Summary of Findings: Intuition (3.5 out of 5 Stars)

Note: This post represents the synthesis of the thoughts, procedures and experiences of others as represented in the articles read in advance (see previous posts) and the discussion among the students and instructor during the Advanced Analytic Techniques class at Mercyhurst University, in September 2018 regarding Intuition as an Analytic Method, specifically. This technique was evaluated based on its overall validity, simplicity, flexibility and its ability to effectively use unstructured data.

Description:

You don’t really know, but you know. Burke & Miller (1999:92) define intuition as "a cognitive conclusion based on a decision maker’s previous experiences and emotional inputs.” We can use intuition to make decisions or come to conclusions without using calculated logic or conscious reasoning. While there is no prescription for achieving expert intuition, a wide breadth of knowledge spanning multiple disciplines can help individuals calibrate their skills.

Strengths:

·       Autonomic/Fast

·       Accurate in domains that are well understood by the “intuitor”

·       Can be improved through deliberate practice

Weaknesses:

·       Difficult to capture the process

·       Underlying assumption that relevant experience is necessary

·       Prone to confirmation biases

·       Skewed by “hindsight” logic and rationalization

How-To:

1.     Spend time reading on a topic of interest

2.     Spend time thinking about the topic of interest

3.     Spend time writing out your thoughts on topic of interest

Application of Technique:

Students were presented with a intuition quiz by Buzzfeed (link below). Students were given roughly 10 seconds to answer each question and the class moved through each question collectively. After completing the first question, students were asked to share whether they got the answer right or wrong and asked to justify their choice. Following the discussion on answers, the class moved to the second question, etc. Topics brought up in the discussions included the role experience, familiarity, guessing, emotions, and the effectiveness of these factors in choosing the right answer. The class discussion concluded that although the Buzzfeed quiz is not the best test of intuition, it still introduced the concept of using intuition and the factors to consider. Future applications of intuition that the class suggested are calibration and Fermi estimate exercises.

For Further Information:

1.     Listen to Your Intuition

2.     Brain Games: Intuition

3.     Psychology Today: Hunches & Intuition

4.     Psychology Today: Gut Factor

5.     Wikipedia: Intuition

Trust your gut, listen to reason: How experienced coaches work with intuition in their practice

By Claire Sheldon
Summary and Critique by Jillian J

Sheldon conducted a study designed to "add detail to the map of how experienced coaches work with their intuition in their practice, and to the interplay between 'gut' and 'reason'; and to co-create a language, theory, or model to support and legitimize discussion about intuition in coaching." She used an abbreviated form of grounded theory method to survey four experienced executive coaches, how they talked about intuition, and how they worked at the boundary between intuitive and rational ways of knowing. Organizing her findings in this model,

she concludes that expertise and maturing as a coach have an impact on the quality of interaction at the intuitive/rational boundary, and dialogue extends understandings of intuition.  

Sheldon begins by outlining existing literature on intuition in coaching, highlighting that intuition is widely accepted as a non-conscious, holistic, rapid, and affectively charged way of processing and surfacing information and coming to conclusions. There is also agreement that intuition has a place in the dual processing models that differentiate between non-conscious and rational cognition. She then explains that intuition belongs to Type 1 of that model-- fast, preverbal, and automatic, which contrasts with type 2-- time intensive, rational, effortful and easily disrupted cognition. The quality of intuition decisions develops alongside levels of expertise and self-awareness, and can be impeded by metacognition, stress, and environmental constraints. Her literature review also finds that intuitive judgments have most value where there is a need to evaluate, process, and act quickly on vast amounts of disparate data.  

Sheldon's model explains how coaches interact with intuition for better or for worse. Coaches fall into the  "missing a chance" block when they dismiss the intuition, mute the intuition (not knowing how to articulate it) or are ill-prepared (caught off-guard by the opportunity to use intuition). This block resulted in losing ground with the client.

Sheldon found the uses of intuition that belonged in the bottom right block, "taking a risk" were the result of minimal preparation and little reflection. These instances of coaches voicing intuition came across as being presumptuous or showing off, and even just getting it wrong. She called these, "a hit and a miss". The relationship between coach and client might not have been developed enough for the coach to voice the intuition. Consequentially, the coaching confidence and confidence in the coach both suffered. 

