Field dependence-independence and its relationship to E and N in male and female polytechnic students

Person. indivrd. D$J Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 4755476, 1984 Printed

in Great

0191-8869/84

$3.00 + 0.00

Pergamon Press Ltd

Britain

Field Dependence-Independence and its relationship to E and N in male and female polytechnic students GARETH LOTWICK,’

‘Polytechnic

‘University ‘Department

of Education,

University

WARDS*

ALLEN SIMON’ and L. 0.

of Wales, Pontypridd,

Glamorgan

CF37

College, Car&T CFI IXL, College of Swansea,

(Received

29 December

IDL,

Wales

Wales

Hendrefoilan,

Swansea

SA2 7NB, Wales

1983)

INTRODUCTION A number of investigators have studied the relationship between Field Dependence-Independence and the personality variables of Extraversion (E) and Neuroticism (N). Taft and Coventry (1968) found no relationship between N and Field Dependence, but found a positive correlation between E and Field Dependence in American university students. Loo (1976), employing Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI) and Witkin’s Group Embedded Figures Test in a study of a small sample of female students, came to similar conclusions. However, other investigators do not find a significant relationship between Field Dependence and E. Mayo and Bell (1972), using the EPI and Field Dependence-Independence tests failed to find any relationship between Field Dependence and E in college-of-education students, and a similar finding was reported by Lester (1976) in a study of female college students. These studies indicate the need for more data and for data not confined to university or college of education students. The data in this paper relate to the performance of male and female polytechnic students.

METHOD

Sample This consisted Arts.

of 80 male and 24 female students

drawn

from the Faculties

of Engineering,

Tests employed (a) Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)--Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (b) Modified Rod-and-Frame Test (RFT)--Field Dependence-Independence.

Science, Social Sciences and

(E).

RESULTS Table 1 shows the intercorrelations between E and N as measured by the EPI and Index scores Dependence-Independence obtained by males and females on the RFT. In addition, coefficients of correlation Series 1, Log Series 2, Log Series 3 of the RFT and the EPI were found and are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. ‘r’ Correlations

between E and N of the EPI and I of Log Series scores on the RFT for males and females (N = 104) Males (A’ = 80)

Personality variable E N All correlations

(I) of Field between Log

Females

Log Ser. 1

Log ser. 2

Log Ser. 3

I

-0.11 0.14

-0.12 0.11

-0.13 0.05

-0.14 0.12

are statistically

non-significant.

Log Ser. -0.08 0.09

I

(N = 24)

Log Ser. 2

Log Ser. 3

I

0.26 0.07

0.14 0.02

0.11 -0.12

The scores of the 80 men who took the EPI and the RFT were subjected also to a multiple linear regression in order to predict the I score of Field Dependence-Independence from the E and N scores obtained on the EPI. The details are as follows: sample size: 80; dependent variable: Index score (I); independent variables: E, N; coefficient of determination: 0.03; multiple correlation coefficient: 0.17; estimated constant term: 1.53; standard error of estimate: 0.45. Table

*To

2 presents

whom

an analysis

all correspondence

of variance

should

for the regression.

be addressed. 475

416

NOTES

AND

SHORTEK

Table 2. Analvsis

sourceof

COMMUNICATIONS

of variance

variation

4

Sums of squares

Regression Residuals Total ~. .~

2 77 79

0.47 15.48 15.95

for the renrewon Mean square

0.24 0.20

ratlo 1.20

F

Variable

Regression coefficient

Standard error of renression coefficient

F ratio

E N

-0.0131 0.0102

0.0118 0.0119

1.219 0.730

DISCUSSlON

OF RESULTS

Examination of Table 1 shows that for men and women no significant correlations occur between the personality variables studied and Field Dependence-Independence. The findings in Table 1 support the views of Taft and Coventry (1958), Evans (1967) and Loo (1976) that there is no relationship between N and Field Dependence, but they do not support the conclusion that a significant correlation exists between E and Field Dependence. The results obtained in this study support the views of Franks (1956), Du Preez (1967), Mayo and Bell (1972) and Lester (1976) that the dimensions of Field Dependence-Independence and Extraversion-Introversion are discrete or only slightly and insignificantly related. The results pertaining to the multiple linear regression (Table 2) indicate clearly that the EPI does not appear to predict a male S’s Index of Field Dependence-Independence. These results support the findings given m Table 2 and the interpretation given to those findings. REFERENCES Du Preez P. D. (1967) Field dependence and accuracy of comparison of time intervals. Percept. Mor. Skills 24, 467472. Evans F. J. (1967) Field dependence and the Mandoley Personality Inventory. Percept. Mot. Skills 24, 526. Franks C. M. (19.56) Differences determinees par la personnalite dans la perception visuelle de la vertlcalite. Recue Psycho/. appl. 6, 235-246. Lester D. (1976) The relationship between some dimensions of personality. Psychology 13, 58-60. Loo R. (1976) Field dependence and the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Percept MO!. Skills 43, 614. Mayo P. R. and Bell J. M. (1972) A note on the taxonomy of Witkin’s field dependence measures. Br. J. Psychol. 63, 225-256. Taft R. and Coventry J. (1958) Neuroticism, extraversion and the perception of the vertical. J. abnorm. sot. Psychol. 56, 139-141.