3.8 Article

Personality, Cognitive Style, Motivation, and Aptitude Predict Systematic Trends in Analytic Forecasting Behavior

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1555343414554702

Keywords

individual differences; analysts; forecasting; personality; cognitive style

Funding

  1. Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency (IARPA) via Department of Interior National Business Center (DoI/NBC) [D11PC20058]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The decision sciences are increasingly challenged to advance methods for modeling analysts, accounting for both analytic strengths and weaknesses, to improve inferences taken from increasingly large and complex sources of data. We examine whether psychometric measures-personality, cognitive style, motivated cognition-predict analytic performance and whether psychometric measures are competitive with aptitude measures (i.e., SAT scores) as analyst sample selection criteria. A heterogeneous, national sample of 927 participants completed an extensive battery of psychometric measures and aptitude tests and was asked 129 geopolitical forecasting questions over the course of 1 year. Factor analysis reveals four dimensions among psychometric measures; dimensions characterized by differently motivated top-down cognitive styles predicted distinctive patterns in aptitude and forecasting behavior. These dimensions were not better predictors of forecasting accuracy than aptitude measures. However, multiple regression and mediation analysis reveals that these dimensions influenced forecasting accuracy primarily through bias in forecasting confidence. We also found that these facets were competitive with aptitude tests as forecast sampling criteria designed to mitigate biases in forecasting confidence while maximizing accuracy. These findings inform the understanding of individual difference dimensions at the intersection of analytic aptitude and demonstrate that they wield predictive power in applied, analytic domains.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available