Field Dependence and Autokinetic Suggestibility Research Project

2004 Fall semester     SUNY-Oneonta

Revised - 9.6.04

1.  Our Group.

2.  The Experiment we worked on in the Spring 2004 semester (Experiment #1).

3a.  Preliminary Reading List relevant to Autokinetic Suggestibility

3b.  Preliminary Reading List relevant to Field Dependence / Independence

1.  OUR GROUP

2.  EXPERIMENT #1

 

The purpose of this experiment is to test the hypothesis that Field Dependence, as measured by two standard tasks, is positively correlated with a new measure of suggestibility in the perception of autokinetic stimuli (Autokinetic Suggestibility).

 

The Rod and Frame task (RFT) and the Hidden Figures Test (HFT) are measures of the construct "Field Dependence," which can be defined as the extent to which an individual's perception of a focal stimulus is affected by distracting or conflicting contextual cues.  In the RFT, the focal stimulus is a rod that must be rotated to vertical, and the conflicting contextual cue is a tilted frame surrounding the rod.  Field Dependence is operationalized as the degree of error induced by the presence of the frame.  In the HFT, the focal stimuli are a series of simple figures, and the distracting contextual cues are complex figures in which the simple figures are embedded.  The subject's task is to locate as many simple figures as possible within the allocated time.  Field Independence is operationalized as the number of simple figures correctly located; Field Dependence is thus calculated as the difference between a subject's score and a perfect score.  RFT and HFT scores typically correlate moderately (c. r = +.40 +/- .10).

 

A small, lighted stimulus, such as a plus sign, viewed in a dark room, will appear to move in unpredictable directions and at unpredictable velocities.  This "autokinetic effect" can be attributed to the brain's interpretation of movement across the retina as movement of the stimulus, when it is in fact caused by uncontrolled and unmonitored movements of the eye.  When a stimulus with dynamic properties, such as an arrowhead, is substituted for the plus sign, some subjects report increased movement in the direction suggested by the dynamics of the stimulus (e.g., in the direction that the arrow points).  Using arrows as dynamic stimuli, and plus signs as static stimuli, "Autokinetic Suggestibility" is operationalized as the difference in the amount of movement subjects see in the direction of the arrow when the stimulus they are viewing is the arrow vs. the plus sign.

 

The constructs Field Dependence and Suggestibility appear to tap a similar characteristic; both concern the extent to which a person's experience of a stimulus is affected by extraneous but compelling "external" factors, whether they be other stimuli in the field (as in the two measures of Field Dependence), or "extra" properties of the stimulus itself (as in the dynamics of the arrow in the autokinetic task).  The finding of a significant correlation between the tests of Field Dependence and the test of Autokinetic Suggestibility would support the contention that both of these constructs tap individual differences in how influenced a person may be by "external" information.

 

A broader goal of the research project is to determine whether individual differences in Field Dependence/Suggestibility extend to other, "social" domains (see Witkin's research).  A thought experiment illustrates our interest.  The roommates of two (equally) depressed students cajole them into going to a party, in the hopes that emersion in a an environment replete with happy people and uplifting music would change their mood.  Upon arriving at the party, one of these depressed students quickly becomes happy, whereas the other stays depressed.  To what extent would individual differences in these students' levels of Field Dependence and Autokinetic Suggestibility -- their sensitivity and susceptibility to the influence of external stimuli -- predict who would get happy and who would stay depressed at this happy party?   Does high sensitivity and susceptibility to external influence in the realm of the perception of physical stimuli (such as rods and arrowheads) extend to high sensitivity and susceptibility to external influence in the realm of social and interpersonal experience?  These are the questions we'd like to pursue.

3A.  REFERENCES:  AUTOKINETIC SUGGESTIBILITY 

 

Baer, D. J. (1964).  Set and shock-stress effects upon illusion perception. The Journal of Psychology, 58, 467-472.

 

Abstract: The effects of set and shock were evaluated for none, mild, and strong shock levels combined with facilitating, neutral, and inhibiting set for Necker Cube, autokinetic effect, spiral aftereffect, and Phi phenomenon. Significant set effects were found for Necker cube, spiral aftereffect, and autokinetic phenomenon; significant shock effect was found for the autokinetic phenomenon. Perceptual performance was maximal for strong-shock facilitating set, while minimal for strong-shock inhibiting set.

