Field dependence-independence (FDI) cognitive style:An analysis of attentional functioning.

  1. Guisande Couñago, María Adelina
Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Ano de publicación: 2007

Volume: 19

Número: 4

Páxinas: 572-577

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Psicothema

Resumo

Estilo cognitivo dependencia-independencia de campo: un análisis del funcionamiento atencional. Investigaciones previas han indicado que los niños dependientes de campo obtienen peores rendimientos que los independientes de campo en casi todas las asignaturas escolares y en diferentes tareas cognitivas. Sin embargo, los procesos que subyacen a este peor rendimiento no están lo suficientemente delimitados. El objetivo de este artículo es analizar si niños con diferentes estilos cognitivos manifiestan diferencias en tareas que miden aspectos concretos del funcionamiento atencional. Específicamente, se explora el rendimiento de 149 niños entre 8 y 11 años en cuatro tareas que evalúan, capacidad de almacenamiento (Dígitos en orden directo), memoria de trabajo verbal (Dígitos en orden inverso), capacidad para dirigir, cambiar y mantener la atención (Claves) y atención sostenida (Test de atención y búsqueda visual). Los resultados indican que los niños independientes de campo mostraron un mejor rendimiento que los dependientes de campo y los del grupo intermedio en todas las tareas a excepción de la prueba de Dígitos en orden directo. Se discuten algunas implicaciones para la teoría y la práctica.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Amador, J.A., & Kirchner, T. (1999). Correlations among scores on measures of field dependence-independence cognitive style, cognitive ability, and sustained attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 236-239.
  • Avolio, B.J., Alexander, R.A., Barrett, G.V., & Sterns, H.L. (1981). Designing a measure of visual selective attention to assess individual differences in information processing. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 29-42.
  • Baddeley, A., & 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 (pp. 28-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Bahar, M., & Hansel, M.H. (2000). The relationship between some psychological factors and their effect on the performance of grid questions and word association tests. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 349-364.
  • Baillargeon, R., Pascual-Leone, J., & Roncadin, C. (1998). Mental-attentional capacity: Does cognitive style make a difference? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 143-166.
  • Bennink, C.D. (1982). Individual differences in cognitive style, working memory, and semantic integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 267-280.
  • Burton, J.K., Moore, D.M., & Holmes, G.A. (1995). Hypermedia concepts and research: An overview. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 345-369.
  • Cattell, R.B., & Cattell, A.K.S. (1986). Tests de Factor «g», Escalas 2 y 3 (4th ed.). Madrid: TEA (Original tests published 1973).
  • Clark, H.T., & Roof, K.D. (1988). Field dependence and strategy use. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 303-307.
  • Cochran, K.F., & Davis, J.K. (1987). Individual differences in inference processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 197-210.
  • Davis, J.K., & Cochran, K.F. (1990). An information processing view of field dependence-independence. In O.N. Saracho (Ed.): Cognitive Style and Early Education (pp. 61-78). New York, NY: Gordon and Breach Science.
  • Engle, R.W., & Kane, M.J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.): The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (vol. 44, pp. 145-199). New York, NY: Elsevier.
  • Fernández Ballesteros, R., Macia, A., Ruiz, J.M., Fernández Lagunilla, E., Del Villar, M.V., & Díaz Vega, P. (1980). Influencia de la dependencia-independencia de campo sobre el efecto del «feedback» en una tarea de tiempos de reacción. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 35, 589-595.
  • Gathercole, S.E., & Pickering, S.J. (2000). Assessment of working memory in six-and seven-year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 377-390.
  • Globerson, T. (1985). Field independence and mental capacity: A developmental approach. Developmental Review, 5, 261-273.
  • Goode, P.E., Goddard, P.H., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2002). Event-related potentials index cognitive style differences during a serial-order recall task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 43, 123-140.
  • Guisande, M.A., Tinajero, C., Rodríguez, M.S., Cadaveira, F., & Páramo, M.F. (2004). El estilo cognitivo dependencia-independencia de campo y el uso de estrategias globales versus analíticas. In F. Miras, N. Yuste & F. Valls (Eds.): IV Congreso Internacional de Psicología y Educación: Calidad Educativa (pp. 2255-2261). Almería: University of Almería.
  • Guisande, M.A., Tinajero, C., & Páramo, M.F. (2005 August). Are there any factors that may influence the course of cognitive development? Working memory and field dependence-independence cognitive style. Poster session presented at the XIIth European Conference on Developmental Psychology. Tenerife.
  • Hale, J.B., Hoeppner, J.A.B., & Fiorello, C.A. (2002). Analyzing digit span components for assessment of attention processes. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(2), 128-143.
