Consultation for a psychologist on the topic: “Abilities and cognitive styles”

Cognitive style

is a term used in cognitive psychology to refer to enduring characteristics of how different people think, perceive, and remember information, or their preferred way of solving problems.

Cognitive style is usually distinguished from cognitive ability

or
level
- the latter is measured by so-called intelligence tests. There is still disagreement about the meaning of the term “cognitive style.” However, the term "cognitive style" is widely used, especially in applied business psychology, as well as in educational psychology, where it has a synonym - "learning style").

Story

The concept of cognitive style was first used by A. Adler to denote a personality characteristic, which represents stable individual characteristics of cognitive processes that predetermine the use of various research strategies. Within the framework of his individual psychology, it was understood as the uniqueness of a person’s life path, structured by setting and achieving goals.

G. Allport began to consider cognitive style as an integral personality system of an instrumental order (ways and means to achieve goals). Subsequently, this problem was dealt with by K. Stadner, G. Witkin and others.

In the former USSR, the study of cognitive styles was carried out by V. A. Kolga (Estonia), the Teplov-Nebylitsyn school (Moscow), M. A. Kholodnaya (Kyiv, since the 1990s - Moscow), A. Libin, and others.

A similar concept is metaprograms in NLP. Some of the cognitive styles listed below are at least correlated with the metaprograms described in the literature[1].

Essence

The nature of cognitive styles is not fully understood. There is evidence of their connection with interhemispheric asymmetry, level of intelligence, temperament properties and personal motivation[2]. At the same time, there is every reason to consider cognitive styles to be an education that is formed during life under the influence of sociocultural factors[3]. For example, it has been empirically proven that field dependence is more typical for women, as well as for children whose parents exercise excessive control over their behavior [2] [3].

Metrics and assessments

There are many assessments available to determine the level of cognitive flexibility for different ages. Below is a description of commonly used tests to assess cognitive flexibility in order of increasing developmentally appropriate age.

A-not-B problem

In the A-not-B task [17], the child is shown that a certain object (toy) is hidden in place A (for example, under a box) not far from the child, after which he is asked to find this object - which the child does easily. This is repeated several times, after which the object is placed not in place A, but in place B, which is also within the child’s reach. Typically, children under 1 year of age continue to look for the object in location A. Children over 1 year of age are able to mentally switch to the fact that the object is hidden in location B. Researchers agree that this test is an effective measure of the degree of cognitive flexibility in infancy.[16] [18]

Changing a dimension

In the Dimensional Change Card Sorting Task ( DCCS)

) children are first asked to order the cards along some dimension (e.g., color), and then asked to change their strategy and order the cards along a different dimension (e.g., shape).[19] As a rule, three-year-old children are able to complete the first part of the task, but fail to cope with the second. Five-year-old children, however, are already able to reverse the sorting principle and pass the test completely.[18][20]

Multiple classification

In the Multiple Classification Card Sorting Task, children are asked to sort cards along two dimensions (for example, color and type) at the same time - that is, to arrange the cards in a 2x2 table (for example, find the yellow ones on the cards candies, yellow animals, blue candies and blue animals). This task is considered difficult: research shows that seven-year-old children are unable to classify cards according to two criteria at the same time, concentrating on only one dimension. At the same time, eleven-year-old children cope with this test. This suggests that there is an increase in cognitive flexibility between the ages of 7 and 11.[9][12]

Wisconsin test

Main article: Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test is used to assess participants' ability to think abstractly and change problem-solving strategies under new conditions.[21] In this test, the images on the cards vary in color, number, and shape. Participants must independently determine the criterion for ordering the cards, which is changed from time to time by the experimenter. Typically, 9- to 11-year-old children already perform well on this test, showing the required level of cognitive flexibility.[3][18]

Stroop test

Main article: Stroop effect

In the Stroop test[22], there are three types of cards on the table. Cards of color

painted in certain colors, which participants must name as quickly as possible.
On the word cards
are written (in black ink on a white background) the names of the colors, which, again, must be named by the participants very quickly.
Finally, on color-word cards,
the names of the colors are written in colored ink, and the color of the ink and the lettering on the card do not match (for example, the word “Red” may be written in yellow). The last type of cards requires participants to name the color of the ink without paying attention to the word. The basic metric is the total time (in seconds) it takes a participant to respond verbally.[23] Typically, naming the color of words takes longer and contains more errors when the ink color does not match the writing on the card.

Varieties of cognitive styles

Most often, about 10-15 cognitive styles are considered in the literature (it is noted that many of them obviously correlate with each other, and the difference in terminology is due to the approaches of different authors):

• field independence - field dependence;
  Representatives of the field-dependent style trust visual impressions more when assessing what is happening and have difficulty overcoming the visible field when it is necessary to detail and structure the situation. Representatives of the field-independent style, on the contrary, rely on internal experience and easily tune out the influence of the field, quickly and accurately identifying a detail from a holistic spatial situation.
• concreteness - abstractness;
  Concreteness-abstractness is based on psychological processes such as differentiation and integration of concepts. The pole of “concrete conceptualization” is characterized by insignificant differentiation and insufficient integration of concepts. The following psychological qualities are typical for “concrete” individuals: a tendency to black-and-white thinking, dependence on status and authority, intolerance of uncertainty, stereotypical decisions, situational nature of behavior, less ability to think in terms of hypothetical situations, etc. On the contrary, the pole “ abstract conceptualization" implies both high differentiation and high integration of concepts. Accordingly, “abstract” individuals are characterized by freedom from the immediate properties of the situation, an orientation towards internal experience in explaining the physical and social world, a tendency to take risks, independence, flexibility, creativity, etc.
• smoothing - sharpening;
  Individual differences recorded in this cognitive style are related to the characteristics of storing memorized material in memory. With “smoothers”, storing material in memory is accompanied by its simplification, loss of details, and the loss of certain fragments. On the contrary, in the memory of “sharpeners”, specific details of the memorized material are highlighted and emphasized. Subsequently, it was specially emphasized that this style parameter reveals itself in conditions of perception and memorization of a sequence of stimuli, thus characterizing the sensitivity of subjects to gradually increasing differences in a number of perceived influences.
• rigid—flexible cognitive control;
  This cognitive style characterizes the degree of subjective difficulty in changing methods of processing information in a situation of cognitive conflict. Rigid control indicates difficulties in the transition from verbal to sensory-perceptual functions due to their low degree of automation, while flexible control indicates the relative ease of such a transition due to their high degree of automation.
• low - high tolerance to unrealistic experience;
  This cognitive style reveals itself in uncertain, ambiguous situations and characterizes the degree of acceptance of impressions that do not correspond or even contradict the person’s ideas, which he regards as correct and obvious. Tolerant subjects evaluate experiences according to their actual characteristics, while intolerant subjects resist cognitive experiences in which the initial data contradicts their existing knowledge.
• focusing - scanning control
  ; This cognitive style characterizes individual characteristics of the distribution of attention, which are manifested in the degree of breadth of coverage of various aspects of the displayed situation, as well as in the degree of consideration of its relevant and irrelevant features. Accordingly, some subjects quickly distribute attention to many aspects of the situation, while highlighting its objective details (the pole of broad, or scanning, control). The attention of other subjects, on the contrary, turns out to be superficial and fragmented, while it captures obvious, conspicuous characteristics of the situation (the pole of narrow, or focusing, control).
• impulsiveness - reflectivity;
  People with an impulsive style quickly make hypotheses in a situation of alternative choice, while they make many erroneous decisions in identifying perceptual objects. People with a reflective style, on the contrary, are characterized by a slower pace of decision-making in such a situation; accordingly, they make few mistakes when identifying perceptual objects due to their thorough preliminary analysis.
• narrow—wide range of equivalence;
  Representatives of the pole of a narrow range of equivalence (analytical style) tend to focus on the differences between objects, paying attention mainly to their details and distinctive features. Representatives of the pole of a wide range of equivalence (synthetic style), on the contrary, tend to focus on the similarity of objects, classifying them taking into account some generalized categorical bases.
• cognitive simplicity - complexity;
  Some people understand and interpret what is happening in a simplified form based on recording a limited set of information (the pole of cognitive simplicity). Others, on the contrary, tend to create a multidimensional model of reality, highlighting many interconnected aspects in it (the pole of cognitive complexity).
• others (Myers-Briggs questionnaire scales, NEO PI-R, etc.

