- Email: [email protected]
Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability
Accepted Manuscript Title: Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability Author: Philip C. Mefoh Mary B. Nwoke JohnBosco C. Chukwuorji Andrew O. Chijioke PII: DOI: Reference:
S1871-1871(17)30068-8 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.03.002 TSC 428
To appear in:
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
16-6-2016 17-11-2016 10-3-2017
Please cite this article as: Mefoh, P. C., Nwoke, M. B., and Chijioke, J. B. C. C. A. O.,Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability, Thinking Skills and Creativity (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.03.002 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
1 Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability
1
us
cr
ip t
Running head: cognitive style and problem solving
Philip C. Mefoh, 1Mary B. Nwoke, 1JohnBosco C. Chukwuorji & 1Andrew O. Chijioke 1
d
M
an
Department of Psychology, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Ac ce p
te
Corresponding Author: Philip C. Mefoh, PhD [email protected]
Page 1 of 22
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
2
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability. Two hundred and forty senior secondary school students (109 males and 131 females; Mean age = 16.5 years; SD = 2.56) were participants in the study. The Group Embedded Figures Test was used to classify participants into field independent (n = 127) and field dependent (n = 113) cognitive styles. A 16 x 14 puzzle box was used to test problem solving ability. F-statistics showed significant main effects of cognitive style (p < .001) and gender (p <001) on problem solving. Adolescents possessing the field independent cognitive style solved more puzzle task than adolescents possessing the field dependent cognitive style. Male adolescents outperformed female adolescents on the
Page 2 of 22
3 problem solving task. Effect size (ES) values of 0.43 and 0.27 for cognitive style and gender respectively showed that the results were reliable. Suggestion was made for further
ip t
studies.
Key words: Cognitive style; Field dependent; Field independent; Problem solving; Puzzle
te
d
M
an
us
cr
box problem.
Ac ce p
Problem solving is a basic part of living. Problem solving refers to cognitive
processing aimed at figuring out how to achieve a goal. A problem exists when an individual desires a goal but does not know immediately what actions to take to reach that goal. Thus, one faces a problem when one is confronted with an obstacle he/she must overcome to reach a goal. Literature on problem solving (e.g., Campitelli & Gobet, 2008; Holyoak, 1995; Sternberg, 2003)) show that solving problem requires the solver to undergo through cognitive processes of thinking, deciding, reasoning, understanding the language of the problem, and recollecting information stored in memory. Eysenck and Keane (2005) conceive problem solving as a tool, a skill and a process. A tool because it can help one to solve an immediate problem or to achieve a goal; a skill because once
Page 3 of 22
4 learnt, it can be used repeatedly (e.g., the ability to ride a bicycle, add numbers or speak a language); and as a process because it involves taking a number of steps. Some problems require special expertise, but many problems of daily living draw on more general skills
ip t
and strategies that are available to all people. As Reisberg (2007) points out, the key to effective problem solving is the initial conceptualization of a problem. Some people define
cr
problems in terms of their superficial features, while others define a problem in terms of
us
the problem’s deep structure or underlying dynamic. It suffices to state that a problem may or may not be solved depending on the solver’s habitual behavior.
an
One essential variable that can influence problem solving is cognitive style. Cognitive style refers to the preferred way individuals (e.g., adolescents) process
M
information or the different ways in which they think and learn. Tennan (1988) defined cognitive style as ‘an indivisible characteristic and consistent approach to organizing and
d
processing information’ (p. 89). Riding and Rayner (1998) termed cognitive style as a
te
‘fairly fixed characteristics of an individual that are static and are relatively in-built features of the individual’ (p. 268). Studies in cognitive psychology (e.g., Reisberg, 2007;
Ac ce p
Robertson, 2001; Stenberg, 2003) indicate that people exhibit significant differences in the cognitive processing styles they adopt in problem solving and other decision-making activities. Individuals adopt different perceptual approaches in solving problems; some of the best known approaches include field dependence-independence (Witkins, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977), convergent-divergent (Ding & Harskamp, 2006), visualizeverbalizer (Riding & Cheema, 1991) and the adaptation-innovation (Kirton, 2003) dimensions. The field dependence-independence cognitive style is the most popular cognitive style, studies (e.g., Mefoh & Ezeh, 2016; Messick, 1976) differentiate between field independent and field dependent cognitive styles. Messick argues that some people’s
Page 4 of 22
5 perception is strongly dominated by the prevailing field (environment). This mode of perception is designated as “field-dependence”. Others who perceive items as more or less separate from the surrounding are designated as “field-independence”. According to the
ip t
field dependent theory (Wapner, 1986), people who possess the field independent cognitive style tend to notice detail and have greater analytical and differentiating ability
cr
compared to field dependent people – that is, people who appear to view events globally
us
without considering the details. Thus, a field independent person tends to articulate figures as discrete from their backgrounds and easily differentiates objects from embedding
an
contents, but a field dependent person tends to experience events globally in an undifferentiated fashion. Cognitive style is one of the important factors that influence
M
students’ achievement on many school subjects (Murphy, Casey, Day, & Young, 1997). Studies have investigated the effect of field dependent-independent cognitive style on
d
several school performance tasks. Although several studies (Daniels & Moore, 2000;
te
Davis & Cochran, 1990; Mefoh & Ezeh, 2016; Tinajero & Paramo, 1997) seem to observe a positive relationship between field independent cognitive style and
Ac ce p
academic achievement, other studies (e.g., Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997) believed that differences in performance between the two cognitive styles should not exist when a task is structured to match the characteristic of each cognitive style. As Witkin, Prince-Williams, Bertini, Christainsen, Oltman, Kamirez and van-Meel (1974) proposed, cognitive style is largely a function of a person’s interaction with the environment. That is, cognitive style is related to the socio-cultural values emphasized by a particular society. Societies which value social conformity socialized adolescents to be field dependent on relevant tasks, while societies that emphasizes the need to think outside the box socializes their adolescents to become more active in processing information.
