Running Head: DISTINGUISHING INFORMATION PROCESSING STYLES

Transcription

1 Rational and Experiential Processing 1 Running Head: DISTINGUISHING INFORMATION PROCESSING STYLES Distinguishing Between Rational and Experiential Information Processing Styles Monica Karsai Wittenberg University

2 Rational and Experiential Processing 2 Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine differences in rational and experiential thinking styles. Eight measures were used in conjunction with the Rational-Experiential Inventory to determine strengths and weaknesses of each style. The rational style correlated with academic measures, reasoning ability, self-control, and creativity. Also, the rational group scored significantly better than the experiential group on academic measures and reasoning skills and marginally significant on creativity. The experiential style was positively associated with social skills (emotional support and conflict management). All of the significant results confirmed the hypotheses, except for the prediction that the rational group would score worse on creativity than the experiential group. Finally, the variables that discriminated significantly between the rational and experiential groups were, in descending order, Cognitive Reflection, Grade Point Average, and ACT/SAT composite scores.

3 Rational and Experiential Processing 3 Distinguishing Between Rational and Experiential Information Processing Styles The way people make decisions depends upon a variety of factors, including how important the decision is, how much information they have about the situation, and how the decision affects their lives. Most importantly, decisions are shaped by the way humans think. Some people rely more on instincts while others rely on weighing options and consequences and thinking through each problem thoroughly and objectively. The way humans process information not only affects the way they view the world, but shapes personality as well. For example, preferring to think objectively and in a step-by-step manner may be associated with stronger interests and strengths in sciences. Furthermore, thinking intuitively may lead one to be more superstitious and more likely to believe in the unexplainable (Epstein, 2008). While there are multiple theories on different processing styles, Epstein s Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory focuses on what he calls rational and experiential processing styles (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Rational and experiential styles of thinking are quite different. While humans may utilize both styles, they are independent (Epstein & Pacini, 1999). The rational style is characterized by concrete rules, reasoning, and conscientiousness. Also, this process is slow, verbal, and nonemotional components (Epstein & Pacini, 1999). In contrast, experiential processing is characterized by intuitive, holistic thinking (big picture as opposed to the individual elements) that is fast, primitive, and is associated with interpersonal relationships, emotionality, and the ability to think abstractly. Additionally, the experiential system is closely related to creativity and humor, whereas the rational system is superior in planning and considering long-term consequences (Epstein, 2008). The rational process develops through actively seeking knowledge, especially through formalized education, whereas the experiential process develops through life experiences. (Epstein, 1994).

4 Rational and Experiential Processing 4 These two systems have distinct evolutionary histories. The experiential system evolved first and is used for adaptations by animals other than humans. However, it is stronger for humans due to the development of the cerebral cortex (Epstein & Pacini, 1999). This system also has ties to Freudian theory. Freud discussed two types of processes, primary and secondary. The former (comparable to the experiential system) is unconscious, unrefined, and free of rules while the latter is conscious, logical, involves realistic reasoning, and delays gratification (Epstein, 1994). The primary process continuously attempts to override the secondary process and therefore, attempts to suppress rationality. Freud believed that this could be prevented by making unconscious desires conscious and apparent via psychoanalysis. While the secondary process evolved out of the primary process, it is necessary for adaptation and survival because humans cannot survive by relying on the primary process alone (Epstein, 1994). Reasoning by analogy, Epstein argues that this why it is necessary for humans to have both the rational and experiential processing styles; they cannot operate on a daily basis with only one style. Having both systems allows humans to generate their own theory of reality (Epstein, 1994) and in turn, to be able to function and make sense of daily occurrences. Because the rational system can consciously trace steps to a conclusion, it seems reasonable that it is somehow more adaptive than experiential processing. However, there are several instances that demonstrate situations where the experiential is favored over the rational, even if the conclusion is irrational. In particular, many people share an irrational fear of flying, but feel completely comfortable driving every day, even though statistics show that driving is more dangerous than flying (Epstein, 1994). Though people know that flying is safer, they have a stronger, irrational, fear of this activity. Also, believing in superstitions proves that though there is no rational evidence for the phenomena, humans still choose to believe in them. As cited in

