Cognitive and temperamental predictors of field dependence-independence

Hanna Bednarek*Jarosław Orzechowski**

Original Papers

Cognitive and temperamental predictors of field dependence-independence

The purpose of the study was to define structures of connections between the temperamental and cognitive factors as predictors of field dependence-independence. It was assumed that both the structure of temperament traits and cognitive mechanisms manifest themselves in tasks used for measuring cognitive styles. 108 participants (77 women, aged 21 +/- 2.6) took part in the experiment. Embedded Figure Test (EFT) was used as a measure of field dependence-independence; Formal of Characteristics of Behaviour Temperament Inventory /FCB-TI/ for temperament structure, and three computerized tasks as indicators of wide spectrum of attention and working memory functioning. Three hypothetical models in path analysis were verified. The best fit of the results obtained is provided by the model comprising two groups of factors: (1) two energetic temperamental factors: endurance and emotional reactivity, and (2) two cognitive factors: efficiency of selective attention (resistance to distraction) and efficiency of visual-spatial sketch pad. The data was discussed from temperamental, cognitive and developmental perspectives.

Keywords: temperament, styles of perception, cognitive & temperamental predictiors od FDI

Polish Psychological Bulletin 2008, vol. 39 (1), 54-65

DOI - 10.2478/v10059-008-0008-5

* Warsaw School of Social Psychology** Jagiellonian University

Introduction

Field dependence-independence (FDI) as one of the most often researched dimension of cognitive styles has been so far described in various contexts. The authors of the most prominent papers, i.e. Goldstein & Blackman (1978), Kogan (1994), Messick (2001), Nosal (1990), Sternberg & Grigorenko (2000), Witkin (1979, 1981), concentrating on the context of individual differences, define cognitive styles as individual-specific preference of the way of reacting, which confirms the way we perceive, think, solve problems, learn and refer to other individuals. Due to a wide scope of the notion of cognitive styles, a problem arises of locating them against intelligence and personality (Kogan, 1994; Sternberg, 1994; Witkin, 1978).

We have accepted the assumption of Nosal (1990) who locates cognitive styles exactly between cognition and temperament. Development and the later preference of one cognitive style over another, results from both temperamental and cognitive factors. The aim of research undertaken was to verify assumption of Nosal with reference to FDI concept of Herman Witkin (1967).

Witkin distinguished two cognitive styles: field dependent and field independent. He also used synony-

mously the notions of analytic – global style to define the extremes of the dimension of FDI. At the basis of the distinguished styles lies developmentally conditioned process of psychological differentiation, which involves both: differentiation of perceptive and intellectual skills and self-differentiation (Witkin, 1979). In this concept, preference of the comprehensive view of the data field, i.e. priority of the whole over components, denotes field dependence; differentiation, on the other hand, and concentrating on each component is a sign of field-independence (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971).

In the traditional view of cognitive styles, researchers try to explain the field dependence-independence using the phenomenological description of cognitive difficulties (Messick, 1976; Witkin, 1964, 1979; Witkin et al., 1971). The most often pointed out cognitive difficulties, connected with dependent style, involve slow differentiation (selection) of a figure from the background and lingering of an entire context in short-term memory. It is also related to a mental inertia associated with perseveration of a figure – pattern during figure differentiation from the background. It is assumed that people cognitively non-differentiated, select data, situated in a perceptive field, slower against already possessed cognitive schemata; they also change cognitive

54 - 10.2478/v10059-008-0008-5

Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/11/2016 08:24:36PMvia free access

Hanna Bednarek, Jarosław Orzechowski

structures slower from one pattern to another. Moreover, as referred by Huteau (1983), cognitive rigidity, characteristic for people who are field dependent, causes longer priority effect. Field-independent style, however, involves active-analytic way of perceiving data, i.e. easy differentiation of field fragments against the entire background; quick, concentrated scanning of the entire structure of the field against quickly-changing relations “figure-ground” and scanning of the criteria of field differentiation.

One of the most interesting trends in psychology of individual differences is a search of associations between formal behaviour characteristics, namely the temperament, and the formal level of information processing. Cognitive processes of a formal nature include also cognitive processes, the functioning of which to a large extent does not depend on the content processed. It is concerns the functioning of attention mechanisms or working memory (Hunt, 1994; Nęcka, 1994, 2000). For example, irrespective of the fact which content undergoes attention selection, its basic mechanism remains unchanged. On the other hand, formal behaviour parameters characterise activities performed by an individual irrespective of the level of their complexity. Individuals, acting in real life as well as performing e.g. cognitive tasks in a laboratory, not only engage processes of perception, attention, memory, but they also refer emotionally to the tasks they perform (Zimmer, 1985), engaging their resources connected with individual need for stimulation (Ciarkowska, 1992; Strelau, 1998). Researchers agree that subjective value of cognitive and emotional stimulation connected with the performed task is individually differentiated. The crucial factor determining it is temperamental and connected with this factor is the need for stimulation (Strelau, 1998). One can therefore assume that the efficiency connected with performing all cognitive tasks is connected with both functioning of basic cognitive processes (Hunt, 1994; Nęcka, 2000; Sternberg, 1994) and also temperamental traits (Klonowicz, 1992; Marszał-Wiśniewska, 1999; Szymura & Nęcka, 1998). Cognitive styles can be a link between these areas, as they are structures on the verge of personality and cognition (Nosal, 1990).

From the overview of the research on the topic it follows that the field dependence-independence may be perceived both as an autonomy in relation to data field, as well as elementary information and processing procedures. In the latter case it concerns, for example, cognitive control, rigidity (perseveration), reducing the scope of the processed data, attention span, the capacity of working memory, or the rate at which data processing takes place (Goldstein & Blackman, 1978; Nosal, 1990; Messick, 2001; Miyake & Shah, 1999; Miyake, Witzki, & Emerson, 2001; Tinaiero & Paramo, 1998). One can therefore assume that the basis for development and then FDI preference, on one hand, are (not very well researched in the context of the preferred

cognitive styles) elementary cognitive processes, connected mainly with the functioning of attention and memory (Hunt, 1994; Nosal, 1990; Messick, 2001; Miyake et al., 2001). It is these cognitive processes that are formal in nature (Hunt, 1994; Nęcka, 1994). On the other hand, taking into account the view that cognitive styles are connections between cognition and personality, their development and preferences are associated with individual ability to process stimulation, i.e. with temperament (Nosal, 1990; Bednarek, Wytykowska & Orzechowski, 2005).

