See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330832648

Decision-Making Styles and Personality Traits

Article · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

34 27,490

2 authors:

Nuran Bayram Mine Aydemir-Dev

Uludag University Bursa Uludag University
94 PUBLICATIONS 3,019 CITATIONS 31 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mine Aydemir-Dev on 30 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

Decision-Making Styles and Personality Traits

Nuran Bayram,
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,
Uludag University, Turkey.
E-mail: [email protected]

Mine Aydemir,
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,
Uludag University, Turkey.
E-mail: [email protected]

___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine the relations decision-making styles and personality
traits among a group of university students. The study group consists of 312 participants who
are students of the public university. Our study was based on voluntary participation. 57% of
participants were female and 43% participants were male. The mean age was 21.09±1.79
(mean±SD) years. 76% of participations said that they are responsible for the events that
happen to them. Results showed that the rational style and intuitive style were significantly
associated with four of personality traits, except neuroticism. The dependent style had a
positive relation with agreeableness and neuroticism. The avoidant style had negative
relation with extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness. The spontaneous style had a
negative relation with agreeableness and conscientiousness, positive relation with and
neuroticism. Female had significantly higher scores on agreeableness and neuroticism
personality traits as compared to men. Regression analysis showed that extraversion
personality had a positive effect on spontaneous decision-making style. Agreeableness
personality had a positive effect on intuitive and dependent decision-making style.
Conscientiousness personality had a positive effect on rational, negative effect on avoidant
and spontaneous decision-making style. Neurotic personality had a positive effect on intuitive,
dependent and spontaneous decision-making style. Openness personality had a positive effect
on rational decision-making style.
___________________________________________________________________________
Key Words: Decision making, decision-making style, personality traits, big five
JEL Classification: C 4, C 10, M 00

905
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

1. Introduction
Decision making plays an important role in the life of people. Scott and Bruce (1995,
p.280) reviewed the literature and reported two earlier definitions of decision-making style: a
habitual pattern individuals use in decision-making (Driver, 1979), and individuals’
characteristic mode of perceiving and responding to decision-making tasks (Harren, 1979)
(Spicer and Sadler-Smith, 2005; Thunholm, 2004; Thunholm, 2008; Avsec, 2012). Decision-
making style is called a situation which includes the approach, reaction, and action of the
individual who is about to make a decision (Phillips, Pazienza, & Ferrin, 1984 as cited in
Deniz, 2011). There are five different decision making styles. According to Scott and Bruce,
individuals generally have different levels of all five styles, although one style is usually
dominant (Allwood and Salo, 2012).
A rational decision-making style is characterized by the comprehensive search for
information, inventory of alternatives and logical evaluation of alternatives. In another word,
rational decision-making style is ascribed by use of reasoning and logical and structured
approaches to decision making. An intuitive decision-making style is characterized by
attention to details in the flow of information rather than systematic search for and processing
of information and a tendency to rely on premonitions and feelings. That is, decision-making
style is defined by dependence upon hunches, feelings, impressions instinct experience and
gut feelings. The dependent decision-making style is characterized by getting direction and
support of others before making a decision. In a different word, a dependent style is defined
by a search for advice and guidance from others before making important decisions. Avoidant
decision-making style is defined by withdrawing, postponing, moving back and negating the
decision scenarios. That is, an avoidant style is characterized by attempts to avoid decision
making whenever possible. Spontaneous decision-making style is characterized by making
rapid, quick, impulsive and prone to making “snap” or “spur of the moment” decisions. A
spontaneous style is characterized by a feeling of immediacy and a desire to come through the
decision-making process as quickly as possible (Scott and Bruce, 1995; Spicer and Sadler-
Smith, 2005; Thunholm 2004; Rehman and Waheed, 2012).
Personality traits can be conceptualized as a set of stable individual differences in people's
motivational reactions to circumscribed classes of environment stimuli. There are different
models of personality traits in a field of psychology. The five-factor model often labeled Big
Five is widely accepted and popular model for embodying individual differences in
personality (Denissen and Penke, 2008; Bakker et al., 2006; Wang, 2014). The Big Five
Model, most human personality differences can be summarized in five dimensions:
Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience.