 

Comalli, P. E., Jr., Werner, H., & Wapner, S. (1957).  Studies in physiognomic perception: III Effect of directional

    dynamics and meaning-induced sets on autokinetic motions.  The Journal of Psychology, 43, 289-299.  {ERS}

 

Abstract:  Three experiments show that objects possessing expressive qualities of directional dynamics, influence autokinetic motion in the suggested direction of the object.  Reports of S’s show, that both right-left and up-down directional dynamics have a significant effect on autokinetic motion.  Also, the instructed meaning of an ambiguous stimulus is found to affect autokinetic motion in the direction of the induced dynamics of the object.  When right-left directional dynamics are induced through meaning sets, the direction of the autokinetic movement follows that of the stimulus.                                                Kelly Antonowicz  

The effect of directional dynamics on autokinetic motion was measured using three experiments.  The experimenter's hypothesized that autokinetic motion would follow the direction of a pictured object (i.e. if the object points to the left, autokinetic motion will go to the left, vice versa).  Results supported this hypothesis showing that motion will go predominately in the direction of the stimulus, either left or right, or in the upward and downward direction.  When an ambiguous stimulus was presented experimenters used specific instructions for each group of subjects to determine what stimulus they would be viewing.  Autokinetic motion was found to be affected by the instructed meaning of the ambiguous stimulus, in the direction of the object presented. Also, when directional dynamics are presented through meaning sets, autokinetic motion predominately moves to that direction, whether it be in the left or right direction.                                                                 Kristin Rabbia   new 4.2.04

 

Hommel, B., Pratt, J., Colzato, L., & Godijn, R. (2001). Symbolic control of visual attention.  Psychological Science,

    3, 360-365. New - 1.24.04

 

Lovelace, Eugene.  (1988).  The autokinetic projective test:  a cautionary note.  Teaching of Psychology, 15, 44-46.

Abstract: Explored the relationship between the field dependence/independence of the observer and susceptibility to seeing a particular type of suggested movement in the autokinetic effect. 21 students completed embedded figures and rod-and-frame tasks. The modal event across trials was a failure to see the suggested writing movement. 

Miller, A., Werner, H., & Wapner, S. (1958). Studies in physiognomic perception: V. Effect of ascending and

    descending gliding tones on autokinetic motion. The Journal of Psychology, 46, 101-105.  {ERS}

 

Within this study it is hypothesized that when exposed to an extraneous gliding ascending tone, auto kinetic motion will occur in a predominantly upward direction, and similarly that when an extraneous, gliding descending tone is presented motion will be in a principally downward direction. In order for this to be a valid hypothesis we must rely on two assumptions, one being that changes in organism state are mirrored in perceptual changes, and the other being that extraneous gliding tones bring about organism changes in terms of up and down. This study found that these sounds were indeed linked to going up and down in that the subjects reported the sensation or thought of a plane taking off or of a bomb being dropped. It was also found that although both the ascending and descending conditions issued positive significant findings, there was a significantly higher proportion of upward motion in both conditions than there was of downward motion. A main implication of this study, in terms of perceptual theory, is that directional dynamic qualities can operate with respect to extraneous stimulation.                                                                                            Jennifer Zeman

 

Autokinetic motion was manipulated by using ascending and descending tones.  The experimenters hypothesized that if an ascending tone is played, the motion of the stimulus will move in an upward direction, while the same is true for descending tones and downward motion.  These were the two sequences used in the experiment.  The results of the experiment supported the hypothesis and were beyond the .01 significance level.  The motion of the stimulus was manipulated in the upward direction while the ascending tone played and in the downward direction while the descending tone was played.  Another finding in this experiment was that there was a higher proportion of upward motion than downward motion when considering perceptual changes that are mirrored in the subject.  The main goal of this experiment was to establish if autokinetic motion is manipulated by using ascending and descending gliding tones.                                                                               Kristin Rabbia

 

Mirable, C. S., Jr., Glueck, B. C., Stroebel, C. F., & Pitblado, C. (1977).  Susceptibility to motion sickness and ego

    closeness, ego distance as measured by the autokinetic response tendency.  Neuropsychobiology, 3, 193-198.

    {ERS}

 

Voth, H., Mayman, M., Cancro, R., & Coyne, L. (1968).  Autokinesis and character style: A clinical-experimental
    study.  Journal of Psychiatric Research, 6(1) 51-65.