In the view of cognitive psychology, cognitive style manifests itself already at the level of creating image representations (memory images), which means that it is connected with the preferred way of viewing data field (local-global level) (Navon, 1977), with the efficiency of information selection of attention mechanisms (Carver, Scheier, 1981; Gardner & Lorenz, 1968; Nosal, 1990) and the capacity of working memory and efficiency of searching and processing the data stored in it (Baddeley, 2000, 2002; Miyake et al., 2001). The local-global level means either concentrating on perceiving the entire structure as multiple elements combined together and on spontaneous identification of the details selected from the background, or on global perception of the central figure, not taking into account the details which form it (Navon, 1977).

In the concept of selective attention it is assumed that efficient information selection is caused by a stronger mechanism of inhibition (Milliken & Tipper, 1998; Tipper, 1985) and lower susceptibility to interference in disconnected conditions of a task (Neill, Valdes & Terry, 1995; Neil & Westberry, 1987). More and more often researchers emphasise the connection between various mechanisms of attention, e.g. selective and divided (Nęcka, 1994; Nęcka & Szymura, 2004). Efficient functioning of selective attention is equally important for perceptive and executive processes, which should be combined with the functioning of divided attention (Driver, 2001). Due to the ties of the cognitive and temperamental areas presented in the article, important seems also the research, which indicates that information involves selecting such stimuli that are necessary for controlling the planned action (Rorden & Driver, 1999). That has been postulated for many years in theories of reaction-oriented selection (e.g. Norman, 1968). On the other hand, Posner (1994) assumes that attention mechanism of orientation is responsible for the choice of objects for processing on the basis of an analysis of its physical traits, which in the case of the “figure-ground tasks” e.g. The Embedded Figures Test (EFT), could be tied with the selection of shapes, colours and sizes integrated into a given figure. Parallel activation of another attention mechanism, which is the excitation mechanism, decides about the information flow for further processing, which takes place under the control of executive attention.

55

- 10.2478/v10059-008-0008-5Downloaded from De Gruyter Online at 09/11/2016 08:24:36PM

via free access


Information received in the process of selection is directed to the system of working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Baddeley & Logie, 1999), where the figurative material, being the basis for FDI diagnosis, is temporarily stored and actively processed. Solving standard EFT task, the participant relies on the mental image of a simple figure fixed in working memory, however his task is to indicate this figure (with the pattern being absent in the perception field) in a complex pattern. According to the concept of Baddeley (2000) this is an active process requiring continuous comparisons of the mental image of the figure with the pattern being perceived. As it seems, it may also require information transfer from visual code to verbal one, for example, when a person names the simplex figure. In working memory there occurs active information transfer by means of central executive system, the function of which is to supervise and coordinate executive information.

Another cognitive factor, which may influence efficient performance of tasks in EFT, is the preferred strategy of storing and processing data, i.e. qualitatively distinctive way of performing tasks (Hunt, 1980). Solving Witkin’s tasks requires either more verbal or more visuo-spatial coding of a figurative material. As it is known, Baddeley (1986) within a subsystem storing phonological information, has distinguished two structures, thus differentiating between passive (retention) and active (rehearsal) storage. While solving Witkin’s tasks people who prefer rather verbal than visual coding and information processing (Paivio, 1978), in order for the simplex figure not to be forgotten too fast, must activate a sustaining mechanism which will prevent decay of the memory trace, an example of this mechanism is a silent rehearsal. The information stored in passive storage (phonological storage) would be, according to the concept of working memory of Baddeley, actively sustained by articulation loop. This means that sustaining the memory trace of the simplex figure within phonological loop would be possible via a rehearsal of a verbal label with the use of articulatory loop (Baddeley, 2000; King, Jones, Pearlman, Tishman & Felix, 2002). It seems, however, that peculiarity of the figurative material comprising EFT, requires greater engagement of the second subsystem of working memory, which is the visuo-spatial rough draft, the role of which is to temporarily store the visual and spatial material. It is Miyaki, Witzki & Emerson (2001) who researched the role of working memory during a performance of a convergence version of Witkin’s tasks (Ekstron, French, Harman & Derman, 1976) which involve a choice of one out of five simplex figures hidden within a complex figure. Researchers concluded that Witkin’s tasks engage, above all, visuo-spatial sketch pad and the central executive.

From the presented characteristic of Witkin’s cognitive styles it follows that cognitive styles may be viewed in terms of regulation of the need for stimulation. In this meaning, field-independent cognitive style characterised by, among

others, active searching for information, fast searching of the field and efficient performing of complex mental operations, may be defined as highly stimulating. On the other hand, field-dependent cognitive style, because of its low dynamics and small range of differentiating elements in the perceptive field, enables reduction of stimulation and thus is defined as less stimulating (Wallach, 1962; Matczak, 1982). Thanks to the above described reduction of stimulation, people who are field-dependent, reduce the degree of utilisation of information potentially available in the environment, which causes the stimulating value of their cognitive functioning to be lower than in the case of field-independent people, who actively search for information (Bednarek at al., 2005; Matczak, 2000; Nosal, 1990). One can assume that a development of specific cognitive attitudes which may cause limitation of the potential range of undertaken actions exists with people who are field-dependent. The analysis of physiological indicators allows us to tie field-dependence with a greater sensitivity of the autonomous nervous system, especially when responding to danger (Matczak, 2000).

The basic assumption of Regulative Temperamental Theory (RTT) by Strelau (Strelau, 1985; Zawadzki & Strelau, 1997) discusses the efficiency of a subjective regulation of stimulation reflected in the structure of temperament traits. According to this assumption, the structure of temperament traits (energetic and temporal) of a grown person, shaped in the developmental processes taking place in favourable environment, should reflect the optimal setup of these traits, providing the individual with stimulation adequate to his individual needs. On the other hand, the energetic characteristics of behaviour define the possibility to act in situations of extreme stimulating value, i.e. in conditions requiring lasting, intensive work and tolerance to strong physical stimulation (endurance), conditions requiring emotional resistance to stress or great emotional sensitivity (emotional reactivity), conditions requiring the ability to establish contacts and the abilities to act among other people, take risks, involving oneself in many different tasks (activity) and conditions requiring the ability to perceive signals of small intensity (sensory sensitivity). Temporal traits (rapidity and perseveration), on the other hand, refer to the reaction speed, plasticity of thinking and acting in situations connected a with temporal factor.

Strelau’s theory enables us to distinguish four types of temperament structure: two harmonised and two disharmonised, with high and low ability of stimulation processing, respectively (Strelau, 1998; Zawadzki & Strelau, 1997).