Page 5 of 22
6 Another factor that can influence problem solving is gender. In what ways are males and females different or similar? Dealing with problem solving in life is often one of the occasions that differences between male and female participants become apparent.
ip t
The lateralization hypothesis (Buffery & Gary, 1972; Geschwind, 1979) is often one hypothesis that researchers use to explain how male and female brains are different. The
cr
lateralization hypothesis states that cerebral hemispheres are process oriented, and that the
us
resources of the right hemisphere is specialized for information processing in a way that is conducive for analyzing spatially-oriented data, while resources of the left hemisphere
an
appear specialized for processing verbally-oriented data. This male right dominance explains why males tend to perform better on visual-spatial tasks, and why females seem
M
to excel instead on various language related tasks. Beyond the global statement that males tend to outperform females in test of spatial ability or that females perform better than
d
males in verbal fluency tasks, gender-related differences have generated a great deal of
te
controversy. Some studies (e.g., Oakhil & Petrides, 2007; Roberts & Bell, 2003) have observed appreciable differences between males and females in some cognitive tasks,
Ac ce p
others (e.g., Lynn & Irwing, 2002) found only negligible differences, and still others (Hyde & Linn, 1988) found no differences at all. This study has two objectives. The first objective is to examine whether
cognitive style, classified as field dependent and field independent cognitive style will influence adolescents’ skills in demarcating target words on the puzzle box problem (PBP). It is hypothesized that adolescents possessing the field independent cognitive style will significantly solve more problems on the puzzle box than adolescents who use the field dependent cognitive style. The hypothesis is hinged on the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner, 1986), which stated that individuals who possess the field independent cognitive style use active reasoning patterns that
Page 6 of 22
7 spontaneously show them to be superior over individuals who use the field dependent cognitive style. The second objective of the study is to investigate whether there are gender differences in adolescents’ skill in tracing and demarcating target words on
ip t
the puzzle box. As Witkins and Goodenough (1981) argued, females often have information processing and personality styles that are different from those of the
cr
males. It is thus hypothesized that male and female adolescents would differ
us
significantly on their ability to solve the puzzle box problem (PBP). Since men typically surpass women in spatial skills (Janssen & Geiser, 2012; Kaufman, 2007),
an
and since the puzzle box problem is a variant of spatial task that requires a participant to deliberately restructure the stimulus field to solve the problem, the
M
study proposes that male adolescents would solve more puzzle tasks than female
Ac ce p
te
d
adolescents.
Method
Participants
Two hundred and forty (240) secondary school students were drawn from senior secondary (SS) classes - SS II and SS III of University of Nigeria secondary school, Enugu Campus (UNEC), Enugu State. There were 109 (45.42%) male students and 131 (54.58%) female students; their ages ranged from 14 – 19 years (mean age = 16.5 years; SD = 2.56). In the sample, 127 (52.92%) participants adopt the field independent cognitive style, while the remaining 113 (47.08%) participants use the field dependent style. All the participants were volunteers, who willingly and freely opted to participate in the study. Materials
Page 7 of 22
8 Two sets of materials were used for this study. They are the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Puzzle Box Problem (PBP). The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971) was the first instrument that participants
ip t
were required to fill. The GEFT was employed in the study to categorize participants into field dependent and field independent cognitive styles. The test is a perceptual test that
cr
requires a person to locate simple figures embedded within complex figures. The test
us
contains three sections. The first section has seven items that is used for practice, while the remaining two sections, with nine items each were scored to determine an adolescent’s
an
cognitive style dimension. Each figure correctly located within the group embedded figures was scored 1. A median point (9) was used as the norm or cut-off mark.
M
Participants who score 9 and above on the GEFT were classified as using the field independent cognitive style, while participants who scored less than 9 were regarded as
d
using the field dependent cognitive style. The GEFT is a valid and reliable instrument
te
for categorizing people into field dependent and field independent cognitive styles. Watkin et al. (1971) reported a construct validity of .82 and a test-retest (3-year
Ac ce p
period) reliability coefficient of .89. The GEFT has been used in studies with Nigerian samples. Amazue (2006) administered GEFT to Nigerian secondary school students and found a content validity of .76 and a two-month test re-test reliability coefficient of .67 (Spearman-Brown formula = .82). The Puzzle Box Problem (PBP) was developed by the researchers to measure
adolescents’ problem solving ability. The PBP has been used in research with human participants (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Simon & Newell, 1972). The puzzle box is a 16 x 14 matrix, containing the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet. The letters were randomly repeated many times in the 244 cells of the puzzle box. The task that participants were required to solve was to indicate some target words on the PBP by
Page 8 of 22
9 tracing and demarcating the target word. Participants are to trace and demarcate the words from any direction: upward, downward, rightward or leftward, but provided that no single cell was jumped. Examples of some of the target words participants were asked to trace
ip t
and demarcate are “zoology”, “beer”, “loan”, “momentum”, “education” etc. There are 20 target words, and each correctly trace word on the puzzle box is scored 1. Three English
cr
language teachers in senior secondary school were employed as judges to validate the
us
puzzle task. The judges were given specific instructions to examine whether senior secondary students would be capable of tracing the target words from the puzzle box. The
an
congruence rate of the judges’ response was 95.83%. The reliability for the test was established by piloting the PBP among a sample of 60 senior secondary school students
M
(different from this sample). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .74 was obtained. Procedures
d
The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Puzzle Box Problem (PBP) were
te
administered to participants in a quiet hall. Before the administration of the tests, participants were told that the tests were not for examination; instead, they were for
Ac ce p
research purposes. The first section of the GEFT test comprising seven items was used for practice with the participants. After the practice session, participants were allowed to solve the remaining two sections on their own and without help. They were giving the following instruction:
‘This is a test of your ability to find a simple form when it is hidden within a complex pattern. Try to find the simple form in the complex figure and trace it with pencil directly over the lines of the complex figure. It has to be the same size, in the same proportions and face the same direction within the complex figure as when it appeared alone.’ Participants first responded to the group embedded figures test (GEFT) after which they were taught how to play the puzzle game. Practice session was done with a similar puzzle
Page 9 of 22
10 task. After the participants have understood how to play the puzzle, they received the following instruction: ‘Your task is to trace and demarcate words presented on the white board in the puzzle
have 10 minutes to trace the words’. (See attached for solved puzzle).
ip t
box. Trace the words from any direction: upward, downward, rightward or leftward. You
cr
Each of the two instruments took 10 minutes to complete. After the research, the
us
researchers invited all the participants together in a hall; there the participants were debriefed and any questions they had were answered. Finally, the researchers thanked the
an
participants for contributing to the advancement of science. Ethical approval for this research was granted by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of the Social Sciences,
M
University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Design/ Statistic
d
The design of the study is a between-subjects design. Two-way analysis of variance
te
(ANOVA), containing two factors – cognitive style and gender, were used for data
Ac ce p
analyses. Data were analyzed using SPSSFW version 20. Results
Table 1: Mean difference for male and female participants against the 2 dimensions of cognitive style.