906
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

Extraversion is characterized by a tendency to be self-confident, dominant, active, and

excitement seeking. Extraverts show positive emotions, higher frequency and intensity of
personal interactions, and a higher need for stimulation (Bakker et al., 2006). In addition,
Extraversion describes the extent to which individuals are assertive, active, enthusiastic,
talkative, warm, energetic and dominant (Costa and McCrea, 1992).
Agreeableness is characterized by cooperation (trusting of others and caring) and
likeableness (good-natured, cheerful and gentle). Agreeableness involves pleasant and
satisfying relationships with others (Organ and Lingl, 1995 as cited in Bui, 2017). Agreeable
individuals tend to exhibit and are more likely to experience happiness because they
extremely love to have close interrelationships and those who are higher in this trait will have
higher life satisfaction also (McCrae and Costa, 1991 as cited in Therasa and Vijayabanu,
2015).
Conscientiousness is characterized by being hardworking, persistent, neat, well-organized,
orderliness, responsibility, dependability and goal-oriented (Costa and McCrae, 1992 as cited
in Camps et al. 2016). Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991) and McCrae and Costa (1986) have
associated conscientiousness with self-discipline, achievement striving, dutifulness, and
competence. The conscientious individual’s persistency and self-discipline will probably also
cause him or her to finish tasks and to accomplish things (Bakker et al. 2006).Conscientious
people have the tendency to be goal-directed and motivated (Costa and McCrae, 1992 as cited
in Rahaman, 2014).
Neuroticism is characterized by upsetability and is the polar opposite of emotional
stability. People who are high in neuroticism are insecure, anxious and are more susceptible
to stress than their low-neurotic counterparts (Costa and McCrae, 1992 as cited in Camps et
al., 2016). They experience higher levels of negative affect, get easily irritated by others, and
are more likely to turn to inappropriate coping responses, such as interpersonal hostility
(Camps et al. 2016). Also, neuroticism embodies the degree to which one is self-pitying,
tense, touchy, unstable, worrying, and anxious. Opposite to Extraversion, an individual high
in neuroticism is prone to get affected by negative events. They tend to exhibit traits like fear,
anger, depression, easily inclined to stress, not able to control impulses (Therasa and
Vijayabanu, 2015). A highly neurotic individual tends to experience negative emotions such
as anxiety, depression, impulsiveness, nervousness and tend to underestimate their own
performance. On the contrary, less neurotic individuals tend to exhibit confident and
composed behavior (Berglund et al., 2015; Bakker et al. 2006).
Openness to experience is characterized by a tendency to have an active imagination, an
intellectual curiosity as well as the willingness to consider new ideas and try new things
(Costa and McCrae, 1992 as cited in Camps et al., 2016). In addition, openness to experience
is defined by originality, curiosity, and ingenuity. Openness to Experience refers to an

907
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

individual’s desire to be cultivated and to undergo new experiences. Individuals who are more
open are usually creative, imaginative, curious, impulsive, and insightful. Individuals who are
less open tend to be narrow-minded (Berglund et al., 2015)
Personality traits have a strong impact on decision-making styles. There are many studies
about personality traits and decision-making styles with different sample groups. Our sample
group in this study was university students. So, in the literature, we found same sample group
and same variables.
2. Literature Review
Riaz and Batool (2012) studied about personality traits and decision-making styles for
university students. They used General Decision-Making Style Questionnaire (GDMSQ)
developed by Scott and Bruce (1995) and Mini-Marker Personality Inventory (MMPI)
developed by McCrae and Costa (1990) scales. They found that Personality types contributed
15.4% to 28.1% variance in decision-making styles.
Rahaman (2014) studied the relationship personality traits and decision-making styles for
university students. He used Big Five Inventory (BFI) developed by John and Srivastava
(1999) and Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire (MDMQ) developed by Mann et al.
(1997).
Bajwa et al. (2016) used Big Five Inventory (BFI) developed by John and Srivastava
(1999) and Decision-making style inventory developed by Scott and Bruce (1995) in their
study. They found that conscientiousness personality trait leads to rational decision-making
style among students.
Narooi and Karazee (2015) had studied about personality traits, decision-making styles,
and attitude to life for university students. They used Big-Five Personality Traits
Questionnaire developed by McCray and Kotsa (1985) and Decision-Making Styles
Questionnaire consists of 23 items. They found significant relationships between personality
traits and decision-making styles.
Doe et al. (2017) investigated adaptive decision making styles among working and non-
working students. They used the Developmental Work Personality Scale and the General
Decision Making Style Questionnaire (GDMS).
Juanchich et al. (2016) had studied about Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), the Big Five
personality traits and decision-making styles. They used Decision Styles Questionnaire
developed by Leykin and DeRubeis (2010) and International Personality Item Pool Big-Five.
They found that CRT shared a limited variance with personality and decision-making styles.
Mehdi et al. (2014) examined the predictive relationship between personality traits and
Decision making towards advertising among consumers’ student in Malaysia. They used Big
Five Personality developed by Saucier (1994) and Five-Phase decision making Questionnaire