In this approach, the basic temperament trait regulating stimulation inflow is activity. Adjusting the level of activity to the abilities of processing the stimulation ensures the effective regulation of stimulation and fosters

56


via free access


the development of other traits of temperament (i.e. sensory sensitivity, rapidity and perseveration) at the level consistent with the abilities to process the stimulation by an individual. According to RTT, the abilities to process stimulation are defined by the ratio of emotional reactivity to endurance. Great abilities are defined by low emotional reactivity and high endurance. It is assumed that such fitting of traits implies harmonising of the structures of temperament, i.e. the structure of traits with stimulatory parameters is adequate to the ability to process it (Zawadzki & Strelau, 1997). However, the lack of the fit of the activity to the ability to process stimulation, leads to ineffective regulation of stimulation. In consequence, a common level of arousal, inconsistent with the optimum, together with a disharmonized structure of temperament are shaped.

The authors of the above research, accepting Witkin’s bipolar understanding of cognitive style, have made an attempt to explain the dimensions of FDI in two contexts: cognitive and temperamental. It was assumed that both: specific structure of temperament traits and cognitive mechanisms, manifest themselves in tasks used for measuring cognitive styles. While looking for field dependence-independence predictors, one concentrated, from the cognitive perspective, on the functioning of different aspects of attention and working memory, and from the side of biological bases for behaviour, on the structure of temperament traits, which decide about individual abilities to process stimulation. It was assumed that both high-low abilities to process stimulation, as well as field dependent-independent cognitive style are shaped accommodatively in the process of development. In accordance with the human pursuit to maintain the optimal activation (Eliasz, 1981; Strelau, 1998), the individual should prefer cognitive style of such stimulative value as is consistent with individual needs (Matczak, 2000; Strelau, 1998). While seeking the temperamental predictors of field dependence-independence researchers concentrated on the structure of energetic (i.e. endurance, activity, emotional reactivity and sensory sensitivity) and temporal traits (perseveration and rapidity) bearing testimony to the harmonised-disharmonised structure of temperament characteristics, with high vs. low abilities to process stimulation respectively. However, they decided to seed the cognitive FDI predictors among elementary cognitive processes, engaged in performing gestalt’s visuo-spatial tasks of the “figure-ground” type, which are the basis for EFT, i.e. tasks diagnosing FDI (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin and Karp, 1971).

In this respect the above presented research sought the answer to one research question and made four hypotheses. The basic research question asks whether it is possible to create the model of temperamental and cognitive field dependent-independent predictors, combining, the temperamental ability to stimulation processing, resistance

to distraction and efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad of the working memory?

In the research conducted the following hypotheses were verified:

Field independence is connected with a high ability of 1) stimulation processing, while field independence with a low ability of stimulation processing.Field independence is connected with a higher and 2) field dependence with a lower efficiency (accuracy and reaction time) of attention process of information selection.Field independence is connected with a higher 3) efficiency of the mechanism of divided attention, and field dependence with a lower efficiency.Field independence is connected with a higher capacity 4) of visuo-spatial sketch pad in the working memory; field dependence is connected with a lower efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad.

Method

Participants108 students from various faculties of University of

Lodz volunteered to take part in the experiment. 77 of the examined subjects were women. The average age was 21 years, standard deviation 2.6.Materials and apparatusEmbedded Figure Test was used as a measure of individual differences within field dependence-independence, FCB-TI for temperament examination, and 3 computer tasks as indicators of the functioning of attention and working memory of the participants.

1. Embedded Figure Test (EFT). In its standard version it is used for examining field dependence-independence as a manifestation of psychological differentiation (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971). Theoretical basis for EFT one should seek in Gestalt psychology, in the concepts of Wertheimer, Rubin, Gottschaldt or Galli and Zama (Witkin, 1968).

EFT comprises 8 simplex and 24 complex figures. The task is to differentiate as quickly as possible a simple geometric figure, hidden in an obtrusive complex figure. The contour of the simple figure is at the same time the contour of figure constituting the geometric pattern (see Figure 1). Some difficulty is caused by the fact that masking figures have different colours which highlight them in the background, thus concealing the simplex figure.

An indicator serving as means to define preference within the cognitive style is the accumulated time needed to solve 24 EFT tasks (the time limit for each task in the test is 3 minutes). People who take longer time to solve the tasks are considered to be “field-dependent”, on the other hand, people with shorter time of solving the test

57


via free access


are defined as “field independent” (Witkin at al., 1971). In this study the participants were divided into three equal subgroups representing styles: field dependent, mixed and field independent. The division was made on the basis of ranked total time of solving EFT, however only the extreme poles of the continuum that denoted field dependence-independence were taken into account.

2. The Formal of Characteristics of Behaviour Temperament Inventory /FCB-TI/ (Zawadzki & Strelau, 1997). The questionnaire allows the examiner to measure 6 temperament qualities. Four of these are energetic: endurance (EN), emotional reactivity (ER), activity (AC) and sensory sensitivity (SS) and two are temporal: briskness (BR) and perseveration (PE). The relations between temperament qualities constituted the basis for defining the structure of temperament because of the possibilities of processing stimulation. A small variance of results within the quality of sensor sensitivity prevented it from being taken into account in the analysis.

3. DIVA task (Divided Attention).DIVA task, devised by Nęcka together with her team (Nęcka, 1994; 1996; Szymura & Nęcka, 1998), is an integrated attention test enabling the researcher to simultaneously conclude on the functions of selective and divided attention, which makes it possible to study divided attention. The priority task is at the same time a selective task, which belongs to a signal detection paradigm (Green & Swets, 1966).

Stimuli-letters are exposed on a computer screen in two frames. Centrally placed, the smallest frame shows a capital letter of the alphabet: a pattern. The task of the participant is to react by clicking the left mouse button on every small letter, referred to as a stimulus, which appears on the screen and which matches the pattern (see Figure 2). The pattern is changed every 20 seconds. During this time four relevant stimuli emerge, i.e. such that should be reacted to. On the screen there are three to five stimuli appearing simultaneously. They appear in random places on the screen (limited by an external frame which measures 14x18 cm) and in a random sequence. The exposure time of a single stimulus is 850 ms. In half of the conditions, apart from relevant and irrelevant stimuli, distracters appear in the field. These are large letter-stimuli, physically consistent with the pattern. They are considered a distraction since the

participants are supposed to react only when the stimulus is a small letter, consistent with the large pattern-letter. All the irrelevant stimuli and distracters should be ignored by the participants.

