CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Learning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesPersonality Traits and PsychologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unkept promises of cognitive styles: A new look at old measurements

Open access
Cuneo, Félix, Antonietti, Jean-Philippe, Mohr, Christine·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0203115PMC PMC6112650
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cognitive style is thought to be a stable marker of one's way to approach mental operations. While of wide interest over the last decades, its operationalization remains a challenge. The literature indicates that cognitive styles assessed via i) questionnaires are predicted by personality and ii) performance tests (e.g., Group Embedded Figures Test; GEFT) are related to general intelligence. In the first study, we tested the psychometric relationship between the Cognitive Style Index questionnaire (CSI) and personality inventories (NEO Five Factor Inventory; NEO-FFI, HEXACO Personality Inventory Revised; HEXACO-PI-R). In the second study, we assessed the CSI, NEO-FFI, GEFT and a general intelligence test (Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices Test; RSMT). We found that CSI scores were largely predicted by personality and that CSI was uncorrelated with GEFT performance. Instead, better performance on the GEFT was associated with better performance on the RSMT. We conclude that i) cognitive style questionnaires overlap with personality inventories, ii) cognitive style performance tests do not measure cognitive styles and should not be used as such and iii) the cognitive style concept needs to be assessed with alternative measurement types. We discuss possible future directions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0203115

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. HA Witkin, 1948, Studies in space orientation: IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual field, J Exp Psychol, 43, 5
  2. M Kozhevnikov, 2007, Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style, Psychol Bull, 133, 464, 10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464 · DOI · Paper page
  3. S Messick, 1984, The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice, Educ Psychol, 19, 59, 10.1080/00461528409529283 · DOI · Paper page
  4. RJ Sternberg, 1997, Are cognitive styles still in style?, Am Psychol, 52, 700, 10.1037/0003-066X.52.7.700 · DOI
  5. E Cools, 2009, A reflection on the future of the cognitive style field: a proposed research agenda, Reflecting Educ, 5, 19
  6. RCA Bendall, 2016, Cognitive Style: Time to Experiment, Front Psychol, 7
  7. RJ Riding, 1991, Cognitive Styles—an overview and integration, Educ Psychol Int J Exp Educ Psychol, 11, 193
  8. RJ Riding, 1997, On the Nature of Cognitive Style, Educ Psychol, 17, 29, 10.1080/0144341970170102 · DOI
  9. M Koć-Januchta, 2017, Visualizers versus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures–An eye-tracking study, Comput Hum Behav, 68, 170, 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.028 · DOI
  10. H-Y Cheng, 2017, Examining the relationship between holistic/analytic style and classroom learning behaviors of high school students, Eur J Psychol Educ, 32, 271, 10.1007/s10212-016-0289-6 · DOI
  11. S Cassidy, 2004, Learning Styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures, Educ Psychol, 24, 419, 10.1080/0144341042000228834 · DOI
  12. M Huteau, 1975, Un style cognitif : la dépendance-indépendance à l’égard du champ, Année Psychol, 75, 197, 10.3406/psy.1975.28088 · DOI
  13. CW Allinson, 1996, The Cognitive Style Index, a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research, J Manag Stud, 33, 119, 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00801.x · DOI · Paper page
  14. M Kozhevnikov, 2014, Cognitive Style as Environmentally Sensitive Individual Differences in Cognition: A Modern Synthesis and Applications in Education, Business, and Management, Psychol Sci Public Interest, 15, 3, 10.1177/1529100614525555 · DOI
  15. E Cools, 2014, Methodological practices in cognitive style research: Insights and recommendations from the field of business and psychology, Eur J Work Organ Psychol, 23, 627, 10.1080/1359432X.2013.788245 · DOI
  16. ER Peterson, 2009, Researching the psychology of cognitive style and learning style: Is there really a future?, Learn Individ Differ, 19, 518, 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.06.003 · DOI
  17. SL Wise, 2006, An Investigation of the Differential Effort Received by Items on a Low-Stakes Computer-Based Test, Appl Meas Educ, 19, 95, 10.1207/s15324818ame1902_2 · DOI
  18. J Kagan, 1964, Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes, Psychol Monogr Gen Appl, 78, 1, 10.1037/h0093830 · DOI
  19. EW Cooperman, 1980, Field Differentiation and Intelligence, J Psychol, 105, 29, 10.1080/00223980.1980.9915128 · DOI
  20. FP McKenna, 1984, Measures of field dependence: Cognitive style or cognitive ability?, J Pers Soc Psychol, 47, 593, 10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.593 · DOI
  21. JR Weisz, 1975, Field dependence-independence on the Children’s Embedded Figures Test: Cognitive style or cognitive level?, Dev Psychol, 11, 539, 10.1037/h0076673 · DOI
  22. M Boccia, 2016, Does field independence predict visuo-spatial abilities underpinning human navigation? Behavioural evidence, Exp Brain Res, 234, 2799, 10.1007/s00221-016-4682-9 · DOI
  23. TW Strine, 2008, Depression and Anxiety in the United States: Findings From the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Psychiatr Serv, 59, 1383, 10.1176/ps.2008.59.12.1383 · DOI
  24. E Cools, 2007, Development and Validation of the Cognitive Style Indicator, J Psychol, 141, 359, 10.3200/JRLP.141.4.359-388 · DOI
  25. M Kirton, 1976, Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure, J Appl Psychol, 61, 622, 10.1037/0021-9010.61.5.622 · DOI
