The nature of individual differences in field dependence

Abstract Factor analyses were conducted on measures of field dependence and cognitive abilities to test some hypotheses about the nature of individual differences in orientation perception. Some hypotheses were also tested about relationships between the rod-and-frame and embedded-figures tests that are commonly used to measure the field-dependence dimension. The data are consistent with a model of the rod-and-frame test in which errors are attributed to two effects of the frame. The first is mediated by a rotation of perceptual axes, normally involved in the maintenance of orientation constancy, and the second involves a distortion in perceived angles between the rod and the frame sides. Individual differences in orientation perception are related to the embedded-figures test as expected, but they are just as highly related to many other tests of spatial-visual abilities. These relationships appear due to the constancy component of the RFT.

[1]  Eric Sigman,et al.  A cognitive-style conception of the field-dependence dimension , 1985 .

[2]  J. W. French,et al.  Dimensions of Cognitive Closure. , 1975, Multivariate behavioral research.

[3]  Goodenough Dr,et al.  Field dependence and intellectual functioning. , 1961 .

[4]  Hoben Thomas,et al.  On the Acquisition of Understanding that Still Water is Horizontal. , 1975 .

[5]  M Flannagan,et al.  Subjective Estimates of Body Tilt and the Rod-and-Frame Test , 1978, Perceptual and motor skills.

[6]  S. Ebenholtz,et al.  Modulation of the rod and frame effect: Retinal angle vs apparent size , 1980 .

[7]  I Rock,et al.  The rod-and-frame effect as a function of the righting of the frame. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Ebenholtz Sm,et al.  Peripheral circular contours inhibit the visual orientation control system. , 1983 .

[9]  R. B. Post,et al.  The two modes of processing concept and some implications In J , 1982 .

[10]  H. A. Witkin.  Perception of body position and of the position of the visual field. , 1949 .

[11]  L. Immergluck.  Resistance to an optical illusion, figurai after-effects, and field dependence , 1966 .

[12]  Performance on Piagetian horizontality and verticality tasks: Sex-related differences in knowledge of relevant physical phenomena. , 1984 .

[13]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  The Field Dependence-Independence Construct: Some, One, or None. , 1981 .

[14]  M. G. McGee.  Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  P. Wenderoth.  The Distinction between the Rod-and-Frame Illusion and the Rod-and-Frame Test , 1974, Perception.

[16]  F. J. Langdon,et al.  The Child's Conception of Space , 1967 .

[17]  R. Cattell,et al.  Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. , 1966, Journal of educational psychology.

[18]  J. Horn,et al.  Human abilities: a review of research and theory in the early 1970s. , 1976, Annual review of psychology.

[19]  J. Guilford,et al.  The nature of human intelligence. , 1968 .

[20]  I. Macfarlane Smith,et al.  Spatial ability : its educational and social significance , 1965 .

[21]  H. A. Witkin,et al.  Studies in space orientation; further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  I. Rock,et al.  An introduction to perception , 1975 .

[23]  M. Linn,et al.  Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. , 1985, Child development.

[24]  I. Howard,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF EYE TORSION. , 1963, Vision research.

[25]  Eric Sigman,et al.  Instructions, Illusory Self-Tilt and the Rod-and-Frame Test , 1979 .

[26]  H. Eysenck.  Cognitive styles: Essence and origins: Herman A. Witkin and Donald R. Goodenough International Universities Press, New York (1981). 141 pp. , 1982 .

[27]  P K Oltman,et al.  Orientation contrast effects in the rod-and-frame test , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Herman A. Witkin,et al.  Personality through perception , 1954 .

[29]  S. Coren,et al.  An orientation illusion analog to the rod and frame: Relational effects in the magnitude of the distortion , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  P. Vernon,et al.  The distinctive ness of field independence , 1972 .

[31]  G. Schneider.  Two visual systems. , 1969, Science.

[32]  S. Ebenholtz,et al.  Absence of depth processing in the large-frame rod-and-frame effect , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  Depth adjacency and the rod-and-frame illusion , 1975 .

[34]  S. Ebenholtz,et al.  Construct validity of perceptual style: Role of stimulus size in the embedded-figures test and the rod-and-frame test , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[35]  Sheldon M. Ebenholtz,et al.  The rod and frame effect and induced head tilt as a function of observation distance , 1977 .

[36]  Chris A. Johnson,et al.  Peripheral visual acuity and refractive error: Evidence for “two visual systems”? , 1976 .

[37]  I. Howard,et al.  Human Spatial Orientation , 1966 .

[38]  P K Oltman,et al.  A Portable Rod-and-Frame Apparatus , 1968, Perceptual and motor skills.

[39]  S. Ebenholtz,et al.  Absence of relational determination in the rod-and-frame effect , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  D. Goodenough,et al.  The rod-and-frame illusion in erect and supine observers , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[41]  L. Thurstone.  A factorial study of perception , 1944 .

[42]  T. Oyama,et al.  Determinants of the Zöllner illusion , 1975, Psychological research.

[43]  D. Goodenough,et al.  Eye torsion in response to a tilted visual stimulus , 1979, Vision Research.

[44]  William B. Templeton,et al.  The role of gravitational cues in the judgment of visual orientation , 1973 .

[45]  Norbert Bischof,et al.  Optic-Vestibular Orientation to the Vertical , 1974 .

[46]  P. W. Cox,et al.  A visually induced illusion of body tilt in a horizontal plane , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  Sheldon M. Ebenholtz,et al.  Determinants of the rod and frame effect: The role of retinal size , 1977 .

[48]  K. Engelbrektson,et al.  An examination of factor structure of Rod-and-frame Test and Embedded-figures Test. , 1973, Perceptual and motor skills.