The top left block, "holding back" examined a coaches mature choice not to share the intuition, identifying a need for more information, recognizing the intuition may not add anything constructive, and being cognizant of the need for care in the early days of coaching. In Sheldon's study, the coaches talked about having discretion in this block, deciding when it was best to "let it lie" and keep the intuition to themselves. 

The top right block, "allowing not-knowing" is a category wherein coaches identified their intuition, but perhaps didn't know what it meant at the given stage. They chose to "offer up" the intuition by sharing a hunch. This was a leading tactic that employed soft language to enter into dialogue with the client. It was a way to express the intuition to the client, but left enough space for the client to either identify with it or not. 

Sheldon concluded that identifying the intuition is a skill. Knowing what to do with it is another skill entirely. An experienced and mature coach needs to be able to do both. 

Critique:

I agree with Sheldon's conclusion about needing to identify the intuition as well as know what to do with it. Her model was useful in mapping the employment of intuition in coaching. I think the use of intuition is vastly different for decision-making, but it's interesting to study intuition from various levels because it helps us identify the nuances in application. As analysts, we have mentors and coaches. Understanding how intuition plays into that relationship is important because that relationship can influence how we make decisions. Sheldon shared the literature's conclusion that intuition is most useful in complex situations with disparate data and where the decisionmaker needed to act quickly. This study appeared to focus on the strategic withholding of intuition or the gentle proposition of an intuitive thought for the purpose of dialogue. I think those focus points, especially the latter point, work better in coaching than decision-making. If we accept the literature's position on when intuition is most useful, then we accept that there might not be time for a careful dialogue where we offer up a proposition with plenty of space. On the other hand, as an analyst on a team, asserting an intuition might be more successful when presented as a hunch, much like Sheldon's coaches did. That ties to the fundamental principle of being intellectually honest when giving estimates. I think Sheldon's article is an important study on how to use intuition in coaching and I believe we should consider her findings when translating intuition to other actions e.g. decision-making and team analysis. 

Meta-Analytic Investigations of the Relation Between Intuition and Analysis

Authors: Yi Wang (Bowling Green), Scott Highhouse (Bowling Green), Christopher J. Lake (University of Minnesota – Duluth), Nicole L. Petersen (Radford) and Thaddeus B. Rada (Bowling Green)

Journal: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Year: 2015

The authors used a meta-analytic study to determine the validity of two relationship models between intuition and analysis. The authors decided to conduct this study because they saw “a lack of consensus about the theoretical relation between the constructs (intuition and analysis).”

First, the authors defined the terms based on generally agreed upon characteristics as noted by the array of research on cognitive processing included in the study. The authors state intuition “refers to reliance on immediate, unconscious judgement based on feelings” and analysis “refers to reliance on deliberate, conscious judgement based on reasoning” citing studies from Allinson & Hayes (1996) and Epstein, Pacini, Danes-Raj, & Heier (1996).

The authors proceed by stating the two relationship models of intuition and analysis. The first model posits that intuition and analysis are opposite ends of the same cognitive spectrum, which are based on “theories of lateralization of brain function (Hines, 1987).” Furthermore, the authors cite Allinson and Hayes (1996), who provide a conceptualization of the lateralization of brain function, who state “intuition is a characteristic of right-brain function, and analysis is characteristic of left-brain function…”

The other model posits that intuition and analysis are independent and divergent modes of cognitive processing. The authors cite the cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST) framework of Epstein and co., as the primary example whereby “people process information in two parallel interacting systems, rational versus experiential, which operate by different principles.” CEST sees the rational mode as one that requires substantive focus and processing in comparison to the experiential which is automatic. Switching between the two requires effort. The authors also cite “System 1 and System 2” model of Stanovich and West (2000).  