5 Rational and Experiential Processing 5 Epstein (1994), Gallup indicated that one in four adults believe in ghosts, one in six have communicated with the deceased, and one in seven believe they have seen a UFO. Another phenomenon detached from rationality is religion (Epstein, 1994). If humans operated on rationality alone, religion would not exist; other factors are associated with the belief in religion. To understand and appreciate religion, the experiential system is necessary. While these examples reveal how rationality and experientiality exist without being in direct competition with one another, Denes-Raj and Epstein s study demonstrated how humans can choose an irrational conclusion while knowing the rational conclusion. Denes-Raj and Epstein (1994) conducted an experiment to determine factors that would cause participants to go against their rational judgment. In the experiment, participants had to decide to draw from one of two bowls to attain a red jelly bean that is among white jelly beans. The first bowl contained 1 red jelly bean in a bowl of 10 total beans (10%). The second bowl contained 5 to 9 red jelly beans in a bowl of 100 total beans (5%-9%). Participants chose the larger bowl instead of the small bowl from which to draw because they ignored the ratio of red beans to white beans and instead focused on the absolute number of red beans, even though the probability was lower when the absolute number was larger (Denes-Raj & Epstein, 1994). Participants claimed that they knew the probability was lower but felt that choosing the larger bowl was associated with a larger probability of obtaining a red jelly bean (Denes-Raj & Epstein, 1994). This is an example of the circumstances under which participants will favor an irrational judgment over a rational judgment. That is, they ignored reason and relied instead on their emotions, or their experiential style of thinking. In another example, participants were presented with vignettes and asked (1) how they would behave in each given situation, (2) how they thought others would behave, and (3) how a

6 Rational and Experiential Processing 6 logical person would behave in a given situation (Epstein & Pacini, 1999). Participants indicated that they knew the logical behavior; however, they believed that they themselves and others would not act accordingly. Instead, they would act according to the experiential system rather than the rational system. Similar to the jelly bean experiment, participants predict that they will behave irrationally even when they are fully aware of the rational route. To assess an individual s information processing preference, Epstein developed the Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI). The earlier version of this measure included the Need for Cognition (NFC) and Faith in Intuition (FI) subscales (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Then, a newer version was created which included the subscales Rational Ability (possessing the ability to think rationally), Rational Engagement (preferring to think in a rational manner), Experiential Ability (the ability to interpret and use one s emotions and intuitions), and Experiential Engagement (preferring to rely on emotions and intuitions for decision making) (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Correlates of rational and experiential thinking include scales from the Big Five (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Specifically, rational thinking correlated positively with openness and conscientiousness, and experiential thinking correlated positively with neuroticism, agreeableness, and extraversion. Also, rationalism correlated with Ego Strength, responsible behavior, delaying gratification, and self-control. Correlates of experientialism include emotional expressivity, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). The old version of the REI indicated that men prefer rational processing while women prefer the experiential style (Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heier, 1996). Moreover, when other measures were used in relation to the old version, Need for Cognition was associated with adjustment, self-esteem, dominance, SAT scores, and GPA. Faith in Intuition was associated with self-esteem and dominance as well. In interpersonal relationships, Faith in Intuition was

7 Rational and Experiential Processing 7 related to a relationship security and Need for Cognition was associated with using rational tactics in dealing with relationship conflict (Epstein et al., 1996). This study assessed cognitive tasks and personality variables hypothesized to discriminate between rational and experiential styles of thinking. Specifically, this study compared rational and experiential thinkers using the newer version of the REI on the following variables: academic skills, reasoning skills, planning skills, social skills, and creativity. Hypothesis 1: Rational thinkers will report higher levels of academic achievement than experiential thinkers as indexed by GPA and ACT/SAT scores. Furthermore, they will also score higher on cognitive reflection, planning tasks, and self-control. Hypothesis 2: Experiential thinkers will have higher scores than rational thinkers on measures of social skills (specifically, conflict management and emotional support) and creativity. Method Participants Participants were 75 Wittenberg University students, 46 females (61.3%) and 29 males (38.7%). Seventy-one participants were Caucasian (94.7%) and 4 were African American (5.3%), 8 were freshmen (10.7%), 24 were sophomores (32.0%), 23 were juniors (30.7%), and 20 were seniors (26.6%). Students enrolled in introductory psychology courses received credit or extra credit for their participation, depending upon the professor s participation policy. Materials and Apparatus Nine measures were included in this study. A demographics sheet (Appendix 1) was constructed to collect information on the following subject variables: gender, race/ethnicity, major, class year, GPA, and standardized test scores. The second measure was the Rational- Experiential Inventory (REI: Pacini & Epstein, 1999), which consists of 40 statements;