Cognitive styles: controversial issues and problems of study.

Authors:
N. N. Volkova, A. N. Gusev

1. Problems of studying cognitive styles
2. Ways to solve problems, research programs and development prospects
3. Correlation of cognitive styles with other constructs
4. Styles and strategies
5. Integrative Models
6. Conclusion

Problems of studying cognitive styles

We can distinguish four main periods in the history of CS research based on the criterion of focus on studying a specific problem. The first period, which includes early studies of the 40–50s of the 20th century, is associated with the identification of individual differences in the methods of processing information. The contribution of this stage is to put forward the idea that people differ from each other not only in their success in completing a task, but also in the ways they perceive (understand) and solve it. The work of the second period (1950–60) was associated with the search for relationships between cognitive styles and other psychological constructs, as well as deepening the understanding of the characteristic features of the CS. The authors describe the significance of these periods as a step forward in understanding the connection between the individual and the environment, the construction of a “bridge” between cognition and personality. In our opinion, this understanding of cognitive style as one of the important general psychological constructs is still promising. However, the 70s of the 20th century were characterized by a noticeable decline in interest in the study of CS, as scientists faced a number of serious problems. Despite the achievements of the stylistic approach, over time, fundamental shortcomings were discovered that hampered its development. The ongoing research was unable to resolve the problems outlined below, which created, as noted by M.A. Kholodnaya, “the impression of an avalanche-like growth of facts that do not agree with each other, which could no longer be explained from any more or less meaningful position.” In this context, it is important that the works of recent years are aimed at a critical analysis of earlier studies. The purpose of this review and analytical study is to highlight the main problems in the field of CS psychology and possible ways to solve them, as well as to analyze promising directions for future research.

The key problem, which has been noticed by many well-known researchers in the field of style approach, is the lack of a clear understanding of what stands behind the constructs “style” and “cognitive style,” as well as their strict definition and general theoretical and methodological basis. V.A. Tolochek also points out the dependence of the choice of methodology for CS research on the historical context and demand from society.

Cognitive styles, along with other stylistic formations - learning styles, thinking styles, intellectual styles, etc. - are recognized as limited by the means of their measurement. That is, they are characterized by a rather “rigid” connection to the methodology of their diagnosis, which leads to obvious difficulties in generalizing the obtained empirical data and theoretical understanding of the results. As M.A. rightly noted. Cold, in general, the primacy of empirics in relation to theory was revealed, as a result of which researchers were forced to rely on very particular operational definitions of the CS. The expansion of the number of empirical studies was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in theoretical and methodological works generalizing them. However, according to T.V. Kornilova and G.V. Paramei, “the delay in theoretical developments should not slow down empirical studies of style regulation of activity, since the subject of research is quite clearly delineated...”.

One of the possible reasons for the apparent decline in the interest of psychologists in the problems of CS is also recognized as the lack of a unified conceptual apparatus for effective communication between researchers, both within this narrow area and in a broader psychological context. In addition, many authors point to the constant growth of the already large number of individual, isolated cognitive styles, which is accompanied by the creation of appropriate means of measuring them. Thus, in the literature there are 15 (Wardell, Royce, 1978), 19 (Messick, 1976), 21 (Kholodnaya, 2004), 29 (Allinson, Hayes, 1996) and even more than 71 (Evans, Waring, 2009) existing CS, which necessitates the creation of integrative models capable of organizing or limiting the growing volume of new empirical constructs. Problems in understanding how cognitive styles relate to other characteristics of individual differences are accompanied by a confusion of CS with different psychological constructs - personality traits, abilities, cognitive strategies.

An essential characteristic of the early stages of studying cognitive styles is the use of correlational research designs, which are subsequently replaced by a focus on testing experimental cause-and-effect hypotheses. Existing methodological means of measuring CS are criticized - they are too diverse, not sufficiently coordinated with each other, many do not have the necessary validity and reliability, which creates a demand for the development of reliable and valid methods. The researchers emphasize that the above problems “outweighed” the advantages of the stylistic approach, which led to a decline in interest in further theoretical developments in this area. It "has been left fragmented and incomplete, without a clear and practical theory, and without an understanding of how cognitive styles relate to other psychological constructs and theories in the cognitive sciences." At the same time, V. Moskvina and M. Kozhevnikova note that, despite the fading of theoretical interest, the number of applied studies of cognitive styles has increased. Particular attention was paid to CS related to solving complex cognitive problems and learning. A. Furnham gave a description of the situation in the field of studying cognitive styles. He noted that despite 50 years of research, many questions still remain unanswered, but the effort put into developing this topic and the amount of data accumulated are striking.

Ways to solve problems, research programs and development prospects

We believe that at present the issue of relevance of further study of cognitive styles is urgent. On the one hand, this area has long been outside the main development paths of modern psychology, on the other hand, the question of styles as preferences in the use of cognitive abilities still remains very important. Many authors indicate that CS can serve as the basis for constructing a unified theory of the interaction of cognition and personality, that they have great applied significance in the fields of training and education, management, psychotherapy, decision making, etc.