908
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

is revised by Khorvash, Khairudin and Omar (2009) in Malaysia. They found that the
decision making was correlated significantly and positively with conscientiousness and
emotional stability toward advertising.
Franken and Muris (2005) studied among decision-making styles, personality traits (i.e.
impulsivity and sensitivity to punishment and reward) and decision-making quality.
Adolescent Decision Making Questionnaire (ADMQ) proposed by Tuinstra, van Sonderen,
Groothoff, van den Heuvel, & Post (2000) and personality traits (BIS/BAS and impulsivity)
proposed by Carver & White, 1994; Gray (1987).
Deniz (2011) studied about attachment styles, decision self-esteem, decision-making styles
and personality traits among university students. He used Adjective Based Personality Scale
(ABPT) developed by Bacanlı et al. (2009) and The Melbourne Decision-Making
Questionnaire developed by Mann, Burnett, Radford, and Ford (1997). The results showed
that attachment styles are effective on decision self-esteem, decision-making styles, and
personality traits.
Di Fabio et al. (2015) investigated about career decision-making difficulties and the Big
Five personality factors among participants from three educational settings. They used the
Italian version of the BFQ (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Borgogni, 1993) and Career Decision-
Making Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ).
There are many types of research the role of various personality dimensions in decision-
making styles. As a result, personality traits have an important effect on the type of decision-
making styles. For this reason, this study is based on contribution to the theory development
in terms of the role of big five personality traits in decision making styles with Turkish
sample. In this study, we used Decision Making Style Scale developed by Scott and Bruce
(1995) and The Big Five Inventory (BIF) developed by John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991).
From this point, our study is different from above studies.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to (1) find empirical evidence for gender differences in
decision-making style and personality traits (2) to examine the relationship between
personality traits and decision-making styles and (3) to examine the effect of personality traits
on decision-making styles.
3.2 Measures
In this study we used two scales; the first one was the Decision-Making Style Scale
(DMS). This scale developed by Scott and Bruce (1995). It measures five different DMSs:
rational, intuitive, dependent, avoidant and spontaneous. The Turkish version and validation
of the DMS were performed by Taşdelen (2002). This scale had 24 items. Dependent DMS

909
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

subscale has got 4 items and the other subscales have got 5 items. All of the items are rated on
a 5-point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The second one was The Big Five Inventory (BFI). The Big Five Inventory (BIF) was
developed by John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991). Turkish validity and reliability studies were
performed by Sumer (2005) and Alkan (2007). In this study, we used Alkan (2007)'s study.
This Inventory is a self-report inventory designed to measure the Big Five dimensions. It is
quite brief for a multidimensional personality inventory and consists of short phrases with
relatively accessible vocabulary. Five personality traits measured were Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience. High scores
indicate that the personality dimension that is owned is high. There are 44 items on the scale
and 16 items are reversed. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale.
3.3 Data and Analysis
The study group consists of 312 participants who are students of the public university. Our
study was based on voluntary participation.
Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS version 18.0. We used reliability analysis,
student t-test, correlations and regression analysis for data analysis.
4. Results and Discussion
Our study group consisted of 312 public university students. It was based on voluntary
participation.
Table 1: Distribution of socio-demographic characteristics
Variables N %
Gender
Female 177 57
Male 135 43
Total 312 100
Responsible for the events that happen to them
I am 238 76
The others 74 24
Total 312 100

57% of participants in our study group were females and 43% percent were males. Their
ages were between 18-24 with a mean age of 21.09±1.79 (mean±SD) years. 76% of
participations said that they are responsible for the events that happen to them.