Gender
Male
Female
Total
N
Cognitive Style
Field independent
12.11(3.04)
10.79(2.56)
11.96(2.63)
127
Field dependent
8.73(2.35)
8.03(2.69)
8.56(2.57)
113
Page 10 of 22
11 Mean difference
3.38
2.76
No. of participants (N)
109
131
3.4 240
Note: the values inside the parentheses represent standard deviation.
DF
MS
F
Cognitive style
141.02
1
141.02
15.68**
Gender (B)
97.34
1
97.34
10.82**
AxB
22.28
1
22.28
Error
2123.12
236
9.00
Corrected total
2350.60
239
ip t
SS
ES
0.43
cr
Variables
an
Table 2: Summary of 2-way between-subjects ANOVA
us
0.27
2.48
9.84
te
d
M
Key: ** = significant, p<0.001.
First, the descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 shows that participants who use the
Ac ce p
field independent cognitive style seem to perform better on the problem solving task than participants who use the field dependent cognitive style. Also, male adolescents tend to outperform female adolescents on the problem solving task. Two-way between-subjects analysis of variance was performed on the data to test the hypotheses stated in the study. The test for statistical significance indicated that the assumption of normality was not violated (p>.05). The skewness (-.86) and kurtosis (-1.61) values of each was less than ± 2, which further show that the distribution of the sample was normal. The test of significance presented on Table 2 shows that the mean score difference between participants who apply the field independent cognitive style and those who use the field dependent cognitive style was statistically significant, F (1, 236) = 15.68, p <.001, ES =
Page 11 of 22
12 0.43; field independent participants solved more puzzle problem than field dependent participants on the puzzle task. With regard to the second hypothesis, the mean difference between male and female participants on the problem solving task was also statistically
ip t
significant, F (1, 136) = 10.82, p <.001, ES = 0.27; male participants tend to solve more puzzle problem tasks than female participants. Given that the effect size (ES) values of
cr
0.43 and 0.27 were obtained for cognitive style and gender, respectively, the obtained
us
result is to be accepted with greater confidence. Though the effect size (ES) values for the two factors (cognitive style and gender) were not very high, but they are useful enough as
an
to be meaningful (Kirk, 2005). Discussion
M
The present study examined the effects of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability. Two hypotheses were tested in the study and results
d
of data analysis supported the two of them. First, adolescents possessing the field
te
independent cognitive style solved the puzzle box task better than adolescents possessing the field dependent cognitive style. This finding is consistent with previous related studies
Ac ce p
(Amazue, 2006; Daniels & Moore, 2000; Davis & Cochran, 1990; Tinajero & Paramo, 1997), which observed that field independent individuals typically show higher level of achievement on many cognitive operations than field dependent individuals. The present finding can be understood from the standpoint of the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner, 1986). The theory reveals that a field independent personality is characterized by an active discovery approach to learning, an individual orientation, analytical interests, and a task emphasis. All these attributes have considerable value in enhancing task performance. In contrast, the theory argues that the field dependent personality usually takes things easy and tends to be passive in learning context. As expected, this disposition frequently fails to correlate with high performance, as evidenced in the puzzle box task.
Page 12 of 22
13 The second hypothesis on gender was also supported; male adolescents solved more puzzle task than female adolescents. Gender-related differences in cognitive task and problem solving ability is still an issue of great controversy. However, the present study
ip t
seems to converge with studies that have observed appreciable differences between men and women in many cognitive tasks (Oakhill & Petrides, 2007; Roberts & Bell, 2003).
cr
Although the lateralization hypothesis predicts the present outcome, the researchers
us
consider the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner, 1986) as a more parsimonious theory to explain why male adolescents seem to outperform female
an
adolescents on the puzzle task. The theory suggests that females, more than male, rely on peer input to organize experiences and to interpret situations. Females are more field
M
dependent, thus, confirming Witkin and Goodenough (1981) postulation that females often have different information processing and personality styles than males.
d
These findings have great implications for teachers. There seems to be strong
te
positive relationship between field independent cognitive style and academic achievement (Davis & Cochran, 1990), students need to be encouraged and helped to learn to use the
Ac ce p
field independent cognitive style. This is more when it is not an all-or-none phenomenon; if cognitive ability can be improved, then cognitive style too can. A pupil can be helped to use a more positive learning style that would increase attending skills and greater ability to organize and retrieve information from memory (Amazue, 2006). There should be increased exposure to illustrative materials and other right brain mental exercises such as mirror drawing, to help students, especially female students to develop creative imagination. The limitation of the present study is that the research failed to control the influence of ability prior to the study. The GEFT has been criticized for containing an element of ability (Kirton, 2003), suggesting that GEFT may not measure cognitive style alone. For not accounting for the contribution of ability, confounding is probably inherent
Page 13 of 22
14 in the present study. Thus, for any future research that would like to employ the GEFT to categorize cognitive style into field dependent and field independent cognitive style, the researchers need to necessarily partial out the effect of ability to increase the likelihood
ip t
that the results of the research will produce valid, consistent results. Conclusion
cr
This study has two objectives. First, to investigate whether field independent
us
adolescents would be better at solving puzzle task than field dependent adolescents; second, to examine whether male adolescents would be better in solving the same task
an
than female adolescents. Results of data analysis supported these objectives, the finding were explained in the context of the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner,
M
1986). The theory posits that field independent individuals typically demonstrate higher level of achievement than field dependent individuals across several cognitive tasks; and
d
that males seem to be more field independent (i.e., analytical) than females. Looking at the
te
results, teachers were appealed to encourage students, especially female students, to adopt a more analytical (i.e., field independent cognitive style) approach to learning. The
Ac ce p
limitation of the study is that it failed to control the influence of cognitive ability, which makes the interpretation of the result difficult. As Kantowitz, Roediger, and Elmes point out, ‘designing experiments so that there can be only one explanation of the results is at the heart of the experimental method’ (p. 50). Suggestion for future research admonishes researchers to guard against this pitfall.