 

Abstract: Reports on a study of 35 Ss showing a predicted relationship between a wide spectrum of behaviors and individual differences with respect to the propensity to experience autokinesis, based on the concept of closeness-ego-distance. It is concluded that the personality dimension, referred to conceptually as an ego-closeness-distance continuum, is largely constitutionally determined and, as such, contributes to the formation of a number of personality traits. Personality traits were determined and rated in a 1-hr interview and the results treated by factor analysis.

 

3B.  REFERENCES:  FIELD DEPENDENCE/INDEPENDENCE

 

Authur, J., W., & Day, D. V. (1991).  Examination of the construct validity of alternative measures of field

    dependence/independence.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 851-859.  {ERS}

The relationship between alternative measure of field dependence/independence was studied in the present experiment.  Two present issues concerning this research were whether or not field dependence/independence is a cognitive style, or a cognitive ability, and whether there are multiple measures of field dependence/independence.  In relation to the first issue researchers are interested in the idea that cognitive abilities relate to the level of performance and are more favored at one end of the dimension (Fd/Fi) than the other.  Where as the cognitive style relates to the manner of performance, and that neither end of the dimension is favored over the other. 

Past research has shown that when using the Group Embedded Figures Test the results tend to support a cognitive ability interpretation.  When using the Portable Rod and Frame Test the results support a stylistic interpretation.

In the present experiment the results supported the past research.  The Group Embedded Figures test supported a cognitive ability interpretation, and when using the Rod and Frame test the stylistic interpretation was supported.  The authors suggested that due to the possibility of multiple measures of field dependence/independence, the tests may not have been measuring the same thing.  The authors also suggested that using the Rod and Frame test may be a better option because it controls for age variability.                                                     Kristin Rabbia

 

Bertini, M., & Wapner, S. (1986).  Epilogue: Relation of Witkin's work to future trends in psychology. In

   M Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field Dependence in psychological theory, research, and

   application: Two symposia in memory of Herman A. Witkin (pp. 119.125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Davis, J. K. (1991). Educational implications of Field Dependence-Independence.   In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.),

   Field Dependence-Independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 149-175).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Elliott, R. (1961).  Interrelationships among measures of Field Dependence, Ability, and personality traits.  Journal of

    Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(1), 27-36.  {ERS}

 

Goodenough, D. R. (1986).  History of the Field Dependence construct.  In M Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner

   (Eds.), Field Dependence in psychological theory, research, and application: Two symposia in memory of

   Herman A. Witkin (pp. 5-13).   Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Goodenough, D. R., Oltman, P. K., & Cox, P. W. (1987). The nature of individual differences in field dependence.

    Journal of Research In Personality, 21, 81-99.  {ERS}

 

Goodenough, D. R., Oltman, P. K., Snow, D., Cox, P. W., & Markowitz, D. (1991).  Field Dependence-

    Independence and Embedded Figures performance.  In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field Dependence-

    Independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 131-149).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.     new 4.2.04

 

Of interest to us is the introduction on pages 131-133.  The authors cover the history of Embedded Figures research.  Witkin at first thought that Embedded Figures tests measure whether subjects have a global, holistic (Field Dependent) cognitive style or an analytic (Field Independent) cognitive style.  Later, Witkin (and many critics) questioned whether FD/FI reflects differences in ability rather than cognitive style (in part, because better  performance on Embedded Figures tasks always equates to Field Independence).  The authors suggest that "it is still not so clear how people go about meeting the disembedding requirement, and the nature of the individual difference dimensions involved has not yet been settled" (pg. 133).

 

Kogan, N., and Block, J. (1991).  Field Dependence-Independence from early childhood through adolescence:

   Personality and socialization aspects.  In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field Dependence-

   Independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 177-207).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Korchin, S. J. (1982). The legacy of H.A. Witkin. Contemporary Psychology, 27(8), 602- 604.  {ERS}

 

Witkin and Goodenough were one of the first experimenters to explore the idea of field dependence-independence.  They measured this notion in humans by using the Rod and Frame test.  The results showed that field dependent individuals were more dependent on visual cues.  In other words, they adjusted the rod in accordance to the frame.  The field independent subjects were more likely to adjust the rod vertically with their bodies.  Another test that Witkin and Goodenough used was the Embedded Figures Test.  This test was used to observe conceptual ability. 