8 Rational and Experiential Processing 8 participants responded to each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (definitely not true of myself) to 5 (definitely true of myself). The REI includes four subscales: Rational Ability, Rational Engagement, Experiential Ability, and Experiential Engagement plus Rational and Experiential composites (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). Next, the Emotional Support and Conflict Management subscales of the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (Buhrmaster, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988) were utilized to assess social skills. There were 16 statements on which participants rated their abilities on a 5- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I m poor at this; I d feel so uncomfortable and unable to handle this situation, I d avoid it if possible) to 5 (I m extremely good at this; I d feel very comfortable and could handle this situation very well). Statements referred to a variety of social situations, such as listening skills, giving advice, and conflict management. To assess self-control, 20 items were taken from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al., 2006). Participants were instructed to rate how well each item described them using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Higher scores reflected higher self-control. The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) has three, open-ended questions that test mathematical and reasoning skills. The items are designed to have an intuitively obvious yet incorrect answer (Frederick, 2005). Determining the correct answer requires some reflection. Total scores are the number of items answered correctly. To assess creativity, participants were given a Cartoon Task from Sternberg s Rainbow Project (2006). This measure is composed of five pictures. Participants write captions for any three of them. These captions were scored on four subscales- Originality, Cleverness, Humor, and Appropriateness. Each subscale was scored on a 5-point scale; higher scores reflect greater

9 Rational and Experiential Processing 9 creativity (Sternberg, 2006). A second measure of creative ability was administered: The Symbols Test from the Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen, 1976). This was a timed task on which each participant was given five words and instructed to create up to five symbols representing that word (i.e. for the word food, one could draw a fork and spoon). Participants had five minutes to complete this task. A total score (out of 25) was recorded. Two reasoning tasks were included: (1) The Map Planning Test from the Kit of Factor- Referenced Cognitive Tests (Ekstrom et al., 1976), consists of a grid on which participants had to start at one point and end at another. However, there are blocked paths, making the connections challenging. Each correct path involves passing the side of one numbered building, which participants recorded. There were a total of 10 trials for each of two grids (20 for the entire task). The time limit was 3 minutes. (2) Nonsense Syllogisms Test (Ekstrom et al., 1976). This 4- minute task involves 15 items each including two statements and a conclusion. The task is to determine if the conclusion was good or poor reasoning. Correct responses were summed to compute a final score (out of 15 points). Procedure Participants were tested in small groups. After signing a consent form, folders were distributed to participants containing all materials to be completed. Two different orders of materials were used. The first order was: Symbols Test, Map Planning Test, Nonsense Syllogisms Test, Cartoon Task, CRT, Self-Perception Scale (a rating of self-control), Interpersonal Situations Scale (containing the Emotional Support and Conflict management subscales), REI, and then the Demographics Sheet. The second order was as follows: Demographics Sheet, Self-Perception Scale, Interpersonal Situations Scale, REI, Symbols Test,

10 Rational and Experiential Processing 10 Map Planning Test, Nonsense Syllogisms Test, Cartoon Task, and then the CRT. Students were instructed when to pause between materials because some were timed while other questionnaires were not. When the participants were finished, they were told to contact the experimenter if they had any questions or wanted more information about the study and the results. The total duration for each session was approximately 40 minutes. Results Reliabilities Cronbach s alpha was used to estimate the internal consistency reliabilities of the scales. Most of the reliabilities were greater than.70, except for the Nonsense Syllogisms Test, Symbols Test, CRT, and the four subscales of the Cartoons Task. All of the reliability estimates are displayed in Table 1, which also includes descriptive statistics by gender. Order Effects Independent sample t-tests were used to assess order effects (see Table 2). Significant order effects were found on several measures. Scores were higher for participants who completed the questionnaires before the tasks for the SPS. Also, for the Emotional Support subscale of the ISS, scores were higher for those participants who completed the questionnaires first. Order effects were also detected for the Cartoons task; participants scored higher when they completed the questionnaires before the tasks. Three of the four subscales also showed order effects. Participants scored higher when they completed the questionnaires first than the tasks first for the Cleverness subscale. Moreover, participants scored higher on the Humor subscale when they completed the questionnaires before the tasks. Lastly, participants scored higher on the Appropriateness subscale when they completed the questionnaires first instead of completing the tasks first. No order effects were found for Originality.