  • Hayes, J., & Allinson, C.W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51, 847-871.
  • Huteau, M. (1987). Style cognitif et personalité. La dépendance-indépendance du champ. Lille: Presses Universitaires.
  • Hutton, U.M.Z., & Towse, J.N. (2001). Short-term memory and working memory as indices of children’s cognitive skills. Memory, 9(4-6), 383- 394.
  • Karp, S.A., & Konstadt, N.L. (1971). The Children’s Embedded Figures Test (CEFT). In H.A. Witkin, P.K. Oltman, E. Raskin, & S.A. Karp (Eds.): A Manual for Embedded Figures Test (pp. 21-26). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.
  • Kirchner, T., Forns, M., & Amador, J.A. (1990). Relaciones entre las dimensiones de dependencia-independencia de campo, introversión-extroversión y tiempos de reacción. Anuario de Psicología, 46, 53-63.
  • Leo-Rhynie, E. (1985). Field independence, academic orientation and achievement. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 4, 22-27.
  • Lezak, S. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Mansfield, E.A. (1997). Working memory development in adolescence: A neo-Piagetian investigation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley.
  • Marendaz, C. (1985). Précédence globale et dépendance du champ: Des routines visuelles? Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 5, 727-745.
  • Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Soriano, M.F. (2006). Memoria operativa y control ejecutivo: procesos inhibitorios en tarea de actualización y generación aleatoria. Psicothema, 18(1), 112-116.
  • Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 19, 59-74.
  • Miyake, A., Witzki, A., & Emerson, M. (2001). Field dependence-independence from a working memory perspective: A dual-task investigation of the Hidden Figures Test. Memory, 9, 445-457.
  • Ohlmann, T., & Carbonnel, S. (1983). Dépendance-indépendance a l’égard du champ et activités classificatoires sur objets significatifs. In T. Ohlmann (Ed.): La Pensée Naturalle (pp. 275-285). Rouen: Presses Universitaires.
  • Páramo, M.F., Corral, M., Rodríguez, S., Tinajero, C., & Cadaveira, F. (1999, July). Cognitive functioning and field dependence-independence cognitive style. Poster session presented at the VI European Congress of Psychology, Rome.
  • Pascual-Leone, J. (1987). Organismic processes for neo-Piagetian theories: A dialectical causal account of cognitive development. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 531-570.
  • Pascual-Leone, J. (1997). Constructivismo dialéctico como fundamento epistemológico de la ciencia humana. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 31, 1-26.
  • Rickards, J.P., Fajen, B.R., Sullivan, J.F., & Gillespie, G. (1997). Signaling, notetaking and field dependence-independence in text comprehension and recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 508-517.
  • Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193-215.
  • Robinson, J.A., & Bennink, C.D. (1978). Field articulation and working memory. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 443-449.
  • Roszkowski, M.J., & Snelbecker, G.E. (1987). Peripheral laterality, field independence, and academic achievement. A re-examination of their interrelationship. Developmental Neuropsychology, 3, 53-65.
  • Rozencwajg, P. (1991). Analysis of problem solving strategies on the Kohs Block Design Test. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 6, 73-88.
  • Saito, S. (2001). The phonological loop and memory for rhythms: An individual differences approach. Memory, 9(4-6), 313-322.
  • Tinajero, C., & Páramo, M.F. (1997). Field dependence-independence and academic achievement: A re-examination of their relationship. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 199-212.
  • Trenerry, M.R., Crosson, B., DeBoe, J., & Leber, W.R. (1990). Visual Search and Attention Test. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
  • Tsakanikos, E. (2006). Associative learning and perceptual style: Are associated events perceived analytically or as a whole? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 579-586.
  • Wechsler, D. (2005). Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Niños-IV (1ª ed.). Madrid: TEA (Original scale published 1974).
  • Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A Manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • Zelazo, P.D., Müller, V., Frye, D., Marcovitch, S., Angitis, G., Boseovski, J., Chiang, J.K., Hongwanishkul, D., Schuster, B.V., & Sutherland, A. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), VII-137.
  • Zelniker, T. (1989). Cognitive style and dimensions of information processing. In T. Globerson & T. Zelniker (Eds.): Cognitive style and cognitive development (pp. 172-191). Norwood: Ablex.
  • Zhang, L.F. (2004). Field-dependence/independence: Cognitive style or perceptual ability? – validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1295-1311.
  • Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. (2005). The Wechsler Scales. In D.P. Flanagan, J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.): Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests and Issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 297-324). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet