Cognitive Style: Field independence vs. Field Dependence, repression-sensitization, Levelling-Sharpening, Theories of Pain Perception

Cognitive Style:

The area was developed by Herman Witkin. His research showed that there were differences in how people perceived discrete items within a surrounding field.

Field dependence-independence describes the extent to which:

· The surrounding framework dominates the perception of items within it,

· The surrounding organized field influences a person's perception of items within it,

· A person perceives part of the field as a discrete form,

· The organization of the prevailing field determines the perception of its components, or · A person perceives analytically.  (Jonassen & Grabowski, p. 86)

When field dependents interact with stimuli, they find it difficult to locate the information they are seeking because other information masks what they are looking for.  Field independents find it easier to recognize and select the important information from its surrounding field. When information is presented in an ambiguous, unstructured format, the field independent willimpose his/her own structure on the information.  The field dependent will attempt to understand and learn that information as it is presented and without restructuring it.

Another way to look at field dependence and independence is through a global versus articulated cognitive style.  Those with a global perspective, field dependents, see things in the entire perceptual field (the forest rather than the trees). In other words, field dependents have difficulty separating the part from the complex organization of the whole. The analytic style presented by field independents allows them to create their own models for things they want to understand or articulate to others. 

Witkin combined the various dimensions of social and intellectual behavior into a Theory of Psychological Differentiation (Witkin, et.al., 1962) which includes four dimensions: global-articulate, articulation of body concept, sense of identity, and defense structures.  The most important aspect of Witkin's Theory is his belief that these are stable traits that predict cognitive and social functioning across environments.

Two types of cognitive styles:

1)      Field independent (analytic): objects in one’s environment are experienced as separate & distinct from their surroundings; thus they can easily be disembedded from their context

2)      Field dependent (holistic): one’s environment is experienced as a unity of objects; an emphasis on the holistic intermingling of parts

Field Independence—Field Dependence

The work of Witkin. Goodenough, and Cox (1977) on field independence-field dependence closely parallels brain hemispherical findings. These researchers described learners as field independent (having the ability to perceive objects without being influenced by the background) and field dependent (having the ability to perceive objects as a whole rather than as individual parts). Characteristics of field-independent and field-dependent learners are summarized in the following chart.

Type of Learner                   Characteristics
Field independent	Processes Information in pans Might locus on specific parts, rather than see the whole Passive In social situations Tends to be less influenced by peers Likes working alone Chooses fields like main, science, and engineering
Field  dependent	Processes information holistically Has difficulty separating specific pans from a situation or pattern Able to see relational concepts Active in social situations Tends to be influenced by suggestions from others Likes 10 work In groups Chooses fields requiring Interpersonal, nonscientific orientation, such as history, an. or social work

Field independence vs. Field Dependence

There has been a growing body of research in the past decades since the field dependence-independence dimension was first proposed by Witkin (1962; 1979). According to Witkin, field dependence-independence is value-neutral and is characterized as the ability to distinguish key elements from a distracting or confusing background. Field dependence-independence has important implications for an individual’s cognitive behavior and for his/her interpersonal behavior. Specifically, field independent people tend to be more autonomous in relation to the development of cognitive restructuring skills and less autonomous in relation to the development of interpersonal skills. Conversely, field dependent people tend to be more autonomous in relation to the development of high interpersonal skills and less autonomous in relation to the development of cognitive restructuring skills. In addition, according to Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and Cox (1977), field independent persons tend to be intrinsically motivated and enjoy individualized learning, while field dependent ones tend to be extrinsically motivated and enjoy cooperative learning.

The field independence dimension is also related to some other individual characteristics, such as solving analogical problems. According to Antonietti and Gioletta (1995), cognitive styles, rather than general abilities, are related to analogical problem solving. Antonietti and Gioletta found that field independent participants were more likely to be analogical solvers than field dependent ones. Males tended to use analogical solutions more frequently than females. In addition, according to Braune and Wickens (1986), there are three important dimensions of individual differences in time-sharing–serial processing, parallel processing, and the internal model. Field independent persons perform better in the parallel processing conditions, while field dependent ones perform better in the serial processing conditions.

The field independence dimension is also related to some task characteristics. According to Bennink (1982), high and low field articulation (FA) students show differences in the following two major respects under cognitively demanding conditions: (a) integrating a set of semantically related sentences to answer inference questions and (b) remembering the actual propositions themselves.

Assessment of field-dependency was further developed to include several vari­ations of the original tests. A pencil and paper assessment, the Embedded Figures Test (EFT), was developed reflecting earlier work on the discrimination of shape carried out by Thurstone (1944). All of these measures involve the disembodying of a shape from its surrounding field. This assessment included the following tests.

1. The Embedded Figures Test (EFT): a 12-item test, made up of two sets of cards displaying complex figures and simple figures respectively.