910
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1
Table 2: Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and C. Alpha values
Scales Dimensions Item Mean S. Deviation C. Alpha
Rational 5 19.78 4.03 0.86

Decision-Making
Intuitive 5 19.07 3.72 0.78

Styles
Dependent 4 14.02 3.46 0.82
Avoidant 5 12.06 4.51 0.83
Spontaneous 5 14.04 4.33 0.80
Extraversion 8 26.85 5.69 0.78
Personality Traits

Agreeableness 9 33.22 5.40 0.66

Conscientiousness 9 31.73 6.23 0.77
Neuroticism 8 25.48 5.71 0.75
Openness 10 35.82 6.22 0.76

Means, standard deviations, and C. Alpha values are reported in Table 2. Internal
consistency coefficients were at or above.70, with the exception of Personality Traits –
Agreeableness, which fell slightly short at .66. C. Alpha coefficients of all these scales were
between 0.66-0.86. Therefore we accepted them reliable and used in statistical analyses.
Table 3: Correlations between decision-making styles and personality traits

Agreeableness

Conscientious
Spontaneous

Extraversion

Neuroticism
Dependent

Avoidant
Intuitive
Rational

ness
Intuitive .347**
Dependent .291** .191**
Avoidant -.371** -.236** .095
**
Spontaneous -.321 .023 .013 .393**
Extraversion .169** .130* -.060 -.210** .014
** ** **
Agreeableness .171 .153 .199 -.101 -.137* .033
Conscientiousness .355** .112* .026 -.382** -.272** .336** .304**
Neuroticism -.073 .100 .239** .077 .137* -.193** .044 -.160**
Openness .324** .131* .012 -.217** -.050 .430** .185** .385** -.002
*
p < 0.05;**p < 0.01
The Pearson correlation coefficients in Table 3 show the statistical relationships between
decision-making styles and personality traits. There is the highest positive correlation
between Spontaneous and Avoidant (r=0.39; p<0.01) within decision-making styles. There is
the highest positive correlation between Extraversion and Openness (r=0.43; p<0.01) within
personality traits.
The Rational style and Intuitive style were significantly associated with four of personality
traits, except Neuroticism. The Dependent style had a positive relation with Agreeableness

911
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

and Neuroticism. The Avoidant style was a negative relation with Extraversion,
Conscientiousness, and Openness. The Spontaneous style had a negative relation with
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, positive relation with and Neuroticism. There is the
highest negative correlation between Avoidant and Conscientiousness (r=-0.38; p<0.01).
There is the lowest correlation between Intuitive and Conscientiousness (r=0.11; p<0.05).
Table 4: t-test for Gender
Sex
Variables Female Male t p
(N=177) (N=135)
Rational 4.01±.72 3.88±.91 1.436 .152
Intuitive 3.95±.69 3.64±.77 3.704 .000**
Dependent 3.57±.86 3.42±.87 1.574 .116
Avoidant 2.35±.86 2.50±.95 -1.453 .147
Spontaneous 2.78±.82 2.84±.92 -.616 .539
Extraversion 3.33±.72 3.38±.70 -.644 .520
Agreeableness 3.84±.55 3.50±.62 5.059 .000**
Conscientiousness 3.57±.66 3.46±.73 1.438 .152
Neuroticism 3.31±.70 3.03±.70 3.460 .001**
Openness 3.54±.62 3.64±.63 -1.514 .131
*
p < 0.05;**p < 0.01
Results of gender differences in different decision-making styles and personality traits are
shown in Table 4. There were meaningful differences in one out of five decision-making style
characteristics and two personality traits. The females (M=3.95) showed more Intuitive
decision making capability than males (M=3.64). The p-value showed a significant difference
between both genders on intuitive decision-making style (Table 2). Also, the female had
significantly higher scores on Agreeableness and Neuroticism personality traits as compared
to men.
Multiple regression analyses were applied to examine the effect of personality traits on
decision-making styles. Table 5 shows the regression results for personality traits on decision
making styles decision making styles.
Table 5: Regression analysis predicting decision-making styles
Dependent Variables
Independent
Standardized Coefficients
Variables
Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous
Extraversion -.022 .119 -.020 -.069 .127*
Agreeableness .055 .124* .187** .015 -.063
Conscientiousness .252** .038 .021 -.339** -.282**
Neuroticism -.039 .124* .230** .009 .120*