The evidence for the study consisted of previous analyses using Rational-Experiential Inventories (REI) based on CEST, cognitive-style index (CSI) developed by Allinson and Hayes (1996), and General Decision-making Style Inventory (GDMS). REI studies showed that the correlation between rationality (analysis) and experientiality (intuition) was “small and non-significant” suggesting that REI support the CEST conclusion of independence of cognitive processes. Allinson and Hayes developed CSI to assess the validity of the continuum approach, ultimately suggesting the analysis supported the continuum or interdimensional conclusion. GDMS assumed that the processes were independent, but the conclusion of the analysis suggested the opposite.

The authors hypothesized that “a meta-analytic correlation that is significantly negative would provide some support for the bipolar (continuum) model, whereas a lack of relation between the constructs would favor an independence model.” The authors used 80 studies in their meta-analysis. 67 of the 80 studies consisted of the REI (specifically the REI-20), GDMS, and Assessment of Career Decision-making Scale (ACDM) scales. The authors used these scales moderators in their analyses

In the first study, the authors conducted moderator analyses on the three primary scales to determine whether the relationship between intuition and analysis varied between them. The study found that each scale was an important moderator in the correlation between rationality and intuition. A second piece of the first study included examining analysis and intuition as it relates to the Big Five personality traits. The meta-analysis indicated that analysis and intuition tended to relate to different traits, although both analysis and intuition were balanced with regards to the traits of agreeableness and neuroticism. The results of the first study indicated that there was “near-zero correlation between intuition and analysis” which supports the independence model. The authors recognized that since scales were important moderators, especially the ACDM scale, which resulted in a second study.

The second study intercorrelated intuition and analysis across scales. The authors also eliminated the ACDM scale from the second study because of its focus on “career domains.” The second study used data from four scales: REI-31, GMS, DMI, and PID. The scales were randomly combined to create 12 pairs of scale combinations. The authors recruited 511 subjects that were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 12 different scale pairings. The results of the study suggested that there “was no significant correlation between intuition and analysis across cognitive style subscales.” The authors conducted a hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to calculate the intercorrelation of intuition and analysis while also considering the validity measured by the different scales. According to the authors, a CFA should determine “ whether different scales of analysis and intuition provide equivalent reflection of the intended underlying constructs and (ii) whether there is still no correlation between analysis and intuition even after considering the measurement deficiency across different scales.” The authors found that the four scales included were not interchangeable. Additionally, they found that there is
“no meaningful correlation between intuition and analysis…at the construct level.”

The authors conclude that the studies conducted in the meta-analysis support the independence model of cognitive processing, i.e. that intuition and analysis are separate processes and do not exist on a single thinking continuum. The authors believe that results from the first study regarding the ACDM scale may be due to intuition and analysis have more relatedness in a career context. In the second study, the authors also found that intuition measured across scales consistently while analysis was inconsistent. The authors suggest the different scales may be measuring different underlying analysis constructs.

Disclaimer: Due to limited experience with statistical anaylsis, some of the previous summarization may be difficult to understand. My interpretation of the meta-analysis may use imprecise language or skip elements of the explained statistical analysis. This is because I found it difficult to convert the language into plain English.

Critique:

My critique may result from my lack of understanding of the scales used. If any critique is evident in the meta-analysis, it appears that the authors heavily relied on REI-20 scales for the first study, which could have skewed the study towards the independence model of cognitive processing. The REI-20 scale represents more than have of the representative sample in the moderator analysis of the first study. Based on their description, it appears they may have controlled for this in the second study by creating mixed scales. Again, I will restate that it appears to me that the meta-analysis does not have an equal sample of analyses to run against. The samples seem to skew in the favor of the independence model from the start. Having read some of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow, the independence model does make sense. Based on personal observation, I find myself consciously switching between modes of thinking often, especially when solving complex problems. Unless the authors failed to mention some of the conclusions favored by some of the other scales used, I think that the meta-analysis would benefit from the inclusion of more studies which resulted in the favoring of the continuum model for balance.

Link to Study: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Scott_Highhouse/publication/283052305_Wang_et_al-2015-Journal_of_Behavioral_Decision_Making/links/5627a5a908aee6327230d313/Wang-et-al-2015-Journal-of-Behavioral-Decision-Making.pdf