2. Children's Embedded Figures Test (CEFT): a 25-item, individually adminis­tered test that combines a series of simple and complex figures, and incomplete pictures requiring the subject to disembed or recognize embedded shapes. The test was norm-referenced with children from 5 to 12 years of age (Witkin et al., 1971).

3. Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT): a group-administered, 25-item test for adults in which the format is very similar to the EFT (Witkin et al.).

repression-sensitization

a dimension of differences in defensive patterns of perception, ranging from avoiding the anxiety-arousing stimuli to approaching them more readily and being extra-vigilant or supersensitized

---in spite of disagreement about the concepts and the role of repression, there is now agreement that people use a mechanism of mentally distracting themselves from awareness of threatening and negative thoughts or emotions

people who describe themselves as having few problems or difficulties and who do not report themselves as highly sensitive to everyday stress and anxieties; listed themselves as having few problems

repressors

---sensitive to criticism, did not attend to negativity

--emotional blunting for everyday information (not massive repression) may be an actual sign of mental health (distracting self)

sensitizers

individuals who are highly sensitive to everyday stress and anxiety; report many problems about their lives of self-reports;

--attended to negative information; more negative self-description

--technically more mentally healthy as they are not repressing.

The term perceptual defense has subsequently evolved into the term "repression, " and the term perceptual vigilance has evolved into the term "sensitization." Since the sensitizer, perceptual vigilant, recognizes the threatening stimuli earlier than the neutral stimuli, this perceptual style was also characterized as one of "approach," while the style of the repressor, perceptual defender, which revealed the opposite relationship was characterized as one of "avoidance."

Both of these perceptual modes share the fact that they involve differential awareness to threatening stimuli. Consequently, both have been thought to represent polar opposites in the handling of the anxiety or fear that is aroused by aversive stimuli. Hence, the perceptual styles have also been thought of as defense mechanisms, while their polarity has been considered to anchor an approach-avoidance dimension of individual reactivity to aversive stimuli.

Levelling-Sharpening

A tendency to assimilate detail rapidly and lost or emphasize details and changes in new information.

Leveller and sharpener

Holzman and Klein (1954) first used the terms "levelling" and "sharpening" to describe individual differences in memory processing. Gardner, Jackson, and Messick (1960) described this cognitive process as "the characteristic degree to which current precepts and relevant memory traces interact or assimilate in the course of registration of the current precepts and memories" (p. 122). The distinc­tion between levellers and sharpeners is based on how the task is perceived. Holzman and Klein noted that while some individuals oversimplify their percep­tions (levelling), others have a tendency to perceive the task in a complex and differentiated fashion, showing little assimilation (sharpening).

While levellers tend to assimilate new events with previously stored ones, sharpeners, in contrast, tend to accentuate the perceived events and treat them more discretely from those already stored. How well the perceived task is assimilated led to the notion of a dimension of assimilation, with sharpeners at one end, showing very little assimilation, to levellers at the other end, showing high levels of assimilation. The continuum from levelling to sharpening is described as a dimen­sion of cognitive style, which alters during maturation, to reflect a movement away from levelling toward sharpening. This involves, more specifically, a movement away from fluid to a stable memory structure, as well as from a global to an articulated differentiation of past and present images and events.

It has been noted that this model of cognitive style has two main forms of manifestation:

• a tendency to "gloss over" inconsistencies, or;

• the condensing of information, involving simplification on the one hand, and/or generalization involving caricature on the other.

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage (Merskey, 1986).

Theories of Pain Perception

Specificity Theory

Specificity theory is one of the first modern theories for pain. It holds that specific pain receptors transmit signals to a "pain center" in the brain that produces the perception of pain. This theory is correct in that separate fibers for pain signals do carry pain signals to the brain eventually. However, the theory does not account for the wide range of psychological factors that affect our perception of pain. For example, soldiers may report little or no pain in relation to a serious wound in war time that would otherwise be excruciating.

Pattern Theory

Pattern theory holds that pain signals are sent to the brain only when stimuli sum together to produce a specific combination or pattern. The theory does not posit specialized receptors for pain nor does it see the brain as having control over the perception of pain. Rather, the brain is merely viewed as a message recipient. Despite its limitations, the Pattern Theory did set the stage for the Gate Control theory that has proved the most influential and best accepted pain theory so far.

Gate Control Theory

Ronald Melzack and Patrick Wall proposed the Gate Control Theory in 1965. The theory can account for both "top-down" brain influences on pain perception as well as the effects of other tactile stimuli (e.g. rubbing a banged knee) in appearing to reduce pain. It proposed that there is a "gate" or control system in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord through which all information regarding pain must pass before reaching the brain. The Substantia Gelatinosa (SG) in the dorsal horn controls whether the gate is open or closed. An "open gate" means that the transmission cells (i.e., t-cells) can carry signals to the brain where pain is perceived; a "closed gate" stops the t-cells from firing and no pain signal is sent to brain.