Decision-making is a complex process that is largely studied from an experimental perspective or in specific organizational contexts. As such, no generalizable framework exists with which to study decision-making from an individual differences perspective for predictive/selection purposes. By generalising a context-specific decision model proposed by Koriat and Goldsmith (1996), the focus of this research was to therefore test a novel framework for studying individual differences in decision-making tendencies. Utilising this framework within a fictitious Medical Decision-Making Test (MDMT) yielded five novel variables that provided unique insight into individuals' decision tendencies: Optimal, Realistic, Incompetent, Hesitant and Congruent. Metacognitive confidence and its calibration (bias and CAQ) were used as predictor variables to validate this framework. One hundred ninety-three undergraduate students completed the MDMT and three cognitive ability tests with confidence ratings, a personality questionnaire, and the Need for Closure questionnaire. All decision tendency variables demonstrated excellent internal consistency and were predicted by the metacognitive variables incrementally to the remaining variables as hypothesized. Additionally, the metacognitive indices were found to generalize across the decision-making and cognitive tests. The results imply that this novel framework and MDMT reliably capture individuals' decision behaviour that shares a meaningful relationship with their general confidence and calibration.