Page 14 of 22
References
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
15
Amazue, L.O. (2006). Role of cognitive style, locality, and gender in concept learning among secondary schools. Nigerian Journal of Psychological Research, 5, 82-94.
Anderson, J.R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35-44.
Buffery, A.U., & Gary, J.A. (1972). Sex differences in the development of spatial and linguistic skills. In C. Ounsted and D.C. Taylor (Eds.), Gender differences: Their ontogeny and significance (pp. 123-157). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Page 15 of 22
16
Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2008). The role of practice in chess: A longitudinal study.
ip t
Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 446-458.
Daniels, H.L., & Moore, D.M. (2000). Interaction of cognitive style and learner control in
cr
a hyper-media environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4),
us
369-383.
an
Davis, J.K., & Cochran, K.F. (1990). An information processing view of field dependence-independence. In O.N. Sarach (Ed.), Cognitive style in early education.
M
New York: Gordon & Breath Science.
d
Ding, D., & Harskamp, J. A. (2006). Advance organizers: Encoding manipulations.
te
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 514-521.
Ac ce p
Eysenck, J. T., & Keane, J. (1985). Developmental changes in selective and integrative visual attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 319-337.
Fritiz, R.L. (1992, December). A study of gender differences in cognitive style and conative volition. Paper presented at the American Vocational Education Research
Association, St. Louis, Mo.
Geschwind, N. (1979). Specialization of the human brain. Scientific American, 241, 180199.
Page 16 of 22
17
Holyoak, K.J. (1995). Problem solving. In E.E. Smith & D.N. Osherson (Eds.), Thinking
ip t
(2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: Mitt Press
Hyde, J.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.
us
cr
Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
Janssen, C.M., & Geiser, C. (2012). Cross-cultural differences in spatial abilities and
an
solution strategies: An investigation in Cambodia and Germany. Journal of
M
Cross-cultural Psychology, 4(4), 533-557.
Kantowitz, B.H., Roediger, H.L., & Elmes, D.G. (1994). Experimental psychology:
te
Publishing Company.
d
Understanding psychological research (5th edn.). St. Paul, Minneapolis: West
Ac ce p
Kaufman, S.B. (2007). Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial visualization ability: Can they be accounted for by differences in working memory capacity? Intelligence, 35, 211-223.
Kirk, R.E. (2005). The importance of effect magnitude. In S.F. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology. United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Kirton, M.J. (2003). Adaptation and innovation in the context of diversity and change. . London: Routledge.
Page 17 of 22
18 Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2002). Sex differences in general knowledge, semantic memory and reasoning ability. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 545-556.
ip t
Mefoh, P.C., & Ezeh, V.C. (2016). Effect of field-dependent versus field-independent cognitive styles on prospective and retrospective memory slips. South African
cr
Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 542-552
us
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0081246316632969 sap.sagepub.com
an
Messick, R. (1976). The effect of individual differences in cognitive style and motives in solving insight problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38(2),
M
83-96.
Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brain sex: The real difference between men and women.
te
d
New York: Dell.
Murphy, H.J., Casey, B., Day, D.A., & Young, J.D. (1997). Scores on the group embedded
Ac ce p
figures test by undergraduates in information management. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 84, 1135-1138.
Oakhill, J.V., & Petrides, A. (2007). Sex differences in the effects of interest on boys’ and girls’ reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 223-235.
Reisberg, D. (2007). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind (3rd edn.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Page 18 of 22
19 Riding, R.J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3&4), 193-215 .
ip t
Riding, R.J.,& Rayner, S.G. (1998). Cognitive style and learning strategies. London:
cr
Fulton.
us
Roberts, J.E., & Bell, M.A. (2003). Two- and three dimensional mental rotation tasks lead to different parietal laterality for men and women. International Journal of
an
Psychophysiology, 50, 235-246.
M
Robertson, S.I. (2001). Problem solving. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
te
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
d
Simon, H.A., & Newell, A. (1972). Human problem solving. Upper Saddle River, New
Ac ce p
Sternberg, R.J. (2003). The creativity Conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contribution. New York: Psychology Press.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.I. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700-712.
Tennan, L. (1988). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 138.
Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M.F. (1997). Field dependence-independence and academic
Page 19 of 22
20 achievement: A reexamination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199-212.
ip t
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01237.x/full.
Warpner, S. (1986). Introductory remarks. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner
cr
(Eds). Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 1-
us
4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
an
Witkin, H.A. (1978). Field-dependence in personal and cultural adaptation. Worcester,
M
MS: Clark University Press.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New
te
d
York: International Universities Press.
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field-dependent and
Ac ce p
field-independent cognitive styles and their implications. Review of Educational
Research, 47, 1-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j2333-8504.1975.tb01065.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Rankin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A manual for the group embedded figures test. Pablo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Witkin, H.A., Prince-Williams, D., Bertini, M., Christainsen, B., Oltman, P.K., Kamirez, M., & van Meel, J. (1974).Social conformity and psychological differentiation. International Journal of Psychology, 9, 11-22.
Page 20 of 22
21 Zhang, L.F., & Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ:
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ac ce p
Appendix/Supplementary material Solved Puzzle Box Problem (PBP)
Page 21 of 22
cr
ip t
22
Highlights
Adolescents possessing the field independent cognitive style solved more puzzle
us
•
problems than adolescents who possess the field dependent cognitive style. Male adolescents solved more puzzle box problem (PBP) than the female
an
•
adolescents. •
The effect size (ES) values for cognitive style and gender demonstrate that the
•
M
study has a moderately high internal validity.
The two main factors were independent; there was no interaction effect between
Ac ce p
te
d
cognitive style and gender.