In the second part of the test a concurrent task is introduced. This task is performed simultaneously with the letter selection and involves regulation of the position of a line which moves inside a rectangle placed close to the left and right ends of the screen (see: Figure 2). Clicking the right mouse button allows correcting the position of the line. The excessive falling or rising of the line causes the computer to generate a sound of the frequency of 440 Hz. The objective of introducing the concurrent task was to load the attention with the necessity to control two tasks performed simultaneously. Although a simple task was used it is difficult to automate it.

In the DIVA task manipulation concerns: the type of the task (single and dual), the number of letter-stimuli on the computer screen (3,4 and 5), the level of distraction (presence or absence of a distracter), and the series (the whole procedure is repeated three times). DIVA is comprised of altogether 36 experimental conditions: 2 levels of distraction x 3 sizes of the set of elements x 3 series x 2 types of the task (single and dual). The average time of solving the task, together with a training part, is about 30 minutes. In the task two types of mistakes can be made: false alarms (FA) and omissions (OM). The number of mistakes made is measured (FA and OM separately) together with time of correct detections made in the selection task. In the secondary task the level of deviation of the line from the optimum is measured as well as the length of the time the sound signalling a mistake is activated.

4. Horizon task. The HORIZON task is a modification of n-back paradigm (McElree, 2001). It involves memorising stimuli, which are figures composed of 8 grids, four of which are always filled in and the remaining four are blank. Every figure is shown twice during the whole task, at predefined, as a sequence of exposure intervals. The task of the participants is to define whether the figure being shown appeared earlier in the exposed sequence. In the task the stimuli of either non-verbal, impossible to verbalise or

S �� C ��

Figure 1. Sample task from Embedded Figures Test (EFT).

Figure 2. DIVA Task – screen shoot.

58


via free access


extremely difficult to verbalise character, were chosen. The task comprises of eight experimental conditions, where the interval between the first and second exposure of the figure was manipulated. The first exposure of the given stimulus was interwoven from the second exposure by 1 to 8 other figures. For each of the cases 7 attempts are defined. The total number of exposures is 112 (2 exposures x 56 figures). In the HORIZON task reaction time and accuracy are measured. The indicator of the capacity of visuo-spatial sketch pad is the overall number of correct answers.

ProcedureIn the first stage of the study the participants collectively

filled in the FCB-TI. Then they solved individually the Embedded Figure Test. The next stage involved computer experiments. The participants performed DIVA and Horizon tasks.

Results

The aim of the study, presented in this article, is to define the structures of connections between the temperamental and the cognitive predictors of field dependent-independent cognitive style. Having this in mind the attempts were made to define:

what are the relations between temperament traits, i.e. 1) endurance, activity, emotional reactivity, briskness, perseveration (Strelau, 2001); and FDI (Witkin at al., 1971).what are the correlations between working memory 2) processes and attention and FDI, especially between the efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad within the concept of working memory and FDI (Miyake et al., 2001) and between the efficiency of selective and divided attention and FDI (Broadbent, 1958; Treisman, 1969; Kahneman, 1973; Orzechowski & Bednarek, 2004).what are the correlations between the types of 3) temperament structure (low – high capacity to process stimulation), working memory, selective and divided attention and field dependence-independence (Zawadzki & Strelau, 1997; Bednarek at al., 2005).

In the study path analysis was used with the help of statistics package Statistica 6.0 (StatSoft, Inc. 2004; STATISTICA, version 6). Path analysis enables verification of models of causal correlations between the examined variables, in particular it allows to check the fit of the models against empirical data. In the analysis a procedure of structural modelling was performed on correlation matrices. Path analysis is considered to be one of the most adequate methods of testing theoretical models (Arcbuckle, 1957), mainly because it considers both the open and latent variables and assesses their causal role.

Statistica uses maximum-likelihood estimation to derive the specific parameters, based on a correlation matrix (see Appendix). It was decided to focus on the root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) fit index. RMSEA is an estimate of the discrepancy between the model and the data per degree of freedom for the model; values less than 0.05 constitute a good fit, values in the 0.05 to 0.08 a range acceptable fit, value in the 0.08 to 0.10 a range marginal fit, and values greater than 0.10 a poor fit. The goodness of fit index (GFI) is also considered in the present investigation. GFI must be higher than 0.9; lower values reflect a marginal fit. Attending to the requirement of one reviewer, we also report AFGI, GFI and Gamma Steigera indexes. Gamma Steigera is particularly recommended for small quantity groups; values higher than .95 constitute a good fit (Arcbuckle, 1997).

In the research presented, three hypothetical models were verified. It was assumed that in the case of a good fit of theoretical model to the empirical data, other simplified models of causal correlations between the examined variables, which stem from FCB-TI (Strelau, 1998) and the concept of field dependent-independent cognitive style, will be verified (Witkin, 1979, 1981; Nosal, 1990; Miyake et al., 2001). Those variables will better reflect the influence of temperamental and cognitive variables on field dependence-independence. Correlations between FDI and the indicators of temperamental and cognitive variables considered in this study are presented in Appendix section.

Model IFirstly, a model which included all the indicators of the

variables inspected was verified (see: Table 1, 2). The first path tested in this model was concerned with the influence of temperament traits, the other comprised of the influence of working memory and selective and divided attention on the preference of field dependent-independent cognitive style. In the analysis the relations between the theoretical constructs of hypothetical model were estimated, concentrating rather on relations between variables that were not observed than on relations between the observed variables.

In the case of temperament, which was the latent variable, in model I theoretical division into energetic (endurance, activity, emotional sensitivity) and temporal traits of the temperament structure (briskness and perseveration) was maintained. The results of FCB-TI were indicators of these traits (open variables). On the other hand, within the mechanism of information selection

Model Χ2(df)

P Gamma index

GFI AGFI

I 77.06(41)

0.001 0.954 0.805 0.685

Table 1The fit index of model I.

59


via free access


(latent variable), the changing resistance to distraction was taken into account, the indicators of which were the number of FA and OM obtained in DIVA task. The indicators of the efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad in working memory (latent variables) were the accuracy and reaction time of searching through the graphic material in HORIZON task. The indicator of preference of field dependent-independent cognitive style was the overall time of performing the EFT tasks.

Based on values of χ2, model I has an unacceptable goodness of fit index (χ2 = 77.06; df= 41; p=0.001), since the critical significance point of p=0.05 was exceeded. The remaining good fit index indicators point to the necessity of introducing modifications in the theoretical model. RMSEA value was 0.124, which constitutes a poor fit. The GFI value was 0.805, lower than 0.9, suggesting a marginal fit. Gamma index was 0.954, higher than 0.95, suggesting a good fit. However, χ2/df (chi-square divided by the number of degrees of freedom) is 1.88. High value of this indicator (near 2) suggests the necessity of introducing significant modifications to the model.