11 Rational and Experiential Processing 11 Gender Differences Independent sample t-tests revealed significant gender differences on four measures (see Table 1). On the Rational composite, both of the Rational subscales (Engagement and Ability), and the CRT, men scored higher than women. Correlational Analyses The correlational analyses provided partial support for Hypothesis 1 (see Table 3). As predicted, scores on the REI Rational composite correlated significantly (p <.05) and positively with GPA, SAT, and ACT, as well as with CRT and Self-control scores. However, Rational scores also correlated positively with scores on the Conflict Management subscale of the ISS, and with the Cartoon Task subscales. Specifically, Rational scores were positively related to Originality, Cleverness, Humor, and Appropriateness. Patterns of correlations of the REI subscales, Rational Engagement and Rational Ability, were similar to those reported for the Rational composite. Both subscales correlated positively with both SAT and ACT scores. They were also positively related with CRT scores and Conflict Management. However, only Ability correlated with Self-Control scores. Scores on the Cartoon task were also associated with each subscale. Specifically, they were positively related to Originality, Cleverness, and Humor. However, Appropriateness was correlated only with the Engagement subscale. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the Experiential composite correlated positively with both the Conflict Management and Emotional Support subscales of the ISS and negatively with GPA and Nonsense Syllogism scores. Similarly, the Experiential Engagement subscale was negatively related to GPA, and Experiential Ability and CRT scores were negatively correlated. Experiential Ability correlated positively with Emotional Support. However, Engagement

12 Rational and Experiential Processing 12 correlated with both Emotional Support and Conflict Management. Ability, but not Engagement, was negatively related to Nonsense Syllogism scores as well. Engagement correlated with the Appropriateness subscale of the Cartoons task, but there were no other significant correlations for this scale. Finally, correlations involving measures other than the REI are presented in Table 3. REI Group Analyses To increase the sensitivity of the analyses to individual differences in rational and experiential processing, median splits on the REI composite scales were used to create two subsets of participants: high experiential/low rational (N = 25) and high rational/low experiential (N = 21). These groups were then compared on all of the study s measures using independent samples t-tests. Participants who scored either high on both scales or low on both scales were excluded from analyses (N = 29). The rational group had significantly (p <.05) higher GPAs, reported higher ACT scores, and had higher CRT scores than the experiential group (see Table 4). A marginally significant difference (p <.10) was found for total scores on the Cartoon task, where rational participants scored higher than the experiential participants. Marginally significant differences were found as well for three of the four subscales on the Cartoon task. Specifically, the rational group scored higher than the experiential group on Originality, Cleverness, and Humor. There was no significant difference for Appropriateness. Table 5 reports the distribution of information processing styles by academic major, which were categorized as follows: Education, Humanities, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Undeclared. All major types had more experiential processors than rational except for

13 Rational and Experiential Processing 13 Natural Sciences, which had more rational processors than experiential (see Table 5). Because of the small number of non-social Sciences majors, statistical tests were not performed. Discriminant Function Analysis Finally, discriminant function analysis assessed the collective accuracy of the predictor variables at classifying members of the rational and experiential subgroups, and the contributions of individual predictors to the classification. The single discriminant function correctly classified 89.5% (17 of 19 participants) of the experiential group members, but was somewhat less accurate at identifying rational group members, 78.9%, (15 of 19 participants). Significant (p <.05) contributors to classification accuracy were made by (in descending magnitude) Cognitive Reflection Test scores, ACT scores, and Grade Point Average. For this collection of measures, this is consistent with the Cognitive Experiential Self-Theory where Pacini and Epstein (1999) concluded that reasoning ability and academic skills distinguished rational from experiential thinking styles. Discussion This study was designed to identify personality and ability variables that discriminate between rational and experiential information processing styles. It was hypothesized that rational processing would be closely linked to academic achievement, reasoning, planning, and self control. Additionally, experiential processing was hypothesized to be more associated with emotionality and creativity. These hypotheses were derived from Epstein and Pacini s characterization of the two types of thinking. In their research, rational processing correlated with (non)-neuroticism, conscientiousness, ego strength, and positive beliefs about the world. Experientiality was associated with positive relationship beliefs, extraversion, and emotional expressivity (Pacini & Epstein, 1999).