Page 22 of 22
S1871-1871(17)30068-8 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.03.002 TSC 428
To appear in:
Thinking Skills and Creativity
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
16-6-2016 17-11-2016 10-3-2017
Please cite this article as: Mefoh, P. C., Nwoke, M. B., and Chijioke, J. B. C. C. A. O.,Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability, Thinking Skills and Creativity (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.03.002 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
1 Effect of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability
1
us
cr
ip t
Running head: cognitive style and problem solving
Philip C. Mefoh, 1Mary B. Nwoke, 1JohnBosco C. Chukwuorji & 1Andrew O. Chijioke 1
d
M
an
Department of Psychology, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Ac ce p
te
Corresponding Author: Philip C. Mefoh, PhD [email protected]
Page 1 of 22
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
2
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability. Two hundred and forty senior secondary school students (109 males and 131 females; Mean age = 16.5 years; SD = 2.56) were participants in the study. The Group Embedded Figures Test was used to classify participants into field independent (n = 127) and field dependent (n = 113) cognitive styles. A 16 x 14 puzzle box was used to test problem solving ability. F-statistics showed significant main effects of cognitive style (p < .001) and gender (p <001) on problem solving. Adolescents possessing the field independent cognitive style solved more puzzle task than adolescents possessing the field dependent cognitive style. Male adolescents outperformed female adolescents on the
Page 2 of 22
3 problem solving task. Effect size (ES) values of 0.43 and 0.27 for cognitive style and gender respectively showed that the results were reliable. Suggestion was made for further
ip t
studies.
Key words: Cognitive style; Field dependent; Field independent; Problem solving; Puzzle
te
d
M
an
us
cr
box problem.
Ac ce p
Problem solving is a basic part of living. Problem solving refers to cognitive
processing aimed at figuring out how to achieve a goal. A problem exists when an individual desires a goal but does not know immediately what actions to take to reach that goal. Thus, one faces a problem when one is confronted with an obstacle he/she must overcome to reach a goal. Literature on problem solving (e.g., Campitelli & Gobet, 2008; Holyoak, 1995; Sternberg, 2003)) show that solving problem requires the solver to undergo through cognitive processes of thinking, deciding, reasoning, understanding the language of the problem, and recollecting information stored in memory. Eysenck and Keane (2005) conceive problem solving as a tool, a skill and a process. A tool because it can help one to solve an immediate problem or to achieve a goal; a skill because once
Page 3 of 22
4 learnt, it can be used repeatedly (e.g., the ability to ride a bicycle, add numbers or speak a language); and as a process because it involves taking a number of steps. Some problems require special expertise, but many problems of daily living draw on more general skills
ip t
and strategies that are available to all people. As Reisberg (2007) points out, the key to effective problem solving is the initial conceptualization of a problem. Some people define
cr
problems in terms of their superficial features, while others define a problem in terms of
us
the problem’s deep structure or underlying dynamic. It suffices to state that a problem may or may not be solved depending on the solver’s habitual behavior.
an
One essential variable that can influence problem solving is cognitive style. Cognitive style refers to the preferred way individuals (e.g., adolescents) process
M
information or the different ways in which they think and learn. Tennan (1988) defined cognitive style as ‘an indivisible characteristic and consistent approach to organizing and
d
processing information’ (p. 89). Riding and Rayner (1998) termed cognitive style as a
te
‘fairly fixed characteristics of an individual that are static and are relatively in-built features of the individual’ (p. 268). Studies in cognitive psychology (e.g., Reisberg, 2007;
Ac ce p
Robertson, 2001; Stenberg, 2003) indicate that people exhibit significant differences in the cognitive processing styles they adopt in problem solving and other decision-making activities. Individuals adopt different perceptual approaches in solving problems; some of the best known approaches include field dependence-independence (Witkins, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977), convergent-divergent (Ding & Harskamp, 2006), visualizeverbalizer (Riding & Cheema, 1991) and the adaptation-innovation (Kirton, 2003) dimensions. The field dependence-independence cognitive style is the most popular cognitive style, studies (e.g., Mefoh & Ezeh, 2016; Messick, 1976) differentiate between field independent and field dependent cognitive styles. Messick argues that some people’s
Page 4 of 22
5 perception is strongly dominated by the prevailing field (environment). This mode of perception is designated as “field-dependence”. Others who perceive items as more or less separate from the surrounding are designated as “field-independence”. According to the
ip t
field dependent theory (Wapner, 1986), people who possess the field independent cognitive style tend to notice detail and have greater analytical and differentiating ability
cr
compared to field dependent people – that is, people who appear to view events globally
us
without considering the details. Thus, a field independent person tends to articulate figures as discrete from their backgrounds and easily differentiates objects from embedding
an
contents, but a field dependent person tends to experience events globally in an undifferentiated fashion. Cognitive style is one of the important factors that influence
M
students’ achievement on many school subjects (Murphy, Casey, Day, & Young, 1997). Studies have investigated the effect of field dependent-independent cognitive style on
d
several school performance tasks. Although several studies (Daniels & Moore, 2000;
te
Davis & Cochran, 1990; Mefoh & Ezeh, 2016; Tinajero & Paramo, 1997) seem to observe a positive relationship between field independent cognitive style and
Ac ce p
academic achievement, other studies (e.g., Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997) believed that differences in performance between the two cognitive styles should not exist when a task is structured to match the characteristic of each cognitive style. As Witkin, Prince-Williams, Bertini, Christainsen, Oltman, Kamirez and van-Meel (1974) proposed, cognitive style is largely a function of a person’s interaction with the environment. That is, cognitive style is related to the socio-cultural values emphasized by a particular society. Societies which value social conformity socialized adolescents to be field dependent on relevant tasks, while societies that emphasizes the need to think outside the box socializes their adolescents to become more active in processing information.