Model II The theoretical model II was tested (see: Table 3, 4),

the basis of which are 3 energetic temperament traits, i.e. endurance, activity and emotional reactivity, which are decisive when it comes to the efficiency of regulating stimulation, the efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad of working memory and the efficiency of selective memory.

In model II, on the basis of the accepted theoretical assumptions and as a result of the analysis of structural equations, four latent variables were included. The first one is temperament manifesting itself in 3 observed variables: endurance, activity and emotional reactivity. These decide about the efficiency of regulating a stimulation. The remaining latent variables: efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad of working memory, efficiency of selective attention mechanisms and field dependence-independence, were operationalised exactly as in model I.

Model II proved to have a good fit index: Χ2 – 16.02; p = 0.591; Gamma Index = 1; AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index) = 0.886; GFI (goodness of fit index) = 0.943. RMSEA = 0.001.

In the case of analyses based on a correlation matrix and not on covariance, values of Χ2 are less exact, therefore to assess the goodness of model II two indexes were specially taken into account, i.e. Gamma Index which equals 1 and

GFI which is higher than 0.9. Both of those point to a good fit index of the theoretical model to the empirical data. The RMSEA value was 0.001, less than .05 suggesting a good fit. However, Χ2/df value for this model is 0.88 (less than 1) which, according to Joreskog and Sorbom (1979), suggests that the good fit of the model to the data is “too good to be true”, therefore it can be assumed that the presented index questions credibility of the model.

Model II confirms the causal correlation of the means to satisfy the need for stimulation and the ability to process stimulation with the preferred style. This correlation is related to the function of visuo-spatial sketch pad and attention.

We have confirmed the influence of three energetic traits being reciprocally correlated, i.e. high endurance, low emotional reactivity and high activity, and high efficiency of selective attention and low efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad of working memory on preference of field-independent style, and on the other hand, low endurance, high emotional reactivity and low activity and low efficiency of selective memory and high efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad on preference of field-dependent cognitive style. Assuming the conservative approach to popular values of the goodness fit index of the model, to avoid drawing false conclusions on the basis of model II, we decided to introduce slight modifications so that the model is accepted.

Model IIISeeking the best theoretical model showing

temperamental and cognitive predictors of field dependence-independence, we verified the model comprising of two energetic traits of temperament, i.e. endurance and emotional reactivity, which according to FCB-TI define individual abilities to process stimulation as well as attention and working memory indexes. Model III is presented in Figure 3.

All the indexes of model III imply its good fit to the empirical data: χ2 = 12.65; df = 12; p = 0.395; Gamma Index = 1; AGFI (Adjusted goodness – of – fit index) = 0.874; GFI (goodness of fit index) = 0.946 (higher than 0.9). These suggests that this model reflects well the

Latent variables Temperamental - temporal traits

Temperamental – energetic traits

Selective memory – resis-tance to distracters

Memory – efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad

Field dependent-indepen-dent style

- 0.82* 0.3* 0.36** - 0.22*

Table 2The effects of influence of temperament and cognitive variables on field dependence-independence. The value of path coefficient

in causal model I.

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Model Χ2(df)

P Gamma Index

GFI AGFI

II 16.02 0.591 1 0.943 0.886

Table 3The fit index of model II.

60


via free access


correlation between temperamental, cognitive variables and field dependence-independence. RMSEA value is 0.049 (lower than 0.05) which suggests a good fit. χ2/df index for this model is 1.05, which also acknowledges its good fit, reassuring us that on the basis of the presented goodness indexes, we are able to assume that model III more precisely reflects the correlations existing in reality than model II.

It turned out that model III confirms correlations that were revealed already in model II. The results of path analysis confirm the first three hypotheses. Low-high ability to process stimulation, defined on the basis of the relation of endurance to emotional reactivity, are tied with field dependence-independence (H1) (path coefficient = 0.2; p = 0.058). According to the second hypothesis (H2), field independence is connected to higher efficiency of selective attention and power of inhibiting process. Field dependence, on the other hand, is connected to a lower ability of selective attention, and weak cognitive inhibition (path coefficient = -0.35; p < 0.05). We did not confirm the hypothesis concerning divided attention (H3). We did not confirm the hypothesis (H4) concerning larger capacity of

visuo-spatial sketch pad of field-independent people (path coefficient = -.024; p < 0.05).

The third model illustrates that a dependent variable, i.e. cognitive style, is influenced by temperamental and cognitive variables included in the model thus creating the following causal structure: a cognitive style (field dependent versus independent) is influenced by three latent variables: the ability to process stimulation, the efficiency of selective attention and the capacity of visual - spatial sketch pad of working memory. Field independence is associated with high abilities to process stimulation, higher efficiency of selective attention (operationalised as higher resistance to distracters) and lower capacity of visuo-spatial sketch pad. Field dependence is influenced by low possibilities of processing stimulation, lower resistance to distracters and higher capacity of visuo-spatial sketch pad of working memory.

Conclusions and Discussion

The best fit of the results obtained is provided by the model comprising of two groups of factors determining the studied cognitive styles: field dependent and independent. The first group includes temperamental factors. Two variables were included in the model: endurance and emotional reactivity. The second group of variables consists of two cognitive variables: resistance to distraction as an index of efficiency of selective attention, and capacity of visuo-spatial sketch pad of working memory.

The influence of temperamental and cognitive determinants on field dependence-independence will be discussed in three contexts:

with reference to the regulative role of individual need 1) for stimulation, the efficiency of elementary cognitive processes2) in a developmental aspect.3)

Firstly, in the study presented, it proved possible to obtain a connection between cognitive style, endurance and emotional reactivity, i.e. with two energetic traits of FCB-TI which specify individual need for stimulation and define the ability to process it. From Strelau’s concept of temperament it follows that all the traits of energetic level of behaviour, i.e. activity, endurance, emotional reactivity and sensory sensitivity should be tied with one another,

Latent variables Temperamental - Energetic traits: endurance, emotional reactivity, activity

Selective memory – resistance to distracters

Memory – efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad

Field dependent-independent style - 0.23 *** 0.49* - 0.25*

*p < 0.05; **p<0.01; ***p < 0.06

Table 4The effects of the influence of temperamental and cognitive variables on field dependence-independence. The value of path coefficient

in causal model II.