Asking whether the psychology of styles is moving forward or whether new research does not resolve existing problems and contradictions, E. Cools and S. Rainer conclude that the last decade has been characterized not only by a revival of interest in the study of styles, but also by significant progress in empirical research in this area. Other authors defend a similar point of view. However, in our opinion, further development of the psychology of styles is impossible without introducing a number of fundamentally important transformations aimed at overcoming the above limitations of early research. New research programs on cognitive styles, proposed after critical reflection of previous ones, address three main aspects of their study - theory, measurement and practice, at the intersection of which a productive research approach can be developed.

E. Cools proposes the following transformations in the field of research of cognitive styles: to clarify the position of CS in the field of psychology of individual differences and, as a result, to build their unified model, to integrate known cognitive styles into it, to conduct longitudinal studies to identify the source of development of CS, to abandon the prevailing self-reported methods in favor of approaches that involve multidimensional and multifactorial study of cognitive styles. R. Riding's research program includes proposals for reducing the large number of individual CS by combining them into broader groups, as well as for developing reliable and valid diagnostic procedures. In addition, it is necessary to construct a model of the relationship between cognitive styles and other psychological constructs based on a theoretical understanding of the place of cognitive styles in the general context of the psychology of individual differences. Ensuring the possibility of practical application of CS should, in the author's opinion, be based on determining their connections with observed behavior. E. Sadler-Smith also points to the need to develop a unified theoretical and methodological framework and understand the place of CS in the field of individual differences, based on the achievements of social psychology and neuroscience.

However, it emphasizes the importance of creating reliable and valid measures of cognitive styles.

R. Sternberg, as a general methodology for studying CS, proposes the psychology of choice and decision-making, based on the position that cognitive styles represent choices or preferences. The author considers the reason for the failure of early research to be reliance on theories of personality traits and abilities, to which CS do not belong. V. Moskvina and M. Kozhevnikova identified three main directions in the study of styles, which are relevant and promising. The first - “splitting” - reflects an in-depth study of the performance of a certain task within a group of subjects representing the pole of a certain cognitive style. The second direction is related to the development of integrative models of CS and their unification into a single theory, which will reduce the number of poorly systematized and disparate cognitive styles. The third direction corresponds to a trend that is very relevant for many areas of psychology - reliance on the achievements of neuroscience.

Thus, in our opinion, the greatest response in critical reviews and proposed programs is caused by the problem of considering CS in the system of individual differences variables, as well as the need to systematize and streamline known cognitive styles through the development of integrative models.

Correlation of cognitive styles with other constructs.

The subject of numerous discussions is the problem of the relationship between CS and abilities, the relevance of which is due not only to its theoretical significance, but also to its close connection with other controversial issues - about the possibility of assessing the poles of cognitive styles as more or less socially “in demand” and, accordingly, their connection with productivity activities.

The concept of CS was introduced to try to answer the question: how and why people differ from each other when performing certain activities. This could not always be explained in terms of abilities alone because the same results can be achieved in different ways. In the literature of both early and later periods of the study of cognitive styles, the prevailing position is that styles and abilities cannot be reduced to each other. However, there is also an opposite point of view (see below). G. Vitkin and P. Altman proposed five criteria for distinguishing styles and abilities:

1. abilities are related to the level of achievement, while style characterizes the way an activity is performed;
2. style is a bipolar dimension, ability is unipolar;
3. in contrast to abilities that have a value context, value judgments are not applicable to styles - in other words, both poles of any style are equivalent from the point of view of the effective aspects of activity;
4. style is stable over time;
5. style is consistently manifested in different conditions, while ability is characterized by specificity in relation to a certain type of activity and can change over time. Similar grounds for distinguishing these constructs were highlighted by S. Messick, who characterized styles as bipolar typical forms of activity related to the way of cognition and manifested in various aspects of functioning. Abilities, in his opinion, on the contrary, are related to the content of cognition and are specific to a particular area of ​​activity, influencing its effectiveness.

M.A. Kholodnaya critically analyzes the criteria proposed by G. Vitkin and S. Messick, believing that at the empirical level mutual intersections of CS and abilities are found, despite the differences between them declared at the level of theoretical developments. Thus, styles do not represent preferences, but a special type of intellectual abilities - metacognitive abilities, which are “indicators of the formation of mental mechanisms responsible for managing the process of information processing.”

According to R. Sternberg's theory, styles are choices to act in one way or another based on a person's preferences and the demands of the situation, and it is this component of choice and decision making that distinguishes styles from abilities. Thus, styles are preferences for the use of certain abilities, but cannot be reduced to them. This also explains the many CSs described in the literature, since the range of possible choices is very wide. In concepts that postulate the irreducibility of styles to abilities, the key basis for their differentiation is, in our opinion, the attitude to the procedural and effective aspects of activity, respectively.

The general idea is that abilities determine the effectiveness of an activity, and style reflects the habitual way of performing it, without affecting the final productivity. However, according to I.P. Shkuratova, this provision on the distinction between styles and abilities leads to an artificial separation of process and result, which in reality cannot be distinguished and should be considered in a complex. I.G. draws attention to the same problem. Skotnikov, emphasizing that different CSs are characterized by different ratios of effective and procedural aspects: some CSs can influence the productivity of cognitive activity, while being stylistic in a wide class of life situations. In addition, the same final efficiency may be associated with different resource costs.

Understanding of the relationship between CS and ability is further enhanced by the development of style classifications based on the criterion of proximity to other individual difference variables. N. Kogan identified three types of styles based on distance from the area of ​​ability. When measuring Type I styles, which are closest to ability, accuracy and correctness of response are important. Type II styles cannot be characterized in terms of precision or correctness. Type III styles are independent of accuracy and are not evaluated in terms of their greater or lesser preference for solving a wide range of life problems. R. Sternberg and L.F. Chang used similar principles to classify intellectual styles. R. Sternberg and E. Grigorenko proposed a division of cognitive- and personality-centered styles according to the degree of their proximity to abilities and personality traits, respectively. Activity-centered styles in this classification are mediators of activity that goes back to both personality and abilities.

Styles and strategies

In our opinion, it is very important to distinguish between cognitive styles and cognitive strategies. According to I.G. Skotnikova, strategies represent a specific manifestation of cognitive styles when solving a problem, mediating the influence of the CS on the level of cognitive functioning. R. Riding and S. Rainer consider strategies as ways of coping with the current conditions of the situation and tasks. Moreover, according to S. Messick, not any, but some specific type. Cognitive styles are associated with a wide range of different conditions and are responsible for the selection, organization and control of strategies.

Integrative Models

As noted above, the need to develop models capable of systematizing and streamlining the growing number of cognitive styles is recognized as one of the most pressing problems. Shifting the direction of the vector of interest of researchers from differentiation to integration is not just a modern trend in academic psychology, but an urgent need and a promising direction. Most of the proposed integrative models can be divided into two types. The first type involved the identification of hierarchical levels of organization depending on the level of information processing used. The second type was based on the definition of opposing groups of stylistic properties that are irreducible to each other.