Page 5 of 22
6 Another factor that can influence problem solving is gender. In what ways are males and females different or similar? Dealing with problem solving in life is often one of the occasions that differences between male and female participants become apparent.
ip t
The lateralization hypothesis (Buffery & Gary, 1972; Geschwind, 1979) is often one hypothesis that researchers use to explain how male and female brains are different. The
cr
lateralization hypothesis states that cerebral hemispheres are process oriented, and that the
us
resources of the right hemisphere is specialized for information processing in a way that is conducive for analyzing spatially-oriented data, while resources of the left hemisphere
an
appear specialized for processing verbally-oriented data. This male right dominance explains why males tend to perform better on visual-spatial tasks, and why females seem
M
to excel instead on various language related tasks. Beyond the global statement that males tend to outperform females in test of spatial ability or that females perform better than
d
males in verbal fluency tasks, gender-related differences have generated a great deal of
te
controversy. Some studies (e.g., Oakhil & Petrides, 2007; Roberts & Bell, 2003) have observed appreciable differences between males and females in some cognitive tasks,
Ac ce p
others (e.g., Lynn & Irwing, 2002) found only negligible differences, and still others (Hyde & Linn, 1988) found no differences at all. This study has two objectives. The first objective is to examine whether
cognitive style, classified as field dependent and field independent cognitive style will influence adolescents’ skills in demarcating target words on the puzzle box problem (PBP). It is hypothesized that adolescents possessing the field independent cognitive style will significantly solve more problems on the puzzle box than adolescents who use the field dependent cognitive style. The hypothesis is hinged on the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner, 1986), which stated that individuals who possess the field independent cognitive style use active reasoning patterns that
Page 6 of 22
7 spontaneously show them to be superior over individuals who use the field dependent cognitive style. The second objective of the study is to investigate whether there are gender differences in adolescents’ skill in tracing and demarcating target words on
ip t
the puzzle box. As Witkins and Goodenough (1981) argued, females often have information processing and personality styles that are different from those of the
cr
males. It is thus hypothesized that male and female adolescents would differ
us
significantly on their ability to solve the puzzle box problem (PBP). Since men typically surpass women in spatial skills (Janssen & Geiser, 2012; Kaufman, 2007),
an
and since the puzzle box problem is a variant of spatial task that requires a participant to deliberately restructure the stimulus field to solve the problem, the
M
study proposes that male adolescents would solve more puzzle tasks than female
Ac ce p
te
d
adolescents.
Method
Participants
Two hundred and forty (240) secondary school students were drawn from senior secondary (SS) classes - SS II and SS III of University of Nigeria secondary school, Enugu Campus (UNEC), Enugu State. There were 109 (45.42%) male students and 131 (54.58%) female students; their ages ranged from 14 – 19 years (mean age = 16.5 years; SD = 2.56). In the sample, 127 (52.92%) participants adopt the field independent cognitive style, while the remaining 113 (47.08%) participants use the field dependent style. All the participants were volunteers, who willingly and freely opted to participate in the study. Materials
Page 7 of 22
8 Two sets of materials were used for this study. They are the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Puzzle Box Problem (PBP). The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971) was the first instrument that participants
ip t
were required to fill. The GEFT was employed in the study to categorize participants into field dependent and field independent cognitive styles. The test is a perceptual test that
cr
requires a person to locate simple figures embedded within complex figures. The test
us
contains three sections. The first section has seven items that is used for practice, while the remaining two sections, with nine items each were scored to determine an adolescent’s
an
cognitive style dimension. Each figure correctly located within the group embedded figures was scored 1. A median point (9) was used as the norm or cut-off mark.
M
Participants who score 9 and above on the GEFT were classified as using the field independent cognitive style, while participants who scored less than 9 were regarded as
d
using the field dependent cognitive style. The GEFT is a valid and reliable instrument
te
for categorizing people into field dependent and field independent cognitive styles. Watkin et al. (1971) reported a construct validity of .82 and a test-retest (3-year
Ac ce p
period) reliability coefficient of .89. The GEFT has been used in studies with Nigerian samples. Amazue (2006) administered GEFT to Nigerian secondary school students and found a content validity of .76 and a two-month test re-test reliability coefficient of .67 (Spearman-Brown formula = .82). The Puzzle Box Problem (PBP) was developed by the researchers to measure
adolescents’ problem solving ability. The PBP has been used in research with human participants (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Simon & Newell, 1972). The puzzle box is a 16 x 14 matrix, containing the twenty-six letters of the English alphabet. The letters were randomly repeated many times in the 244 cells of the puzzle box. The task that participants were required to solve was to indicate some target words on the PBP by
Page 8 of 22
9 tracing and demarcating the target word. Participants are to trace and demarcate the words from any direction: upward, downward, rightward or leftward, but provided that no single cell was jumped. Examples of some of the target words participants were asked to trace
ip t
and demarcate are “zoology”, “beer”, “loan”, “momentum”, “education” etc. There are 20 target words, and each correctly trace word on the puzzle box is scored 1. Three English
cr
language teachers in senior secondary school were employed as judges to validate the
us
puzzle task. The judges were given specific instructions to examine whether senior secondary students would be capable of tracing the target words from the puzzle box. The
an
congruence rate of the judges’ response was 95.83%. The reliability for the test was established by piloting the PBP among a sample of 60 senior secondary school students
M
(different from this sample). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of .74 was obtained. Procedures
d
The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) and the Puzzle Box Problem (PBP) were
te
administered to participants in a quiet hall. Before the administration of the tests, participants were told that the tests were not for examination; instead, they were for
Ac ce p
research purposes. The first section of the GEFT test comprising seven items was used for practice with the participants. After the practice session, participants were allowed to solve the remaining two sections on their own and without help. They were giving the following instruction:
‘This is a test of your ability to find a simple form when it is hidden within a complex pattern. Try to find the simple form in the complex figure and trace it with pencil directly over the lines of the complex figure. It has to be the same size, in the same proportions and face the same direction within the complex figure as when it appeared alone.’ Participants first responded to the group embedded figures test (GEFT) after which they were taught how to play the puzzle game. Practice session was done with a similar puzzle
Page 9 of 22
10 task. After the participants have understood how to play the puzzle, they received the following instruction: ‘Your task is to trace and demarcate words presented on the white board in the puzzle
have 10 minutes to trace the words’. (See attached for solved puzzle).
ip t
box. Trace the words from any direction: upward, downward, rightward or leftward. You
cr
Each of the two instruments took 10 minutes to complete. After the research, the
us
researchers invited all the participants together in a hall; there the participants were debriefed and any questions they had were answered. Finally, the researchers thanked the
an
participants for contributing to the advancement of science. Ethical approval for this research was granted by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of the Social Sciences,
M
University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Design/ Statistic
d
The design of the study is a between-subjects design. Two-way analysis of variance
te
(ANOVA), containing two factors – cognitive style and gender, were used for data
Ac ce p
analyses. Data were analyzed using SPSSFW version 20. Results
Table 1: Mean difference for male and female participants against the 2 dimensions of cognitive style.