912
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1
Openness .226** .042 -.022 -.059 .016
F 12.64 3.67 6.34 11.33 7.01
2 ** ** ** **
R 0.16 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.10**
*
p < 0.05;**p < 0.01
The F-statistics indicates the overall significance of the models at the 0.01 level. R2 values
show that five personality traits explained 26% of the change of rational decision-making
style, 6% of the change of intuitive decision-making style, 9% of the change of dependent
decision-making style, 16% of the change of avoidant decision-making style and 10% of the
change of spontaneous decision-making style.
The results showed that extraversion personality had a positive effect on spontaneous (β =
0.13) decision-making style. Agreeableness personality had a positive effect on intuitive (β
=0.12) and dependent (β = 0.19) decision making style. Conscientiousness personality had a
positive effect on rational (β = 0.25), negative effect on avoidant (β = -0.34) and spontaneous
(β = -0.28) decision making style. Neurotic personality had a positive effect on intuitive (β =
0.12), dependent (β = 0.23) and spontaneous (β = 0.12) decision making style. Openness
personality had a positive effect on rational (β = 0.13) decision-making style.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to find empirical evidence for gender differences of
decision-making style and personality traits; to examine the relationship between personality
traits and decision-making styles, and to examine the effect of personality traits on decision-
making styles. The present findings supported the idea that leads to the effect of personality
traits on decision-making styles.
We found that females showed more intuitive decision making capability than males. This
result correlated with research of Bajwa et al. (2016). By the way, we found that females are
more agreeable (Budaev, 1999; Costa et al. 2001; Schmitt et al. 2008; Weisberg et al. 2011)
and more neuroticism than men (Costa et al. 2001).
We found relationships between decision-making styles and personality traits. Narooi and
Karazee (2015), Wood (2012), Riaz et al. (2012) found that extraversion personality had a
positive relation with rational and intuitive decision-making style. We found same results the
present study. There was a negative relationship between the extraversion personality and
avoidant decision-making style. By the way, we found same results for openness to
experience personality. There were positive significant correlations between rational, intuitive
and dependent decision making with agreeableness personality, and negative significant
correlations between spontaneous decisions making with agreeableness personality. Wood
(2012) and Riaz et al. (2012) found same results, but Riaz et al. (2012) found except
spontaneous decision-making style. There was a positive relationship between the
conscientiousness and rational, intuitive decision-making styles, and negative relationship

913
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1

between the conscientiousness and avoidant, spontaneous (Ülgen et al. 2016; Wood, 2012;
Juanchich, 2016). We found that positive significant correlations between dependent and
spontaneous decision making with neuroticism personality. Ülgen et al. (2016) found same
results as we had. But, Wood (2012), Riaz et al. (2012) found a positive relationship between
dependent and neuroticism.
The results suggest that extraversion personality has a positive effect on dependent and
spontaneous decision-making style. Conscientiousness personality has a positive effect on
rational and intuitive decision-making style. Also, it has a negative effect on avoidant
decision-making style. Neurotic personality has a negative effect on rational decision-making
style and it has a positive effect on intuitive, avoidant and spontaneous decision-making style.
These results were in line with the results of Ülgen et al. (2016), Riaz et al. (2012), Bajwa et
al. (2016).
The findings also make a valuable contribution to between personality and decision
making styles of the university students in Turkey. On the other word, the present findings
indicated that personality plays an important role in decision-making style.
References
Allwood, C.M., & Salo, I., 2012, Decision-Making Styles and Stress. International Journal of Stress
Management. Vol. 19, No. 1, 34 – 47.
Avsec A., 2012, Do Emotionally Intelligent Individuals Use More Adaptive Decision-Making Styles?
Studia Psychologica, 54, 2012, 3. 209-220.
Bajwa R. S., Batool I., Asma M., Ali H., and Ajmal A., 2016, Personality Traits And Decision-Making
Styles Among University Students (Pakistan) Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 14(1): 38-41
Bakker, A.B.,Van Der Zee, K.I., Lewig, K.A. & Dollard, M.F., 2006, The Relationship Between The
Big Five Personality Factors And Burnout: A Study Among Volunteer Counselors, The Journal of
Social Psychology, 146 (1), 31-50.
Berglund, V., Seva, I.J., Strandh, M., 2015, Subjective Well-Being and Job Satisfaction among Self-
Employed and Regular Employees: Does Personality Matter Differently? Journal of Small Business &
Entrepreneurship, 28 (1), 55-73.
Budaev, S., 1999, Sex differences in the Big Five personality factors: testing an evolutionary
hypothesis. Pers. Individ. Dif. 26 (5), 801–813.
Bui TM Hong., 2017, Big Five Personality Traits and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from a National
Sample. Journal of General Management, Vol. 42(3) 21–30
Camps, J., Stouten, J., Euwema, M., 2016, The Relation Between Supervisors’ Big Five Personality
Traits And Employees’ Experiences Of Abusive Supervision. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 (112), 1-11.
Costa P. T., Jr., McCrae R. R., 1992, Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
Costa P. T., Jr., Terracciano A., McCrae R. R., 2001, Gender differences in personality traits across
cultures: robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 322–331
Denissen, J.J.A., Penke, L., 2008, Motivational Individual Reaction Norms Underlying The Five-
Factor Model Of Personality: First Step Towards A Theory-Based Conceptual Framework. J. Res.
Pers. 42 (5), 1285–1302.
Deniz E. M., 2011, An Investigation Of Decision Making Styles and The Five-Factor Personality Traits
With Respect To Attachment Styles. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice - 11(1). Winter • 105-
113

