Decision Style Test (GDMS)

Every individual approaches choices in a unique way, whether choosing a career path, buying a house, or resolving an everyday dilemma. In 1995, organizational researchers Susanne G. Scott and Richard A. Bruce developed the General Decision-Making Style Inventory (GDMS) to categorize and measure the core psychological patterns people use when facing decisions. Rather than assuming people rely on a single, fixed strategy for every situation, Scott and Bruce recognized that decision-making style is a multidimensional construct. Individuals frequently employ a combination of distinct approaches depending on the context, their personal background, and their underlying cognitive preferences.

The GDMS identifies five primary dimensions of decision-making behavior. The first dimension is Careful Analysis, which reflects a rational and systematic approach. People who score high in this area gather extensive facts, weigh pros and cons, perform logical evaluations, and double-check their sources before committing to a course of action. The second dimension is Gut Decisions, representing an intuitive approach. Individuals with high scores in this area rely heavily on their internal feelings, physical instincts, and immediate impressions, trusting what feels right to them even when hard data is limited.

The third dimension is Advice Seeking, an approach centered on consulting other people before making important choices. Individuals who lean on this style actively look for guidance, support, and feedback from trusted peers, mentors, or family members. The fourth dimension is Decision Delay, characterized by postponement and procrastination. People high on this dimension frequently delay making choices until deadline pressure forces action or until circumstances dictate the outcome. Finally, the fifth dimension is Fast Decisions, marked by spontaneity and quick, on-the-spot choices without prolonged deliberation.

Research using the GDMS has demonstrated that these five decision-making styles significantly influence professional outcomes, problem-solving effectiveness, and interpersonal dynamics. For example, individuals who balance careful analytical processing with intuitive instincts often navigate complex or ambiguous work environments with greater flexibility. Conversely, an over-reliance on decision delay can lead to heightened stress, missed opportunities, and reduced satisfaction, while heavy reliance on advice seeking may reduce personal autonomy if not balanced with independent reflection. Understanding your primary and secondary styles can help you identify potential cognitive blind spots and improve how you make choices.

When reviewing your results on the accompanying chart, you will see population comparison markers displayed alongside your scores. Please note that these population comparison markers are estimates derived from published research samples and serve only as illustrative reference points, rather than validated percentiles or standardized norms for any specific demographic. These markers help provide contextual framing for where your response patterns fall relative to averages observed in published academic studies.

Please keep in mind that this test is intended solely for educational, self-reflection, and informational purposes. It does not constitute psychological, clinical, or career counseling, nor does it provide a formal psychiatric or diagnostic evaluation. This test is based on the General Decision-Making Style Inventory (GDMS), but it is independent and not affiliated with or endorsed by the original authors or their academic institutions. Taking the time to examine your decision-making preferences can offer valuable insight into how you handle life choices and solve daily problems.

References

• Scott, S. G. & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-Making Style: The Development and Assessment of a New Measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831.