One of the first attempts to combine existing cognitive styles into broader groups was made in the model of D. Wardell and J. Royce. Based on the idea that CS is closely related to affect, the authors consider styles to be higher-order properties in relation to cognitive abilities and affective traits. At the same time, CS influence the way the latter are connected with individual behavioral characteristics. In other words, styles are moderators linking cognitive and affective traits. Determining combinations of traits, they are activated in the situation of the existence of alternative possibilities for adapting the subject to the conditions of the current situation. Considering that style is one of the subsystems of a more general psychological system, the authors proposed its hierarchical organization. Existing cognitive styles have been divided into three groups: proper cognitive, cognitive-affective and affective styles. Thus, the three identified ways of integrating cognition and affect correspond to three higher-order constructs or general styles: rational, experiential, and metaphorical. A. Miller also proposed a hierarchical model of cognitive processes and styles, according to which CS include individual differences in the ways of processing information in three fundamental types of cognitive processes - perception, memory and thinking. Each stage of information processing corresponds to a specific cognitive style.

Models of the second type are more numerous. The most common basis for grouping CS is the dichotomy of analyticity-integrity or analyticity-intuitiveness. R. Riding analyzed more than 30 cognitive styles and identified two large groups according to the method of organizing and representing information, which underlies his proposed definition of CS. The tendency to organize information holistically or in parts corresponds to the dimension of holisticity-analyticity, and verbality-imagery is associated with the method of its representation - verbally or through images, respectively. The classifications described above in the “Styles and Abilities” section also contribute to solving the problem of enlarging style dimensions. A rarer way of combining cognitive styles into an integrative model corresponds to the matrix organization proposed by Ch. Nosal. The author systematized CS in the context of information processing theory, also contributing to the identification of connections between cognitive styles and other cognitive functions, in particular, information processing processes and cognitive control. The rows and columns of the matrix are formed by the levels (perception, concept formation, modeling and programming) and methods (field structuring, field scanning, conceptual equivalence and distribution of control) of information processing, respectively. At their intersection are cognitive styles. Based on the ideas of Ch. Nosal, M. Kozhevnikov, K. Evans and M. Kosslyn proposed their own version of organizing the CS also in the form of a matrix, however, unlike Nosal’s model, at the intersection of rows and columns there are not only cognitive styles, but also styles learning and decision making.

For thinking styles, R. Sternberg proposed a model of mental self-government. The structure of "government" has been used as a metaphor for understanding individual differences in the regulation of intellectual activity. In our opinion, the main significance of these models is to identify relationships and connections between individual cognitive styles, as well as to strive to reduce the number of units independent from each other by combining them into groups based on key characteristics. Discussion questions According to L.F. Chang, R. Sternberg and S. Rainer, the main controversial issues about the nature of styles are the following problems:

1. relationships between style constructs;
2. stability;
3. value or utility in connection with the productivity of an activity.

Despite the fact that the authors write about intellectual styles, the problems they raise are applicable in general to the study of CS. The first controversy concerns the problem of the connection between various style constructs: cognitive styles, learning and teaching styles, intellectual styles, thinking styles, decision-making, etc. This issue appears at both the empirical and conceptual levels. It seems to us that the optimal and productive position is that all style constructs represent “environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition that develop as a result of adaptation to physical and socio-cultural events and conditions.”

The problem of style stability is perhaps the most controversial, relevant and controversial. The accepted definition of cognitive styles, which originates in early works and is repeatedly cited in various variations by different authors, puts stability at the basis of the theoretical understanding of CS as a psychological construct, presuming that the subject has some stable way of processing information when solving cognitive problems. Many concepts develop within the framework of such ideas.

However, in the literature one can find data in favor of the opposite point of view, in particular, data on the potential possibility of changing the style pole of the subject under certain conditions, due to training and the idea of ​​​​flexibility in using styles to adapt to the requirements of the current situation. For example, the development of the pole of reflexivity (CS impulsivity-reflexivity) was carried out after receiving direct instructions to delay responses, explore all possible alternatives, as well as after learning scanning and verbalization strategies. It was demonstrated that differences in the performance of field-independent and field-dependent students were leveled out if the latter were provided with hints from teachers or instructed to identify key pieces of information needed to solve a problem. In the work of V.V. Selivanov noted changes in field dependence-field independence, due to the subjects acquiring experience in solving mental problems. Following the ideas of J. Kelly about the creative cycle as a constantly changing system of personal constructs, I.P. Shkuratova, analyzing the problem of stability of styles in ontogenesis and during psychotherapy, suggests that the mechanism of creativity underlies the phenomenon of mobility. In addition, already in the works of G. Vitkin, the possibility of the subject being fixed or mobile relative to his style was noted. Mobility involves the manifestation of both poles of a certain cognitive style. The flexibility of the CS is also demonstrated by the study of M. Niaz, in which it was revealed that for the field-dependence-field-independence style, each pole is divided into two additional groups: fixed and mobile. M.A. Kholodnaya discovered a very important phenomenon of splitting the poles of cognitive styles, according to which each CS is fundamentally not a bipolar, but a quadripolar dimension. The quadripolarity of some cognitive styles suggests the presence of mobile and fixed subgroups, and the sensitivity of the CS to situational factors contributes to a person’s adaptation to specific operating conditions. Mobility-fixity is often considered as a manifestation of a higher order style - a metastyle, which primarily performs a regulatory function.

Thus, in Ch. Nosal’s model, the mobility-fixity style refers to the highest level of information processing – programmatic, or metacognitive. M. Kozhevnikova also understands mobility-fixity as a metastyle that determines flexibility in the choice and use of one or another style to adapt the subject to the current situation of activity. It should be noted that in the above works, only some groups of cognitive styles are characterized by mobility - the so-called mobile CS, while others - fixed CS are quite stable in their manifestations. However, there is another point of view, according to which any person can choose any style in accordance with the conditions of the situation. A.G. Asmolov defined cognitive styles as means of regulating activity by choosing the style that best suits its goals and attitudes. R. Sternberg also put forward the concept of styles as choices or preferences. J. Biggs made a similar suggestion about style as an approach to learning, problem solving, or life in general.