14 Rational and Experiential Processing 14 In the current study, rationality correlated positively with the academic measures of SAT/ACT scores and GPA, and with CRT scores, self-control, conflict management, and creativity. The correlations between SAT/ACT scores, GPA, and CRT scores confirm the hypotheses concerning rationality, and confirm Pacini and Epstein s work (1999). However, it was predicted that conflict management and creativity would be more strongly associated with experientiality. Perhaps since conflict management involves reasoning through problems, this is why it was correlated with rational processing as opposed to experiential processing. The independent samples t-tests confirmed these results. However, t-tests concerning REI groups and creativity were only marginally significant. Similar to the research of Pacini and Epstein (1999), experiential processing correlated positively with emotional support and conflict management, but correlated negatively with GPA and Nonsense Syllogisms (reasoning ability). This is consistent with the hypotheses of this study. Comparisons of the two groups on emotional support, conflict management, and Nonsense Syllogisms were not significant. This indicates that while experiential processing is correlated with these variables, experiential processors do not perform significantly higher on these than do rational processors. Map Planning and Symbols did not discriminate significantly between the two groups although Map Planning scores were higher for rational processing than experiential processing, which is consistent with the hypothesis. However, in contrast to the hypotheses, rational processors scored higher than experiential processors on the Symbols test, a creativity task. It was concluded that since rational processors scored higher than experiential processors on a majority of the measures, perhaps the rational-type is associated with better strategy in test taking, independent of the type of test. This may be due to rational thinkers reliance on

15 Rational and Experiential Processing 15 elemental views of situations as opposed to experiential thinkers more holistic approach (Epstein & Pacini, 1999). Therefore, it is possible that rational processors were more carefully examining each measure and each question in each measure, whereas experiential processors goal was simply to complete the experiment. Moreover, experientiality is associated with the use of heuristics. Perhaps the measures used in this study are performed more successfully without the use of heuristics (Epstein et al., 1996). Specifically, using heuristics on the CRT led to lower scores on this measure. Lastly, the measures seemed more related to formal education-type tasks than real-world experience, giving the rational type an advantage (Epstein, 1994). The discriminant function analysis revealed that three measures discriminated significantly between the two types of processing. These included the CRT, GPA, and standardized test scores. Interestingly, while many tasks and questionnaires were used in this study, the only measures that accurately grouped participants into the two types of processing included a three item task and two self-reported measures. The gender differences were comparable to those reported by Pacini and Epstein (1999). In particular, males scored significantly higher on the rational scales than did females. Also, females scored higher on the experiential scale than did males, except on experiential ability. This may be explained by the stereotype that females tend to be more emotionally-inclined than males. Due to the fact that this stereotype is well-known in society, females may feel the need to fulfill this expectation (Epstein et al., 1996). Furthermore, the connection to emotion may be associated with women following their intuitions rather than reason. Two orders of measures were used to detect order effects. Unfortunately, multiple order effects existed. Specifically, those who completed the questionnaires before the cognitive tasks scored higher than those who completed the tasks first on the following measures: Self-Control,

16 Rational and Experiential Processing 16 Emotional Support, and Cartoons. One possible cause of these effects is practice. Perhaps filling out questionnaires first allowed participants to adjust to the testing environment before completing the tasks and in effect enabled them to warm up their thinking skills. There were several limitations of this study. To gain a better understanding of differences between rational and experiential processors, a larger, more diverse sample of adults should be tested. Furthermore, non-students should have been included as well. Secondly, perhaps measures other than self-report should be used to assess academic achievement. While selfreports are usually quite accurate for academic facts, academic tasks could have confirmed achievement in case participants were inaccurate in their GPA and score estimates. Another improvement to this study would be to incorporate a more psychometricallysound creativity task. Scoring for the Cartoons task is very subjective. Additionally, the Cartoons task is a relatively new measure and has yet to be validated. Perhaps this measure would be a better creativity measure to use after it has been refined. In the meantime, another creativity measure should be utilized. While each processing style has its own strengths and weaknesses, one is not superior to the other. Awareness of the differences between rational and experiential processing is important to everyday interactions. It allows humans to explain the reasons behind an endless list of actions. Furthermore, it permits researchers to determine how people may react in many scenarios, whether the situation is academic, social, or involves creativity. Differences between rational and experiential processing styles is a relatively unresearched topic in psychology. Further research should be conducted to better understand these two styles. Possible areas of interest include: adjustment, aggression, relationship success, and stress management. Though many of the differences have yet to be examined, it is evident that rational and experiential styles

17 Rational and Experiential Processing 17 can determine many other personality characteristics. Only through establishing these differences will researchers better understand how humans make decisions and interact with one another.