  26. RJ Sternberg, 1995, Styles of Thinking in the School, Eur J High Abil, 6, 201, 10.1080/0937445940060211 · DOI
  27. EV Volkova, 2016, Cognitive styles and personality, Personal Individ Differ, 99, 266, 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.097 · DOI
  28. MC Ashton, 2009, The HEXACO–60: A Short Measure of the Major Dimensions of Personality, J Pers Assess, 91, 340, 10.1080/00223890902935878 · DOI
  29. D von Wittich, 2011, The KAI cognitive style inventory: Was it personality all along?, Personal Individ Differ, 50, 1044, 10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.022 · DOI
  30. LJ Cronbach, 1955, Construct validity in psychological tests, Psychol Bull, 52, 281, 10.1037/h0040957 · DOI · Paper page
  31. DT Campbell, 1959, Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, Psychol Bull, 11, 413
  32. JP Rolland, 1998, A Psychometric Examination of the French Translations of NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI, J Pers Assess, 71, 269, 10.1207/s15327752jpa7102_13 · DOI
  33. JL Huang, 2015, Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding with an Infrequency Scale: Evaluating Validity and Participant Reactions, J Bus Psychol, 30, 299, 10.1007/s10869-014-9357-6 · DOI
  34. JL Huang, 2012, Detecting and Deterring Insufficient Effort Responding to Surveys, J Bus Psychol, 27, 99, 10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8 · DOI
  35. JA Johnson, 2005, Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories, J Res Personal, 39, 103, 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.009 · DOI
  36. J Henseler, 2015, A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling, J Acad Mark Sci, 43, 115, 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 · DOI · Paper page
  37. DJ Stekhoven, 2012, MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data, Bioinformatics, 28, 112, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597 · DOI · Paper page
  38. J Antonakis, 2011, Looking for validity or testing it? The perils of stepwise regression, extreme-scores analysis, heteroscedasticity, and measurement error, Personal Individ Differ, 50, 409, 10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.014 · DOI
  39. A Feingold, 1994, Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis, Psychol Bull, 116, 429, 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429 · DOI · Paper page
  40. NP Friedman, 2006, Not all executive functions are related to intelligence, Psychol Sci, 17, 172, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01681.x · DOI · Paper page
  41. JB Hittner, 2003, A Monte Carlo evaluation of tests for comparing dependent correlations, J Gen Psychol, 130, 149, 10.1080/00221300309601282 · DOI
  42. TP O Brien, 2001, Group embedded figures test and academic achievement in engineering education, Int J Eng Educ, 17, 89
  43. Witkin HA. A cognitive-style perspective on evaluation and guidance. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service: Proceedings of the 1973 Invitational on Testing Problems—Measurement for self-understanding and personal development; 1974.
  44. D Dimov, 2007, From Opportunity Insight to Opportunity Intention: The Importance of Person-Situation Learning Match, Entrep Theory Pract, 31, 561, 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00188.x · DOI
  45. L-F Zhang, 2005, A threefold model of intellectual styles, Educ Psychol Rev, 17, 1, 10.1007/s10648-005-1635-4 · DOI
  46. DR Goodenough, 1961, Field dependence and intellectual functioning, J Abnorm Soc Psychol, 63, 241, 10.1037/h0046524 · DOI
  47. ABM Fuermaier, 2015, Cognitive impairment in adult ADHD—perspective matters!, Neuropsychology, 29, 45, 10.1037/neu0000108 · DOI
  48. TA Salthouse, 2005, Reliability and Validity of the Divided Attention Questionnaire Abstract, Aging Neuropsychol Cogn, 12, 89, 10.1080/13825580590925143 · DOI
  49. M Kirton, 1978, Have adaptators and innovators equal levels of creativity?, Psychol Rep, 42, 695, 10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3.695 · DOI
  50. ER Peterson, 2003, The reliability of Riding’s Cognitive Style Analysis test, Personal Individ Differ, 34, 881, 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00116-2 · DOI
  51. ER Peterson, 2015, The effect of Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) test on achievement: A meta-analytic review, Learn Individ Differ, 38, 115, 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.011 · DOI
  52. A Parkinson, 2004, Test–retest reliability of Riding’s cognitive styles analysis test, Personal Individ Differ, 37, 1273, 10.1016/j.paid.2003.12.012 · DOI
  53. AR Rezaei, 2004, Evaluation of the reliability and validity of the cognitive styles analysis, Personal Individ Differ, 36, 1317, 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00219-8 · DOI
  54. J Hayes, 1998, Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice, Br J Manag, 51, 847
  55. LJ Cronbach, 1951, Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16, 297, 10.1007/BF02310555 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Cuneo, F., Antonietti, J.-P., & Mohr, C.
Affiliations
University of Lausanne (CH)
Corresponding author
Cuneo, Félix
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-08-28
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
e0203115
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0203115
PMC
PMC6112650
OpenAlex
W2889468535
Cited by
17
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
cognitive style, personality, Group Embedded Figures Test, Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices, general intelligence, psychometric properties, measurement validity, NEO-FFI
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Personality, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Thinking, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review