Some studies aimed at studying the issue of stability-mobility of styles exacerbate another problem related to the presence of poles of cognitive styles that are more socially valuable and “in demand”, i.e. providing a person with fundamentally higher productivity of activity, or their loading with significance. In this context, the overwhelming majority of attempts to develop a stylistic pole in a subject that is unusual for him are aimed at the formation of a pole that is socially recognized as more effective or associated with greater advantage. This is demonstrated by the examples given above (see also Libin et al., 1998). According to I.V. Tikhomirova, M.A. Kholodny, N. Kogan, etc., one of the poles of styles is necessarily more preferable and in demand due to its connection with the effectiveness of learning. According to the opposite view, styles cannot be assessed in terms of their fundamental value load, but can only correspond or not correspond to the cognitive activity taking place in a certain situation. In our opinion, extreme points of view on the problem of the “value” of CS are hardly justified. Apparently, a slightly different understanding of this problem will be more productive: to solve a specific cognitive task in specific conditions and with the available set of cognitive resources of the subject, a functional system, a functional organ, adequate to the situation is formed (understood within the framework of the ideas of A.A. Ukhtomsky, A.N. Leontiev), including certain cognitive styles.

Conclusion

We tried to show that the issue of relevance, prospects, theoretical and practical significance of the study of cognitive styles continues to be discussed within the framework of the style approach. The period of active empirical study of CS was replaced by a noticeable decline in interest in further theoretical developments, but the problems underlying them still remain relevant. In a broad sense, this is a question about how and why people differ from each other when performing one or another cognitive activity, about the nature of individual differences that do not relate to the area of ​​abilities and personal characteristics. Following many authors, we believe that the issue of cognitive styles can become the basis for integrating research into the cognitive and personal spheres, since it allows us to clarify the psychological mechanisms of interaction between the individual and the environment. In recent years, a number of theoretical and methodological works have been published aimed at searching for prospects for studying CS and formulating fundamental proposals for the further development of research in this subject area. They address theory, methodology, problems of measurement and practical use of cognitive styles.

In particular, the need is noted:

1. reliance on a theoretical and methodological basis adequate to this construct;
2. formulating a unified conceptual apparatus;
3. clarifying the place of the CS in the system of individual psychological differences;
4. integration and systematization of many known measurements of the CS.

We emphasize that this direction seems promising to us, provided that cognitive styles are studied not as simply a set of individual individual characteristics of the subject of cognition, which are predominantly descriptive, but in the context of human interaction with the environment. In our opinion, modern research is characterized by an understanding of the functional significance of the CS as a psychological means of regulating cognitive activity and adapting the subject to its conditions. In general, cognitive styles can be represented as a system that regulates the relationship between a person’s individual psychological characteristics and environmental requirements.

Value[4]

Cognitive style, like other stylistic formations of an individual, performs the following functions: 3 1. adaptive, consisting in adapting the individual to the requirements of a given activity and social environment; 2. compensatory, since its formation is based on the strengths of the individual and taking into account the weaknesses; 3.system-forming, which allows, on the one hand, to form a style based on many previously established characteristics of individuality, and, on the other hand, to influence many aspects of human behavior; 4. self-expression, consisting in the ability of an individual to express himself through a unique way of performing an activity or through a manner of behavior. The last function is associated with the little-studied problem of the influence of cognitive styles on the variability of a person’s actual behavior in the sphere of communication (for example, on his self-disclosure and self-presentation). There is every reason to expect that the differentiation of objects (communication partners) at the sensory input will lead to differentiation of behavioral reactions at the output. The study of cognitive styles as determinants of human behavior seems to us very promising, since their study leads to fundamental problems of human worldview.

Cognitive style theory and personality

One of the areas of personality research in cognitive psychology is cognitive personality style. The founder of this direction in psychology is considered to be the American psychologist Herman Witkin. Witkin Herman (1916–1979) – American psychologist; together with R.V. Gardner and J. Kagan are considered the founder of a direction in psychology focused on the study of cognitive style. The concept of style has long been close to the concept of personality. J. Buffon said back in 1753 that style is man himself; if knowledge and discoveries are easily transferred, easily transferred from one to another because they are outside of man, then style cannot be taken away, adopted, or replaced. Today, the concept of style is widely used in management psychology (management style), in social psychology (communication style), in labor psychology (activity style) and in other branches of psychology and beyond, where a person acts in one way or another. When a person creates works of art, communicates, perceives another person, or simply walks down the street, the manner, methods, and techniques of his behavior bear the imprints of his individuality. By learning to decipher them, you can get the key to understanding a person.

The concept of cognitive style was born when representatives of the movement, called the “New Look” at the theory of perception and cognition, noticed that differences in the perception of the same objects are associated with the personal characteristics of people (motivation, attitudes, life experience, etc.) . Subsequently, it became clear that there are stable individual differences in the methods of organizing and processing information, methods of organizing and gaining experience, preference criteria used when a person builds his image of the world, which were called cognitive style . When revealing the concept of cognitive style, attention is paid to the preference criteria used when a person constructs his image of the world. Sometimes they emphasize a relatively stable way of organizing attention, determined by temperament.

Many psychologists are convinced that personality traits are expressed in individual characteristics of perception. As a result of an active search for such personal invariants of behavior, various authors discovered and described about a dozen stable individual techniques for handling information, called cognitive styles.

Interest in cognitive style is associated with its pervasive influence on various aspects of human behavior in the spheres of communication, learning, and work. Knowing a person’s cognitive style, one can make predictions regarding many features of his behavior (communication, activity, consumption). Cognitive style is at the intersection of cognitive and motivational structures of the individual and occupies a key position regarding the possibilities of revealing the mechanisms of personality integrity.

Currently, there are thousands of works devoted to the influence of cognitive-style characteristics of a person on the most diverse aspects of his behavior. Many authors see the study of cognitive styles as one of the promising areas for studying individual personality characteristics.

It is believed that the integration of individual stylistic characteristics into a holistic structure will make it possible to reflect important aspects of human individuality. Today, about a dozen parameters of cognitive style have been described. Three parameters are most often used: field dependence-field independence, cognitive complexity, conceptual differentiation. Most of the parameters of cognitive style are grouped around such a dimension as analyticity-synthesis, or articulation-globality, reflecting the degree of fragmentation of the perception of the surrounding world.

Field dependence-field independence is a parameter of cognitive style, consisting of the degree to which internal guidelines are used when working with conflicting information and resistance to the pressure of the external situation. This parameter was identified by G. Vitkin when studying the influence of the perceived properties of parts of the visual field on the perception of it as a whole.

Field independence is determined by the dominant tendency to focus on oneself when solving problems. Field-independent individuals tend to have an impersonal orientation, while field-dependent individuals tend to have an interpersonal orientation. Therefore, among those who are field-independent, interpersonal interaction is ineffective, but they achieve great success in situations that require restructuring. The opposite trend is typical for field dependents. The final effectiveness of the activities of representatives of these cognitive styles is equal when considered in relation to different spheres of life.