One of the important concepts that Witkin and Goodenough suggested was that individual differences may be due to bipolar dimensions.  New cognitive social research has supported this view of the bipolar style.  The concept of bipolar dimensions is also one of the most important changes in the history of the theory. 

 When it comes to the difference between field dependency and field independency the researchers reported that field dependent individuals are more socially oriented, have better interpersonal skills, and a better understanding of what is going on.  Field independent individuals are more likely to be impersonal and come off as cold.

Maturation plays a role in field dependence-independence.  During development individuals mature from field dependency to field independency.  This is not to say field dependency is an immature personality dimension.                                                         Kristin Rabbia

 

Long, G. M., Ambler, R. K., & Guedry, F. E. (1975). Relationship between perceptual style and reactivity to motion.     Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(5), 599-605.  {ERS}

 

MacLeod, C. M., & Jackson, R. A. (1986). On the relation between spatial ability and field dependence.

    Intelligence, 10, 141-151.  {ERS}

 

Manning, L. (1991).  Objective and subjective factors in Field Dependence-Independence.   In S. Wapner & J.

    Demick (Eds.), Field Dependence-Independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 85-103).  Hillsdale,

    NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Oltman, P. K. (1986). Psychological Differentiation theory in social and cross-cultural psychology.  In M Bertini, L.

   Pizzamiglio, & S. Wapner (Eds.), Field Dependence in psychological theory, research, and application: Two

   symposia in memory of Herman A. Witkin (pp. 85-91).   Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  

Sigal, I. E. (1991).  The Cognitive Style construct: A conceptual analysis.  In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field

    Dependence-Independence: Cognitive style across the life span (pp. 385-397).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Silverman, J., & King, C. (1970). Pseudo perceptual differentiation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Reports results of 2 studies employing the Rod-and-Frame Test (RFT) and a size-estimation measure of "extensiveness of scanning." In Study I, the correlations between the 2 measures occurred in opposite directions for 24 normal males and females; the difference between the correlations for the sexes was statistically significant. In Study II, the same effect was observed in 23 male and female ambulatory schizophrenics. Results of these studies indicate that a perceptual differentiation interpretation of RFT performance is erroneous for certain kinds of Ss. Accurate RFT performance can be achieved by constricting one's field of attention and not responding to background cues.

 

Singer, J. L. (1994).  Field Dependence-Independence: A cognitive style.  In The Human Personality,

    (pp. 208-217).  San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanich.  {ERS}

 
Solar, D.,  Davenport, G., & Bruehl, D. (1969).  Social compliance as a function of field dependence.

Perceptual & Motor Skills. 1969 29(1) 299-306  

 

To test Witkin's hypothesis that field-dependent individuals are socially compliant, 10 field-dependent and 10 field-independent undergraduates were selected on the basis of the Thurstone Embedded-figures Test and the Rod-and-frame Test (RFT). Each field-dependent S was paired with a field-independent S and asked to cooperate in setting the rod to true vertical in the RFT. The obtained mean displacement from true vertical of the pair working together was in every case in the direction of greater field independence than the mean of the scores for the 2 Ss working alone (p < .001, sign test). A posttest indicated that the RFT conformity of field-dependent Ss was confined to the paired situation. The Barron Independence of Judgment Scale significantly differentiated between field-dependent and field-independent Ss. The findings support Witkin's hypothesis.

 

Spinelli, D., Antonucci, G., Goodenough, D. R., & Zobbolotti, L. (1991).  Psychophysiological mechanisms underlying

   the Rod-and-Frame illusion.  In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field Dependence-Independence: Cognitive style

   across the life span (pp. 37-60).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.     new 4.2.04

 

In Study 1, ten subjects were exposed to RFT displays differing in size (3) and frame tilts (12), with the initial rod tilt at either 15 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise.  Overall errors increased with the size of the frame.  A frame tilt of 15 degrees maximized error.  It appears that for frame tilts below 22.5 degrees, "the subject uses as reference the side of the square, whereas from 22.5 degrees to 45 degrees, the major axis of an oppositely oriented diamond is taken as the reference" (pg. 47).

 

Wapner, S. & Demick, J. (1991). Some open research problems on Field Dependence-Independence: Theory and

    methodology.   In S. Wapner & J. Demick (Eds.), Field Dependence-Independence: Cognitive style across the

    life span (pp. 401-429).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.