914
www.globalbizresearch.org
 International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision Sciences (IJRAOB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3197)
2017 Vol: 3 Issue: 1
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., Levin, N., & Gati, I., 2015, The Role of Personality In The Career
Decisionmaking Difficulties of Italian Young Adults. Journal of Career Assessment, 23, 281–293
Doe R., Castillo, M.S. and McKinney, A.B., 2017, Work Personality and Decision Making Styles
among Working and Non-Working Students. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 286-297.
Franken, I. & Muris, P., 2005, Individual Differences in Decision-Making. Personality and Individual
Differences, 39, 991-998.
Juanchich M., Dewberry C., Sirota M. And Narendran S., 2016, Cognitive Reflection Predicts Real-
Life Decision Outcomes, But Not Over And Above Personality and Decision-Making Styles. Journal
of Behavioral Decision Making, 29: 52–59
Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Et Al., 1999, The Big Five Personality Traits, General Mental
Ability, And Career Success Cross The Life Span. Personnel Psychology 52(3): 621–652.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr., 1991, The NEO Personality Inventory: Using The Five-Factor Model
In Counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69 (4), 367-372.
Mehdi K., Khiruddin R., Omar F., 2014, Personality Traits as Predictors Decision Making Towards
Advertising among Malaysian Consumers Student. European Scientific Journal. 23: 5-13
Narooi Z. S., Karazee F., 2015, Investigating the Relationship among Personality Traits, Decision-
Making Styles, and Attitude to Life (Zahedan Branch of Islamic Azad University as Case Study in
Iran) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 6 No 6 S6. 311-317
Rahaman, H. M. Saidur, 2014, Personality And Decision Making Styles Of University Students.
Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology. Vol.40, No.1. 138-144
Rehman R. R., Waheed A., 2012, Transformational Leadership Style As Predictor Of Decision Making
Styles: Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. Vol. 6 (2), 257-268
Riaz, M. N., Riaz, M. N., & Batool, N., 2012, Personality Types as Predictors of Decision-Making
Styles. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(2), 100-114.
Schmitt, D.P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., Allik, J., 2008, Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex
differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94 (1), 168–182.
Spicer D. P., Sadler-Smith E., 2005, An Examination Of The General Decision-Making Style
Questionnaire İn Two UK Samples, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 Iss 2 Pp. 137 – 149
Therasa, C. & Vijayabanu, C., 2015, The Impact of Big Five Personality Traits and Positive
Psychological Strengths Towards Job Satisfaction: A Review. Periodica Polytechnica Social and
Management Sciences, 23 (2), 142-150.
Ülgen, B., Sağlam, M., Tuğsal, T., 2016, Managers’ Personality Traits Over Management Styles and
Decision-Making Styles. International Journal of Commerce and Finance, Vol 2 No.1, pp.125-136
Wang, Ching-Hsing., 2014, Gender Differences in the Effects of Personality Traits on Voter Turnout.
Electoral Studies 34: 167-176.
Weisberg YJ1, Deyoung CG, Hirsh JB., 2011, Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten
Aspects of the Big Five. Front Psychol. Aug 1; 2:178.
Wood Nicole, 2012, Individual Differences in Decision-Making Styles as Predictors of Good Decision
Making. Master of Arts Thesis.

915
www.globalbizresearch.org

View publication stats