Field independence is an indicator of the degree of differentiation of the psyche as a whole, and is therefore associated with the amount of lateralization of functions: field independent individuals can be either extremely right-hemisphere or extremely left-hemisphere. However, most authors associate only left-sided lateralization with field independence. It was found that when perceiving a human face, the attention of field-independent subjects is focused on its right half, which indicates their left-sided lateralization.

Field-independent people develop a decision-making strategy based on the analysis of details, which is associated with the predominance of the left hemisphere, while field-dependent people use figurative strategies that involve the right hemisphere.

To measure field dependence-field independence, G. Vitkin and his collaborators developed three tests: “Frame-rod”, “Rotating room” and “Disguised figures”. The most popular test is “Disguised Figures”, developed by G. Vitkin based on the method of K. Gottschald. The subject is shown a simple geometric figure, then it is removed and asked to find it in a complex image. A simple figure and a complex image are never presented at the same time. The final test consists of 12 tasks. An indicator of field independence is the average task completion time. The smaller it is, the greater the field independence. Field independence can also be judged by the number of correct decisions.

The formation of field dependence is facilitated by excessive guardianship and control over the child’s behavior by adults, limiting his contacts with peers and demanding complete obedience. High field dependence is promoted by both a very large family, consisting of several generations, and an incomplete family, where the child is raised by one mother. According to G. Vitkin, the female environment in itself negatively affects the level of psychological differentiation of the child, giving rise to social conformity and field dependence in him.

Cognitive complexity-simplicity. This parameter of cognitive style owes its origin to the theory of personal constructs by J. Kelly (more on this in the next paragraph). It characterizes an individual’s greater or lesser tendency to build multidimensional models of events: some people see the world as multidimensional, others as simplified, “black and white.”

In studies of this cognitive style, the main idea of ​​the style approach is clearly presented: each person perceives, understands, interprets and predicts reality in his own way based on the “constructions” of individual cognitive experience.

When assessing the cognitive complexity of an individual, the number of dimensions used to assess what is happening, as well as the degree of organization and interconnectedness of these dimensions, are taken into account. Numerous studies show that cognitively complex individuals are more accurate in their predictions about the behavior of other people than cognitively simple individuals. Cognitively simple subjects are egocentric: they believe that everything they think about their behavior also applies to other people’s opinions of them. But the psychological portraits of cognitively simple and cognitively complex individuals are contradictory and ambiguous, since the simplicity-complexity parameter is superimposed on a number of other characteristics, for example, cognitive differentiation.

Conceptual (psychological) differentiation is the degree of dismemberment (fractionation, detail) in the process of categorization. An indicator of this parameter in psychological research is the number of groups formed during the free classification of objects. This indicator does not depend on the content of the material (words, pictures, statements, objects, etc.). This means that there are stable individual differences in the degree of differentiation (articulation) of perception of the surrounding world and oneself. A large number of groups when sorting objects indicates high conceptual differentiation, a small number indicates low one. More articulated perception means detail and better organization of the perceptual field. The basis of differentiation is the ability to act, assert oneself, organize, use significant field factors and control destructive forces within oneself.

G. Vitkin associates differences in the degree of articulation with the characteristics of relationships in the family and upbringing in early childhood. The way a mother treats her child largely determines the level of psychological differentiation.

Articulation is a characteristic of personality that cuts across different levels of personality organization, although specific training and life experiences during maturation may have different effects on the differentiation of individual personality domains, and differentiation in later life or mental disorder may reduce the level of differentiation unevenly in these domains.

G. Vitkin described four components of psychological differentiation.

1. Articulation of the idea of ​​one’s body, consisting in a clear identification of its boundaries, which is laid in early childhood and is the basis for the development of differentiation at higher levels of personal reflection.

2. Articulation of the cognitive sphere, manifested in the dual ability to isolate a part of the whole field in the process of perception and organize an unstructured field.

3. A sense of separate identity, which means the degree to which an individual develops an awareness of his needs, feelings and properties and identifies them as different from the needs, feelings and properties of other people. Three categories of behavioral manifestations of a sense of separate identity have been established: the ability to act independently, without the support of other people, due to a well-structured “I”; preference to use one’s opinions, attitudes and judgments in a conflict situation; stability of self-esteem and self-image in different social contexts.

4. Structured control and specialized defense are an expression of the differentiation and level of regulation of behavior in general. People with a global field perception tend to use primitive denial and suppression, while people with an analytical perception prefer intellectualization as defense mechanisms.

The cognitive style of a person is also characterized using a number of other parameters. A number of psychologists (J. Klein, R. Gardner, P. Holzman) consider cognitive style as an interordered system of cognitive attitudes that determine the rules by which cognitive processes unfold. They proposed, in particular, such parameters of cognitive style as tolerance to unrealistic experience and reflexivity-impulsivity.

Tolerance for unrealistic experience is the acceptance of events that do not correspond to experience. In the experiments, the subject was first asked to read the names of colors printed in a colored font so that the color of the font and the name of the color did not match (for example, the word “blue” was printed in red). This slowed down the reading of words. The difference between the speed of reading regular text and color text showed the amount of tolerance for unrealistic experiences.

Reflexivity-impulsivity is a personal tendency to make decisions quickly or slowly. People with an impulsive style quickly make hypotheses in situations of uncertainty, making many wrong decisions. The reflexive strategy is long-term thinking that gives a more correct answer. Indicators of reflexivity-impulsivity are the time spent thinking about a task before making a decision and the number of errors.

To understand the cognitive approach to personality, it is of interest how various parameters of cognitive style manifest themselves in life and experimental practice.

Experiments show that field independence and high conceptual differentiation have a positive effect on students' academic performance.

Students with high academic performance demonstrate more signs of field independence: they use fewer words when taking notes, use more simple sentences, abbreviate words more often, use synonyms, paraphrase thoughts, i.e. subject the text to greater processing.

In addition, field-independent students structure the text graphically, using underlining, changing fonts or colors.

The parameter of conceptual differentiation is manifested weaker in students’ academic work. It was only established that students with high conceptual differentiation, as well as field-independent ones, when working with the text, divided it into paragraphs, highlighted and underlined the most important places.

Consequently, high field independence, i.e. the ability to quickly process information and the ability to translate it into one’s own language is a factor in the success of learning. The connection between conceptual differentiation and learning success is less clear.

According to V. Kolga, individuals do not have advantages in learning success depending on which pole of conceptual differentiation they are at. High conceptual differentiation helps to identify the specificity of the proposed task, low – a greater breadth of transfer of skills from one situation to another.

Many researchers have been interested in how cognitive style is related to personality traits. At the same time, the focus was again on the parameter of field dependence-field independence, which was compared with such properties as conformity, introversion, empathy, anxiety, etc. It turned out that field-dependent individuals give more conformal reactions and quickly accept someone else’s point of view. These differences are explained by the fact that field-dependent people have a less clear structure of their own “I,” while field-independent people have a more structured structure, and they bring order to uncertain situations.