Gender
Male
Female
Total
N
Cognitive Style
Field independent
12.11(3.04)
10.79(2.56)
11.96(2.63)
127
Field dependent
8.73(2.35)
8.03(2.69)
8.56(2.57)
113
Page 10 of 22
11 Mean difference
3.38
2.76
No. of participants (N)
109
131
3.4 240
Note: the values inside the parentheses represent standard deviation.
DF
MS
F
Cognitive style
141.02
1
141.02
15.68**
Gender (B)
97.34
1
97.34
10.82**
AxB
22.28
1
22.28
Error
2123.12
236
9.00
Corrected total
2350.60
239
ip t
SS
ES
0.43
cr
Variables
an
Table 2: Summary of 2-way between-subjects ANOVA
us
0.27
2.48
9.84
te
d
M
Key: ** = significant, p<0.001.
First, the descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 shows that participants who use the
Ac ce p
field independent cognitive style seem to perform better on the problem solving task than participants who use the field dependent cognitive style. Also, male adolescents tend to outperform female adolescents on the problem solving task. Two-way between-subjects analysis of variance was performed on the data to test the hypotheses stated in the study. The test for statistical significance indicated that the assumption of normality was not violated (p>.05). The skewness (-.86) and kurtosis (-1.61) values of each was less than ± 2, which further show that the distribution of the sample was normal. The test of significance presented on Table 2 shows that the mean score difference between participants who apply the field independent cognitive style and those who use the field dependent cognitive style was statistically significant, F (1, 236) = 15.68, p <.001, ES =
Page 11 of 22
12 0.43; field independent participants solved more puzzle problem than field dependent participants on the puzzle task. With regard to the second hypothesis, the mean difference between male and female participants on the problem solving task was also statistically
ip t
significant, F (1, 136) = 10.82, p <.001, ES = 0.27; male participants tend to solve more puzzle problem tasks than female participants. Given that the effect size (ES) values of
cr
0.43 and 0.27 were obtained for cognitive style and gender, respectively, the obtained
us
result is to be accepted with greater confidence. Though the effect size (ES) values for the two factors (cognitive style and gender) were not very high, but they are useful enough as
an
to be meaningful (Kirk, 2005). Discussion
M
The present study examined the effects of cognitive style and gender on adolescents’ problem solving ability. Two hypotheses were tested in the study and results
d
of data analysis supported the two of them. First, adolescents possessing the field
te
independent cognitive style solved the puzzle box task better than adolescents possessing the field dependent cognitive style. This finding is consistent with previous related studies
Ac ce p
(Amazue, 2006; Daniels & Moore, 2000; Davis & Cochran, 1990; Tinajero & Paramo, 1997), which observed that field independent individuals typically show higher level of achievement on many cognitive operations than field dependent individuals. The present finding can be understood from the standpoint of the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner, 1986). The theory reveals that a field independent personality is characterized by an active discovery approach to learning, an individual orientation, analytical interests, and a task emphasis. All these attributes have considerable value in enhancing task performance. In contrast, the theory argues that the field dependent personality usually takes things easy and tends to be passive in learning context. As expected, this disposition frequently fails to correlate with high performance, as evidenced in the puzzle box task.
Page 12 of 22
13 The second hypothesis on gender was also supported; male adolescents solved more puzzle task than female adolescents. Gender-related differences in cognitive task and problem solving ability is still an issue of great controversy. However, the present study
ip t
seems to converge with studies that have observed appreciable differences between men and women in many cognitive tasks (Oakhill & Petrides, 2007; Roberts & Bell, 2003).
cr
Although the lateralization hypothesis predicts the present outcome, the researchers
us
consider the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner, 1986) as a more parsimonious theory to explain why male adolescents seem to outperform female
an
adolescents on the puzzle task. The theory suggests that females, more than male, rely on peer input to organize experiences and to interpret situations. Females are more field
M
dependent, thus, confirming Witkin and Goodenough (1981) postulation that females often have different information processing and personality styles than males.
d
These findings have great implications for teachers. There seems to be strong
te
positive relationship between field independent cognitive style and academic achievement (Davis & Cochran, 1990), students need to be encouraged and helped to learn to use the
Ac ce p
field independent cognitive style. This is more when it is not an all-or-none phenomenon; if cognitive ability can be improved, then cognitive style too can. A pupil can be helped to use a more positive learning style that would increase attending skills and greater ability to organize and retrieve information from memory (Amazue, 2006). There should be increased exposure to illustrative materials and other right brain mental exercises such as mirror drawing, to help students, especially female students to develop creative imagination. The limitation of the present study is that the research failed to control the influence of ability prior to the study. The GEFT has been criticized for containing an element of ability (Kirton, 2003), suggesting that GEFT may not measure cognitive style alone. For not accounting for the contribution of ability, confounding is probably inherent
Page 13 of 22
14 in the present study. Thus, for any future research that would like to employ the GEFT to categorize cognitive style into field dependent and field independent cognitive style, the researchers need to necessarily partial out the effect of ability to increase the likelihood
ip t
that the results of the research will produce valid, consistent results. Conclusion
cr
This study has two objectives. First, to investigate whether field independent
us
adolescents would be better at solving puzzle task than field dependent adolescents; second, to examine whether male adolescents would be better in solving the same task
an
than female adolescents. Results of data analysis supported these objectives, the finding were explained in the context of the field dependent cognitive style theory (Wapner,
M
1986). The theory posits that field independent individuals typically demonstrate higher level of achievement than field dependent individuals across several cognitive tasks; and
d
that males seem to be more field independent (i.e., analytical) than females. Looking at the
te
results, teachers were appealed to encourage students, especially female students, to adopt a more analytical (i.e., field independent cognitive style) approach to learning. The
Ac ce p
limitation of the study is that it failed to control the influence of cognitive ability, which makes the interpretation of the result difficult. As Kantowitz, Roediger, and Elmes point out, ‘designing experiments so that there can be only one explanation of the results is at the heart of the experimental method’ (p. 50). Suggestion for future research admonishes researchers to guard against this pitfall.
