessment of cognitive styles further forward. This research is important given that much intuition research in organizations is predicated on self‐report methods of assessment. Using data from a sample of police officers and police staff from a large police organization in the United Kingdom, we found that the adoption of a dual (rather than unitary) perspective when assessing experiential and rational cognitive styles is warranted, whereas adopting an ability and engagement refinement is not (hence a simpler formulation is to be preferred). We also observed a number of main effects and interactions with respect to job type, job level, gender, and experience. We offer guidelines for the self‐report assessment of intuition and analysis cognitive styles and discuss a typology of styles. The article concludes by outlining a number of practical implications for cognitive styles assessment in organizational settings.