No significant relationships were found between the ability to empathize and field independence. This means that field-dependent and field-independent people are equally capable of a good understanding of another person.

Empirical data on the connection between field independence and anxiety are quite contradictory. Field-dependent individuals have weaker behavioral control, less developed defense mechanisms, and as a result they are more anxious than field-independent individuals. A positive relationship was found between self-confidence and field independence. Under conditions of sensory isolation, field-dependent people show anxiety, and field-independent people show anger and anxiety. Field dependents have a general predisposition to anxiety in the situation of assessing social qualities.

According to R. Cattell, field dependence-field independence is one of the manifestations of the factor “commitment to the group - self-sufficiency”, which is included in the secondary factor “introversion-extroversion”.

I.P. Shkuratova (Rostov-on-Don), studying the connection between cognitive style parameters and personality traits, drew attention to the fact that different indicators of field independence group different personal factors around themselves: the decision time indicator gives significant connections with the factors “intelligence” and “emotional stability” and “mastery of moral standards”, an indicator of the number of correct decisions - with the factors “sociability”, “suspiciousness”, “self-sufficiency” and the secondary factor “anxiety”, and the productivity indicator did not give a single significant connection with personal characteristics at all. This is evidence that indicators of field independence, which are considered equivalent, actually reflect different personality traits.

A significantly greater connection between indicators of cognitive style and personality traits is revealed if behavioral manifestations of traits are used. Cognitive style is a way of processing information, therefore it manifests itself more where there is real action rather than reflection. All parameters of cognitive style owe their origin to the practice of psychological experiment, within the framework of which their relationship with other personal characteristics continues to be analyzed.

The parameters of cognitive style can be in different relationships with the level of intelligence and individual personality traits, which is explained by the peculiarities of their nature. Therefore, each parameter of cognitive style is considered as an independent dimension of personality, not reducible to others. Cognitive-style features are understood as a personal formation that is significantly generalized and manifests itself in a variety of behavioral characteristics in different fields of activity.

Cognitive style is regarded as a compensatory mechanism associated with a certain type of psychological defense. J. Klein defines cognitive style “as a stable control strategy that directs needs into adaptive actions, organizing cognitive and affective processes in such a way as to minimize conflict and at the same time maximize individual characteristics.” G. Vitkin claims that persons with an analytical type of perception, i.e. field-independent, have a more developed system of psychological defense, and its leading forms are such specialized forms as intellectualization and rationalization, while individuals with a synthetic type of perception more often show primitive denial or suppression.

Thus, cognitive styles, in their deep psychological foundations, represent forms of intellectual maturity of the subject. Research on cognitive style allows us to significantly revise existing theories of personality.

Footnotes and sources

1. Hall M., Bodenhamer B. 51 NLP metaprograms. - M.: Prime Euroznak, 2007. - 352 pp. - ISBN 5-93878-198-1
2. ↑ 1 2 Shkuratova I.P.
   Cognitive style and communication. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 1994.156 p.
3. ↑ 1 2 Witkin H., Goodenough D.
   Cognitive style: essence and origins. NY 1982. 135 p.
4. [irshkuratova.ru/files/pl017.pdf Shkuratova I.P.]
   [irshkuratova.ru/files/pl017.pdf Cognitive styles as regulators of a person’s worldview]

Links

• [psylab.info/Category:Diagnostics_of_cognitive_styles Methods for diagnosing cognitive styles] (inaccessible link since 05/13/2013 (2768 days))
• [www.voppy.ru/issues/1989/896/896140.htm T. V. Kornilova, G. V. Paramei. Approaches to the Study of Cognitive Styles: Twenty Years Later]
• [www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/DISS.pdf Leaver B. L. Methods of individualized teaching of a foreign language, taking into account the influence of cognitive styles on the process of its acquisition. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of pedagogical sciences, State Institute of Russian Language named after. A. S. Pushkina, Moscow, 2000]
• [www.voppy.ru/issues/1986/865/865187.htm Seminar on cognitive styles]
• tips.psychology.org/styles.html
• www.personality-project.org/perproj/others/heineman/cog.htm

Literature

• Egorova M. S. Psychology of individual differences. M., 1997.
• Klimov E. L. Individual style of activity depending on the typological properties of the nervous system, Kazan: KSU, 1969.
• Cognitive styles. Abstracts of a scientific and practical seminar (ed. V. Kolga), Tallinn, 1986.
• Libin A.V. Differential psychology. M.: Smysl, 1999.
• Leaver B. L. Teaching the whole class. Novosibirsk, 1994.
• Psychological problems of individuality, issue 1. M.; L., 1983.
• Abilities and inclinations (edited by E. A. Golubeva). M.: Pedagogy. 1989.
• Person's style; psychological analysis (edited by A. V. Libin) M.: Smysl, 1998.
• Tolochek V. L. Activity styles: A model of styles with changing conditions of activity. M., 1992.
• Kholodnaya M. A. Cognitive styles. On the nature of the individual mind. 2nd ed., revised. - St. Petersburg. "Peter", 2004.
• Kholodnaya M. A. Psychology of intelligence: paradoxes of research. - Tomsk: Tomsk Publishing House, University; M.: Publishing house "Bars", 1997. - 392 p.
• [flogiston.ru/articles/social/mono_kognitive_style_and_communication Shkuratova I. M. Cognitive style and communication. Rostov n/d.: Publishing house Rost, ped, university, 1994.]
• Allinson, C. W., and Hayes, J. “The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research,” Journal of Management Studies (33:1), January 1996, pp. 119–135.
• Atherton, J. S. "Learning and Teaching: Pask and Laurillard", 2003. Retrieved 28 June 2003, from www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/pask.htm#serialists.
• Beiri, J. "Complexity-simplicity as a personality variable in cognitive and preferential behavior" Dorsey Press, Homewood, IL, 1961.
• Bobic, M., Davis, E., and Cunningham, R. “The Kirton adaptation-innovation inventory,” Review of Public Personnel Administration (19:2), Spring 1999, pp. 18–31.
• Carey, J. M. "The issue of cognitive style in MIS/DSS research", 1991.
• Kirton, M. “Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology (61:5) 1976, pp. 622–629.
• Kirton, M.J. "Field Dependence and Adaptive Innovation Theories", Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1978, 47, pp 1239-1245.
• Kirton, M. J. Adaptation and innovation in the context of diversity and change
  Routledge, London, 2003, P. 392
• Mullany, M.J. "Using cognitive style measurements to forecast user resistance", 14th Annual conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications, Napier, New Zealand, 2001, pp. 95–100.
• Peterson, E. R., & Deary, I. J. (2006). Examining wholistic-analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 41
  , 3-14.
• Pask, G. “Styles and Strategies of Learning,” British Journal of Educational Psychology (46:II) 1976, pp. 128–148.
• Riding, R. J., and Cheema, I. “Cognitive styles—An overview and integration.” Educational Psychology (11:3/4) 1991, pp. 193–215.
• Riding, R. J., and Sadler-Smith, E. “Type of instructional material, cognitive style and learning performance.” Educational Studies (18:3) 1992, pp. 323–340.
• Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., and Cox, P. W. “Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications,” Review of Educational Research (47:1), Winter 1977, pp. 1–64.