Page 14 of 22
References
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
15
Amazue, L.O. (2006). Role of cognitive style, locality, and gender in concept learning among secondary schools. Nigerian Journal of Psychological Research, 5, 82-94.
Anderson, J.R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35-44.
Buffery, A.U., & Gary, J.A. (1972). Sex differences in the development of spatial and linguistic skills. In C. Ounsted and D.C. Taylor (Eds.), Gender differences: Their ontogeny and significance (pp. 123-157). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Page 15 of 22
16
Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2008). The role of practice in chess: A longitudinal study.
ip t
Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 446-458.
Daniels, H.L., & Moore, D.M. (2000). Interaction of cognitive style and learner control in
cr
a hyper-media environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4),
us
369-383.
an
Davis, J.K., & Cochran, K.F. (1990). An information processing view of field dependence-independence. In O.N. Sarach (Ed.), Cognitive style in early education.
M
New York: Gordon & Breath Science.
d
Ding, D., & Harskamp, J. A. (2006). Advance organizers: Encoding manipulations.
te
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 514-521.
Ac ce p
Eysenck, J. T., & Keane, J. (1985). Developmental changes in selective and integrative visual attention. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 319-337.
Fritiz, R.L. (1992, December). A study of gender differences in cognitive style and conative volition. Paper presented at the American Vocational Education Research
Association, St. Louis, Mo.
Geschwind, N. (1979). Specialization of the human brain. Scientific American, 241, 180199.
Page 16 of 22
17
Holyoak, K.J. (1995). Problem solving. In E.E. Smith & D.N. Osherson (Eds.), Thinking
ip t
(2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: Mitt Press
Hyde, J.S., & Linn, M.C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.
us
cr
Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
Janssen, C.M., & Geiser, C. (2012). Cross-cultural differences in spatial abilities and
an
solution strategies: An investigation in Cambodia and Germany. Journal of
M
Cross-cultural Psychology, 4(4), 533-557.
Kantowitz, B.H., Roediger, H.L., & Elmes, D.G. (1994). Experimental psychology:
te
Publishing Company.
d
Understanding psychological research (5th edn.). St. Paul, Minneapolis: West
Ac ce p
Kaufman, S.B. (2007). Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial visualization ability: Can they be accounted for by differences in working memory capacity? Intelligence, 35, 211-223.
Kirk, R.E. (2005). The importance of effect magnitude. In S.F. Davis (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in experimental psychology. United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Kirton, M.J. (2003). Adaptation and innovation in the context of diversity and change. . London: Routledge.
Page 17 of 22
18 Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2002). Sex differences in general knowledge, semantic memory and reasoning ability. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 545-556.
ip t
Mefoh, P.C., & Ezeh, V.C. (2016). Effect of field-dependent versus field-independent cognitive styles on prospective and retrospective memory slips. South African
cr
Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 542-552
us
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0081246316632969 sap.sagepub.com
an
Messick, R. (1976). The effect of individual differences in cognitive style and motives in solving insight problems. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38(2),
M
83-96.
Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brain sex: The real difference between men and women.
te
d
New York: Dell.
Murphy, H.J., Casey, B., Day, D.A., & Young, J.D. (1997). Scores on the group embedded
Ac ce p
figures test by undergraduates in information management. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 84, 1135-1138.
Oakhill, J.V., & Petrides, A. (2007). Sex differences in the effects of interest on boys’ and girls’ reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 223-235.
Reisberg, D. (2007). Cognition: Exploring the science of the mind (3rd edn.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Page 18 of 22
19 Riding, R.J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3&4), 193-215 .
ip t
Riding, R.J.,& Rayner, S.G. (1998). Cognitive style and learning strategies. London:
cr
Fulton.
us
Roberts, J.E., & Bell, M.A. (2003). Two- and three dimensional mental rotation tasks lead to different parietal laterality for men and women. International Journal of
an
Psychophysiology, 50, 235-246.
M
Robertson, S.I. (2001). Problem solving. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
te
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
d
Simon, H.A., & Newell, A. (1972). Human problem solving. Upper Saddle River, New
Ac ce p
Sternberg, R.J. (2003). The creativity Conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contribution. New York: Psychology Press.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.I. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700-712.
Tennan, L. (1988). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 138.
Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M.F. (1997). Field dependence-independence and academic
Page 19 of 22
20 achievement: A reexamination of their relationship. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199-212.
ip t
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01237.x/full.
Warpner, S. (1986). Introductory remarks. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner
cr
(Eds). Field dependence in psychological theory, research, and application (pp. 1-
us
4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
an
Witkin, H.A. (1978). Field-dependence in personal and cultural adaptation. Worcester,
M
MS: Clark University Press.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. New
te
d
York: International Universities Press.
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field-dependent and
Ac ce p
field-independent cognitive styles and their implications. Review of Educational
Research, 47, 1-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j2333-8504.1975.tb01065.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Rankin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A manual for the group embedded figures test. Pablo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Witkin, H.A., Prince-Williams, D., Bertini, M., Christainsen, B., Oltman, P.K., Kamirez, M., & van Meel, J. (1974).Social conformity and psychological differentiation. International Journal of Psychology, 9, 11-22.
Page 20 of 22
21 Zhang, L.F., & Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ:
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ac ce p
Appendix/Supplementary material Solved Puzzle Box Problem (PBP)
Page 21 of 22
cr
ip t
22
Highlights
Adolescents possessing the field independent cognitive style solved more puzzle
us
•
problems than adolescents who possess the field dependent cognitive style. Male adolescents solved more puzzle box problem (PBP) than the female
an
•
adolescents. •
The effect size (ES) values for cognitive style and gender demonstrate that the
•
M
study has a moderately high internal validity.
The two main factors were independent; there was no interaction effect between
Ac ce p
te
d
cognitive style and gender.
Page 22 of 22