18 Rational and Experiential Processing 18 References (2009). ACT-SAT Concordance. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from The ACT, Inc. Website: Buhrmaster, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factorreferenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Epstein, S. (2008). Intuition in judgment and decision making. New York: Taylor and Francis Group. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, Epstein, S. & Pacini, R. (1999). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitiveexperiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19,

19 Rational and Experiential Processing 19 Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of publicdomain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The rainbow project: Enhancing the SAT through assessments of analytical, practical, and creative skills. Intelligence, 34,

20 Rational and Experiential Processing 20 Appendix 1 Demographic Information 1. Gender (please circle): Male Female 2. Race/Ethnicity (please circle): White (Non-Hispanic) Black (Non-Hispanic) American Indian or Alaska Native Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic 3. Major: 4. Class Year: 5. Cumulative GPA: 6. Indicate your scores on the following standardized tests (if applicable): Please breakdown each test score by section if possible (verbal, quantitative, etc.) a. SAT score : b. ACT score: c. GRE (general) score:

21 Rational and Experiential Processing 21 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Measures Mean SD Subscale Male Female Male Female t α GPA SAT Verbal Quantitative ACT Score REI Rational ** 0.89 Engagement ** 0.84 Ability ** 0.82 Experiential Engagement Ability Cognitive Reflection * 0.60 Self-Control Interpersonal Situations Emotional Support Conflict Management Symbols Map Planning Nonsense Syllogisms Cartoon Originality Cleverness Humor Appropriateness *. Significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). **. Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

22 Rational and Experiential Processing 22 Table 2 Order Effects for (A) Tasks First and (B) Questionnaires First Mean SD Subscale A B A B t GPA SAT Verbal Quantitative ACT Score REI Rational Engagement Ability Experiential Engagement Ability Cognitive Reflection Self-Control ** Interpersonal Situations Emotional Support * Conflict Management Symbols Map Planning Nonsense Syllogisms Cartoon ** Originality Cleverness ** Humor * Appropriateness ** *. Significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). **. Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

23 Rational and Experiential Processing 23 Table 3 Correlation Matrix for All Measures Used Variable GPA 2. SAT.42** 3. Verbal.50.69* 4. Quantitative ** ACT Score.45**.95** REI 6. Rational.23*.33** ** 7. Engagement.22.29* *.90** 8. Ability.19.28* **.90**.62** 9. Experiential -.35** Engagement -.26* ** 11. Ability -.41** **.68** 12. Cognitive Reflect..29*.50** **.36**.38**.26* * 13. Self-Control *.20.29* Interpersonal Sit. 14. Emotion. Spprt **.32**.28* ** 15. Confl. Mngmnt **.38**.27*.26*.27* **.42** 16. Symbols Map Planning.04.39** ** * Nonsense Syll..24*.34** ** * **.48** * 19. Cartoon **.46**.30** * 20. Originality **.36**.26* * Cleverness **.46**.32** * 22. Humor **.50**.29* Appropriate *.28* * *. Correlation significant at the.05 level (two-tailed). **. Correlation significant at the.01 level (two-tailed).

24 Rational and Experiential Processing 24 Table 3 Correlation Matrix for All Measures Used Variable Symbols Map Planning Nonsense Syllogisms Cartoon Originality ** 21. Cleverness **.82** 22. Humor **.73**.85** 23. Appropriateness * **.49**.71**.59** *. Correlation significant at the.05 level (two-tailed). **. Correlation significant at the.01 level (two-tailed)

25 Rational and Experiential Processing 25 Table 4 REI Group Analyses Mean SD Subscale Ration. Exper. Ration. Exper. t GPA ** SAT Verbal Quantitative ACT Score * REI Rational ** Engagement ** Ability ** Experiential ** Engagement ** Ability ** Cognitive Reflection ** Self-Control Interpersonal Situations Emotional Support Conflict Management Symbols Map Planning Nonsense Syllogisms Cartoon Originality Cleverness Humor Appropriateness *. Significant at the 0.05 level. **. Significant at the 0.01 level.

26 Rational and Experiential Processing 26 Table 5 Crosstabs of Processing-Type by Major-Type Major Type Rational Experiential Education 1 2 Humanities 3 5 Natural Sciences 5 1 Social Sciences Undeclared 1 3 Total 21 25