Not all great minds think alike: Systematic and intuitive cognitive styles

Lilach Sagiv*, Adi Amit, Danit Ein-Gar, Sharon Arieli

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

23 Scopus citations


Individuals process information and make decisions in different ways.Some plan carefully and analyze information systematically, whereas others follow their instincts and do what "feels right."We aimed to deepen our understanding of the meaning of the intuitive versus systematic cognitive styles. Study 1 (N = 130, 39% female, Mage = 24) compared cognitive styles of arts, accounting, and mathematics students. Cognitive styles were associated with values (Study 2: N = 154, 123, 78; female = 59%, 49%, 85.9%;Mage = 22, 23, 27) and traits (Study 3:N = 77, 140, 151; female = 59%, 66%, 46%;Mage = 22, 25, 23), and they interacted with experience in predicting performance (Study 4: N = 63, 48% female, Mage = 23; Study 5: N = 44, 39% female, Mage = 23). All participants were Caucasian Israeli students.The systematic style was most frequent among accountants, and the intuitive style was most frequent among artists, validating the meaning of the styles. Systematic style was positively correlated with Conscientiousness and with security values and negatively correlated with stimulation values. The intuitive style had the opposite pattern and was also positively correlated with Extraversion. Experience improved rule-based performance among systematic individuals but had no effect on intuitive ones. Cognitive style is consistent with other personal attributes (traits and values), with implications for decision making and task performance.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)402-417
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Personality
Issue number5
StatePublished - 2014

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Dive into the research topics of 'Not all great minds think alike: Systematic and intuitive cognitive styles'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this