Decision-making preferences for intuition, deliberation, friends or crowds in independent and interdependent societies
Journal
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
ISSN
1471-2954
Date Issued
2025
Author(s)
Grossmann, Igor
Rudnev, Maksim
Dorfman, Anna
Atari, Mohammad
Barr, Kelli
Bencherifa, Abdellatif
Buckwalter, Wesley
Clancy, Rockwell F.
Dahua, German Cuji
Dahua, Norberto Cuji
Deguchi, Yasuo
Fabiano, Emanuele
Guennoun, Badr
Halamová, Julia
Hashimoto, Takaaki
Homan, Joshua
Kanovský, Martin
Karasawa, Kaori
Kim, Hackjin
Kiper, Jordan
Lee, Minha
Liu, Xiaofei
Mitova, Veli
Nair, Rukmini
Pantovic, Ljiljana
Porter, Brian
Quintanilla, Pablo
Reijer, Josien
Romero, Pedro P.
Sato, Yuri
Singh, Purnima
Tber, Salma
Wilkenfeld, Daniel
Yi, Lixia
Stich, Stephen
Barrett, H. Clark
Machery, Edouard
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.1355
Abstract
When multiple ways of deciding are laid out side-by-side, which does one favour? We conducted experiments in 12 countries (n = 3517 individuals; 13 languages; two Indigenous communities), with adults choosing among four decision strategies—personal intuition, private deliberation, friends’ advice or crowd wisdom—when working through six everyday dilemmas. In every society, self-reliant decisions (intuition or deliberation) were most commonly preferred and considered the wisest. Expectations for fellow citizens, however, were mixed: advice from friends was expected about as often as self-reliant routes. The self-reliance tilt was strongest in cultures and individuals high in independent self-construal and need for cognition, and weakest where interdependence and self-transcendent reflection were salient. The same patterns emerged when examining ratings of each strategy’s utility and oral protocols with Indigenous groups. Self-reliance appears the modal preference across cultures, but its strength is predictably tempered when cultures, and individuals within them, construe the self in relational rather than autonomous terms.