Figure 3. Structure model of correlations between individual abilities to process stimulation, efficiency of visuo-spatial sketch pad, efficiency of selective attention and field dependent-independent cognitive style.χ2 = 12.65; df = 12; p = 0.395Gamma Index – 1;AGFI (Adjusted goodness of fit index) = .874GFI (goodness of fit index) = .946;*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

61


via free access


since the relations defined between these traits play an important role also from the point of view of effective regulation of stimulation. These are the traits conditioned by the interaction of every physiological and biochemical mechanisms responsible for accumulating and releasing energy stored in the organism, including the limbic system, autonomous nervous system and brain stem reticular formation (Anderson, 1990; Duffy, 1962; Eysenck, 1987; Gray, 1964; Hebb, 1965; Strelau, 2001; 2002).

Activity functioning as a regulator of stimulation inflow, is in FCB-TI understood as a direct (in the meaning of activity in itself) and an indirect source of stimulation (an individual’s readiness to activity and undertake activity) and it was not included in the accepted model. However, in the rejected model II, which also reflects correlations existing in reality, according to Joreskog & Sorbom’s (1993) stipulation was assumed to be less credible than in the accepted model. The fact that activity functioning as a regulator of stimulation inflow exists, indicates that in the research presented one cannot adduce the influence of effective regulation of stimulation on the defined preferences within FDI, rather one can discuss what role in the context of the preferred field dependent-independent style is imposed by lower and higher ability to process stimulation (Strelau, 1996; 2001).

A given trait structure, i.e. high resistance understood as the ability of adequate reaction in situations requiring long-lasting or highly stimulating activity and low emotional reactivity manifesting itself in small sensitivity and high resistance to stimuli evoking emotions; characterises field independent style.

On the other hand, small endurance attesting to small resistance to fatigue and low resistance to external distracters, and high emotional reactivity confirming low emotional resistance to stress and long-lasting, powerful emotions, denote field dependent style. Such structure of temperament traits in FCB-TI signifies that people characterised by field independence have a large processing capacity, and, by the same token, a high level of need for stimulation. Field dependent people are characterised by a low ability to process stimulation and a low level of the need for it (Strelau, 1998).

In publications concerning the influenced of the studied temperament traits on behaviour, researchers concentrate both on motor, cognitive aspects, and emotional reactions. Research shows that low endurance depresses both the level of performing the motor tasks (Zawadzki, 1997, Klonowicz, 1984; 1992) and cognitive tasks (Szymura & Wodniecka, 2003). In turn, high emotional reactivity, which is an emotional component in the structure of temperament traits, signifies low abilities of coping with stress and yielding to emotions while realising various life’s tasks (Klonowicz, 1992). It can be deduced from the research relating to RTT, produced so far, that emotional reactivity

correlates highly with neuroticism, lack of resistance and high energy pressure as viewed by Cattell (1966). Strelau’s team also presented positive correlations with emotional reactivity, perseveration and negative correlations with endurance and briskness. Moreover Polish researchers managed to obtain a confirmation of these results in the view of the concept of the Big Five (McCrae, Costa, 1987). In this approach, neuroticism is positively correlated with reactivity and perseveration, negatively, on the other hand, with endurance (Zawadzki & Strelau, 1997; Strelau, 1998). On this basis one can draw a conclusion that under pressure of time, a high emotional reactivity and a low endurance (resistance) as temperament traits connected with neuroticism and determining a low ability to process stimulation, do not foster efficiency of processing figurative material in EFT, which, as we know, is the basis for FDI diagnosis.

Research shows that individuals with low ability to process stimulation not only quicker reduce the level of performing highly stimulating tasks (Klonowicz, 1992), but they also approach their realisation with higher level of emotional pressure comparing with people with a higher ability to process stimulation (Ciarkowska, 1992). Thus one can assume that those people, while solving, e.g. the EFT task, receive subjectively a higher dose of stimulation comparing to the optimum. For this reason they will strive for reducing its inflow by undertaking cognitive activity aiming at reducing stimulation. This process can be facilitated by regulating the level of excitation conditioned by temperament traits (activity of the reducing type) which are typical for those people, and also a specific way of information processing resulting from the efficiency of cognitive processes.

Taking the second context into account, i.e. the efficiency of cognitive processes, one should point out that in the accepted model there exist significant connections of FDI with resistance to distraction, which in theories of attention is defined as the efficiency of mechanisms of inhibition, which is the key mechanism for attention selectivity (Fox, 1994; Neill, Valdes & Terry, 1995) and with the capacity of WM visuo-spatial sketch pad. In other words, people who are field independent are characterised by an efficient mechanism of selection and a low capacity of visuo-spatial sketch pad, while field dependent people are characterised by a higher capacity of short-term storage of visuo-spatial information and a lower efficiency of stimuli selection. Both these cognitive mechanisms are not only functionally separate but also their dynamics are different. Information selection mechanism, both in DIVA task used for its diagnosis, and in EFT task, is dynamic and procedural. Irrespective of the fact whether the attention theory emphasises excitation mechanism (e.g. Posner) or inhibition mechanism (e.g. Neill), there is a consensus that they are both active in nature. The capacity of WM storage

62


via free access


space is understood more in a disposable and a static way. The storing space in itself is something passive. Therefore, the cognitive basis of the two analysed cognitive styles seems to be logically composed with both temperament possibilities of processing stimulation, different for each style, and also with their phenomenological description, done by Witkin and other researchers, of FDI (Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997; Goldstein & Blackman 1978, Kogan, 1994; Messick, 2001; Hang, Li-fang, 2004; Witkin, 1979, 1981). Usually these researchers view field dependent style as global-passive and field independent style as analytic-active.

Thirdly, there is certain evidence that the process of differentiation of cognitive structures can be interpreted in developmental categories. According to Witkin’s theory (67) the process of “psychological differentiation” runs from field dependence towards field independence. With this approach in mind one can assume that already in the period of childhood, consistently with individual need for stimulation and the ability to process it, some people develop a more stimulating, field independent, cognitive style than others. Other people, in way that is natural to them, need less stimulation, that is why they prefer the field dependent style. Cognitive style would be an early and deeply rooted mechanism being shaped during development. Interestingly, not only temperament shaping but also shaping of attention takes place in early development phases. Posner (Posner & Peterson, 1990; Posner, Rafal, Choate & Vauughan, 1985) has proved that maturation of neuronal structures in the first half a year of life gives basis for perception of the reality in analytic categories. The basis of transmission from syncretic perception, which means the inability of dissecting the perceived image into elements, to analytic perception, is the development of attention processes, involving shaping the inner mechanism of non-fixation attention shift to any point of the perceptive field (Marek, 2002; Posner, 1988). The ability to steer the process of attention shifting causes partial independence of stepping eyeballs movements of the external perceptive field (Marek and Fąfrowicz, 1995). An important mechanism of non-fixation attention shift is inhibiting, or postponing the reaction to perceptive stimulus, which is shaped already in four-month old babies (Johnson, Posner & Rothbart, 1991). It seems, then, that the basis for an analytic reality perception and a differentiation of psychological structures, can be the efficient functioning of selective attention present already in the early phases of human life. Therefore, in a developmental approach, selective attention can function as a cognitive regulator of stimulation inflow. Efficient attention mechanisms provide field independent people with a higher dose of stimulation. Less efficient attention mechanisms, on the other hand, which reduce stimulation, favour field dependent people, solidifying specific cognitive preferences, accordingly to their temperamentally based need for stimulation.

On the basis of the interpretation presented, one can draw a general conclusion that if a given structure of individual traits (e.g. cognitive ones) fitted in a stimulative way to the biologically defined need for stimulation, it is beneficial for the individual, because it satisfies his optimal stimulation level (Eliasz, 1981; Marszał-Wiśniewska, 1998). Thus one can assume that the relation of field dependence with low ability to process stimulation, less efficient mechanism of information selection and large capacity of visuo-spatial sketch pad in the working memory, is a coherent structure in a stimulative way. In this situation field independent style would not ensure such effective stimulation regulation, though it is more developmentally advanced and better fitted for the tasks of the EFT test.

Although, as noted by Kogan (1994), Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997), traditional view styles are past their best period, the search for individual differences in the paradigm proposed by us, combining formal parameters of cognition (attention and memory) and behaviour (structure of temperament traits), can be an interesting context for researching professional mindset or work effectiveness in the conditions of heavy cognitive and/or emotional load, as well as in the aging research. Especially that the cognitive styles as well as their cognitive and temperamental determinants, due to differences in neurohormonal mechanisms and plasticity of “physiological mechanism of temperament”, are characterised by changeability connected with age and sex.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1990). The Adaptive Character of Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Arcbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users’s guide. Version 3.6. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Eds.), The psychology of learning and memory (14-35). New York: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 5-28.

Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (28-61). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000).The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.

Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is Working Memory still working? European Psychologist, 2, 85-97.

Bednarek, H., Wytykowska, A., & Orzechowski, J. (2005). Zróżnicowanie cech i struktury temperamentu u osób zależnych i niezależnych od pola (Traits and structure of temperament in the field dependent vs independent subjects), Psychologia- Etologia – Genetyka, 12, 87-106.

Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

63


via free access


Cattell, R. B. (1966). Anxiety and Motivation: Theory and Crucial Experiments. In Spielberger Ch. D. (Eds.), Anxiety and Behavior (23-60). New York: Academic Press.

Ciarkowska, W. (1992). Psychofizjologiczna analiza aktywności poznawczej (Cognitive activity – psychophysiological analyses). Wrocław: Ossolineum.

Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 53-79.

Duffy, E. (1962). Activation and behavior. New York: Wiley.Eliasz, A. (1981). Temperament a system regulacji stymulacji

(Temperament and the system for stimulation regulation). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Ekstrom, R. B., & French, J. W. (1976). The Hidden Patterns Test. In H. Harman & D. Derman (Eds.), Educational Testing Service. Princeton, NJ.

Eysenck, M. J. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Fox, E. (1994). Interference and negative priming from ignored distractors: The role of selection difficulty. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 565-574.

Gardner, R. W., & Lorenz, L. J. (1968). Cognitive control of differentation in perception person and objects. Perceptions Motor Skills, 26, 311-330.

Goldstein, K. M., & Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive style: Five approaches and relevant research. New York: Wily.

Green, D., & Swets, J. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.

Gray, J. A. (1964). Strength of the nervous system and levels of arousal: A reinterpretation. In J. A. Gray (Eds.), Pavlov’s Typology (289-364). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hebb, D. O. (1966). A Textbook of Psychology. Philadelphia, London: Saunders Company.

Hunt, E. B. (1980). Intelligence as an information-processing concept. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 449-474.

Hunt, E. B. (1994). Theoretical models for the study of intelligence. In D. K. Detterman (Eds.), Current topic in human intelligence (233-256). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Huteau, M. (1983). Zależność-niezależność od pola i rozwój myślenia operacyjnego. (Field dependence-independence and development of operational thinking). Przegląd Psychologiczny, 2, 253-286.

Johnson, M. H., Posner, M. I., & Rothbart M. K. (1991). Components of visual orienting in early infancy. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences, 3, 335-344.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 – User’s Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Klonowicz, T. (1992). Stres w Wieży Babel (Stress in the Tower of Babel). Ossolineum: Wrocław.

King, D. L., Jones, E L., Pearlman, R. C., Tishman, A., & Felix, C. A. (2002). The length of the retention interval, forgetting, and subjective similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 660-671.

Kogan, N. (1994). Cognitive style. In R. K. Sternberg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Intelligence (266-273). New York: Macmillan.

Marek, T., & Fąfrowicz, M. (1995). Neuropsychologiczne mechanizmy procesu przenoszenia uwagi wzrokowej (Neropsychological mechanisms of the visual attention shifting process). In J. Brzeziński & M. Maruszewski (Eds.), Nowe idee w metodologii psychologii (69-86). Warszawa: Instytut Psychologii PAN.

Marek, T. (2002). Proces przenoszenia uwagi wzrokowej a synkretyzm spostrzegania: perspektywa neuronauki poznawczej (Visual attention shifting process and syncretic perception: Cognitive neuroscience perspective). Studia Psychologiczne, 40, 99-106.

Marszał-Wiśniewska, M. (1998). Temperamental and volitional

determinants of attention. Personality Psychology in Europe, 6, 132-137.

Matczak, A. (1982). Style poznawcze (Cognitive Style). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Matczak A. (2000). Style poznawcze (Cognitive Style). In J. Strealu (Eds.), Psychologia, Podręcznik akademicki (761-782). Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Miyake, A., Witzki, A., & Emerson, M. J. (2001). Field dependence-independence from a working memory perspective: A dual – task inventigation of the Hidden Figures Test. Memory, 9, 445-457.

Messick, S. (1976). Personal styles and educational options. In S. Messick (Eds.), Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Messick, S. (2001). Style in the organization and defense of cognition. In J.M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.), Intelligence and Personality: Bridging the Gap in Theory and Measurement (259-272). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.

Milliken, B., & Tipper, S. P. (1998). Attention and inhibition. W H. Pashler (red.). Attention (191-222). UK: Psychology Press.

McElree B. (2001). Working Memory and Focal Attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27(3), 817-835.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1987). Validations of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.

Nęcka, E. (1994). Inteligencja i procesy poznawcze (Intelligence and Cognitive processes). Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.

Nęcka, E. (2000). Pobudzenie intelektu: Zarys formalnej teorii inteligencji (The arousal of intellect: An outline of the formal theory of intelligence). Kraków: Universitas.

Nęcka, E. (2003). Inteligencja (Intelligence). Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

Neil, W. T., & Westberry, R. L. (1987). Selective attention and the suppression of cognitive noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 327-334.

Neill, W. T., Valdes, L. A., & Terry (1995). Facilitatory and Inhibitory Aspects of Attention. W F. A. Kramer, M. Coles, & G. D. Logan (red.), Converging Operations i the Study of Visual Selective Attention (209-261). Washington, DC: APA.

Norman, D.A. (1968).Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 75, 522-536.

Nosal, C. S. (1990). Psychologiczne modele umysłu (Psychological mental models). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Orzechowski, J., & Bednarek, H. (2004). Uwaga jako mechanizm zróżnicowania struktur poznawczych (Attention as a Mechanism of Differentiation of Cognitive Structure). Studia psychologiczne, 42, 125-137.

Paivio, A. (1978). Imagery, language, and semantic memory. International Journal of Psycholinquistics, 5 (2,10), 31-47.

Posner, M. I. (1988). Structures and functions of selective attention. In T. Boll & B. Bryant (Eds.), Master lectures in clinical neuropsychology and brain function (171-202). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S. & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural bias and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 211-228.

Posner, M. I. & Peterson, S. E. (1990). The attention system of human brain. Annual Reviews of Neurosciences, 13, 25-42.

Posner, M. I. (1994). Attention: The mechanisms of consciousness. Proceedings of National Academy of Science USA, 91, 7398-7403.

Rorden, C., & Driver, J. (1999). Does saccade preparation affect auditory

64


via free access


attention? Neuropsychologia, 37, 357-377.Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and assessment at the

interface between intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Intelligence and Personality (169-187). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700-712.

Strelau, J. (1985). Temperament Bases of Behavior: Warsaw Studies on Individual Differences. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Strelau, J.(1996). Temperament a stres (Temperament and stress). In I. Heszen-Niejodek & Z. Ratajczak (Eds.), Człowiek w sytuacji stresu (88-132). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Strelau, J. (1998).Temperament: A Psychological Perspective. Plenum: New York.

Strelau, J. (2001). The concept and status of trait in research on temperament. European Journal of Personality, 15, 311-325.

Strelau, J. (2002). Psychologia różnic indywidualnych (Psychology of Individual Differences). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.

Szymura, B., & Nęcka E. (1998). Visual selective attention and personality: An experimental verification of three models of extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 713-729.

Szymura, B., & Wodniecka, Z. (2003). What really bothers neurotics? In search fro factors impairing attentional performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 109-126.

Szymura, B. i Nęcka, E. (2004). Jednorodność uwagi (Unitary Attention: Reactivation). Studia Psychologiczne, 42, 47-56.

Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F. (1998). Field dependence – independence cognitive style and academic achievement: A review of research and theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 227-251.

Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effects: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571-590.

Treisman, A. M. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 242-248.

Wallach, M., A. (1962). Active analytic vs passive global cognitive functioning. In S. Messic & J. Ross (Eds.), Measurement in personality and cognition. New York: J. Wiley.

Witkin, H. A. (1964). Orgins of cognitive style. In C. Sheerer (Eds.), Cognition: Theory, research, and promise (172-205). New York: Harper & Row.

Witkin, H. A., & Oltman, P, K. (1967). Cognitive style. International Journal of Neuropsychology, 6, 2, 35-49.

Witkin, H. A. (1965). Psychological defferentation and form pathology. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 70, 317-336.

Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist

Press.Witkin, H. A. (1978). Cognitive Style in Personal and Cultural Adaptation.

Vorcester, MA: Clark University Press.Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Oltman, P. K. (1979). Psychological

differentation: Current status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1127-1145.

Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive style: essence and origins. New York: International Universitatis Press.

Zawadzki, B., & Strelau, J. (1997). Formalna Charakterystyka Zachowania – Kwestionariusz Temperamentu. Podręcznik (The Formal Characteristics of Behavior - Temperament Inventory. Handbook). Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.

Zhang, Li-fang, (2004). Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability?––validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 6, 1295-2012.

Zimmer, K. A. (1985). Cognitive processing load and motivational activation in performing semantic tasks as reflected in the pupillary response. In W. F. Klix, R. Naatanen & K. W. Zimmer (Eds.), Psychophysiological approaches to human information processing (331-344). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Appendix

r-Pearson correlations matrix, * p<0.05, ** p<0,01Meanings of abbreviations:V1 - Capacity of visuo-spatial sketch-pad (Horizon task, accuracy)V2 - Speed of visuo-spatial sketch-pad search (Horizon task, RT)V3 - Attentional resources, index 1 (DIVA task, RT)V4 - Resistance to distraction, index 1 (DIVA task, RT)V5 - Attentional resources, index 2 (DIVA task, number of errors)V6 - Resistance to distraction, index 2 (DIVA task, number of errors)EFT - The Embedded Figures Test (RT)PE - perseverationBR - brisknessEN - enduranceAC - activityER - emotional reactivity

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 EFT PE BR EN AC

V2 -0,24*

V3 0,16 -0,15

V4 0,02 0,06 0,10

V5 0,24* -0,06 0,04 -0,04

V6 -0,03 -0,03 0,08 0,05 -0,47**

EFT -0,06 -0,11 -0,06 -0,10 0,20 0,26*

PE -0,13 -0,02 -0,21 0,09 0,13 0,03 0,23*

BR 0,05 0,02 0,22 0,25* -0,05 -0,14 0,08 -0,28*

EN 0,00 0,05 0,17 0,13 -0,21 -0,10 -0,28* -0,26* 0,44**

AC 0,05 0,04 -0,08 0,19 -0,28* -0,18 -0,25* -0,21 0,29* 0,19

ER -0,08 0,07 -0,22 0,08 0,18 0,05 0,14 0,52** -0,36** -0,47* -0,18

65


via free access

Cognitive and temperamental predictors of field dependence-independence

Documents

Transcript of Cognitive and temperamental predictors of field dependence-independence