Topic 2.2. "Cognitive personality traits"

The student must:

Have an idea:

about speech as a form of existence of thought.

Know:

• cognitive processes: sensation, perception, attention, memory, imagination, thinking, speech;

Be able to:

• Identify types of perception and use them to effectively interact with employees;
• distribute attention, use methods of rational memorization.

Cognitive processes. Sensations, types and properties of sensations. Perception and its features. Visual, auditory and kinesthetic types of perception. Attention, types and properties of attention.

Memory, ways of rational memorization.

Thinking, types of thinking, forms of the thought process, analytical mental operations. Speech as a form of existence of thought. Imagination, its types and connections with other processes.

Laboratory - practical exercise. Exercises to train attention and memory.

Sensations and perceptions.

Sensation, perception and thinking are inseparable parts of a single process of reflecting reality. Sensing, perceiving, visually representing any object, any phenomenon, a person must somehow analyze, generalize, specify, in other words, think about what is reflected in sensations and perceptions.

The structure of information reception includes the following stages: R-OC - NI - GM - OSH - CV - (EP) - OP - (M) - OS - VN,

where P is the stimulus (auditory, visual); 04 - sense organs; NI - nerve impulses; GM - brain; OSCH - separate sensations; CV - holistic perception of the image; EM - memory standards; OP - object identification; M - mental activity; OS - comprehension; VN - attention.

Feeling

- a cognitive mental process of reflecting specific, individual properties, qualities, aspects of objects and phenomena of material reality affecting the senses at a given moment.

For sensations to arise, it is necessary to influence the sensory organs with objects and phenomena of the real world, which are called stimuli.

The effect of stimuli on the sense organs is called
irritation.
In nervous tissue, the process of irritation causes excitation. Excitation of the most advanced systems of nerve cells in their organization, with the obligatory participation of the cerebral cortex, leads to the appearance of sensation.

Anatomical and physiological apparatus specialized for

receiving the effects of individual stimuli from the external and internal environment and processing them into sensations is called an analyzer.

Each analyzer consists of four parts:

1. receptor

   - a sensory organ that converts the energy of external influences into nerve signals;

2. conducting nerve pathways,

   transmitting nerve signals to the brain;

1. brain center in the cortex;
2. feedback acceptor.

Each receptor is capable of receiving specialized influences (light, sound, etc.), i.e. has a specific excitability to certain physical and chemical agents.

Receptors may be located:

• on the surface of the body (exteroceptors)

  - visual, gustatory, skin, auditory, olfactory;

• in internal organs and tissues (interoreceptors)

  - in the digestive, respiratory, and cardiovascular systems, they respond to changes within the body;

• in muscles and ligaments (proprioceptors)

  - serve to sense the movement and position of the body and its parts in space, participate in determining the properties and qualities of objects when touched by the hand.

Feelings are objective

since they always reflect an external stimulus and are at the same time
subjective,
since they depend on the state of the nervous system and the individual characteristics of the individual.

Classification of sensations

IN

Depending on the location of the receptors, sensations are distinguished:

• exteroceptive,

  arising from the influence of external stimuli on receptors located on the surface of the body;

• interoceptive

  (organic), signaling what is happening in the body (sensations of thirst, hunger, pain, etc.);

• proprioceptive,

  arising in muscles and tendons; with their help, the brain receives information about the movement and position of various parts of the body.

Exteroceptive sensations are divided into:

• distant - visual, auditory (speech, music, noise), olfactory;
• contact - tactile, gustatory, skin (pain, tactile, temperature).

The reception and processing by a person of information received through the senses ends with the appearance of images of objects and phenomena. The process of forming these images is called perception (“perception” in
“perceptual process”).
If, as a result of sensation, a person gains knowledge about individual properties, qualities of objects (something hot burned, something bright flashed in front, etc.), then perception gives a holistic image of an object or phenomenon. It presupposes the presence of various sensations and proceeds along with sensations, but cannot be reduced to their sum. Perception depends on certain relationships between sensations, the relationship of which in turn depends on the connections between qualities and properties, various parts that make up an object or phenomenon.

Perception

- this is a cognitive mental process of reflecting objects and phenomena of reality in the totality of their various properties and parts with their direct impact on the senses.

Perception

- this is a reflection of a complex stimulus and, accordingly, the result of the activity of the analyzer system. It requires combining basic, essential features and comparing what is perceived with past experience. Every perception includes:

• active motor component (feeling objects with the hand, moving the eyes when looking, etc.);
• complex analytical and synthetic activity of the brain to create a holistic image.

There are four operations (levels) of perceptual action: detection, discrimination, identification and recognition.

Perception is subjective, i.e. People perceive the same information differently, subjectively, depending on their interests, needs, abilities, etc.

The dependence of perception on the content of a person’s mental life, on the characteristics of his personality and experience is called apperception.

Properties of perception

1. Integrity,

   those. perception is always a holistic image of an object, formed in the process of practice.

2. Constancy

   - surrounding objects are perceived as relatively constant in shape, color, size, etc. In an unfamiliar

2

situation, the constancy of perception is disrupted (for example, when people look down from the upper floors of a high-rise building, cars and pedestrians seem small to them; at the same time, builders who constantly work at heights report that they see objects located below without distorting their sizes ).

1. Structurality

   - perception is not a simple sum of sensations (when listening to music, we perceive an abstracted generalized structure - a melody, although it consists of individual sounds and is performed on various instruments).

2. Meaningfulness

   - perception is closely related to thinking, to understanding the essence of objects.

3. Selectivity

   - manifests itself in the preferential selection of some objects over others.

Perception proceeds as a dynamic process of searching for an answer to the question: “What is this?”

An excerpt characterizing Cognitive Style

- Well, should we give it all up? Do not agree. We don’t agree... We don’t agree. We feel sorry for you, but we do not agree. Go on your own, alone...” was heard in the crowd from different directions. And again the same expression appeared on all the faces of this crowd, and now it was probably no longer an expression of curiosity and gratitude, but an expression of embittered determination. “You didn’t understand, right,” said Princess Marya with a sad smile. - Why don’t you want to go? I promise to house you and feed you. And here the enemy will ruin you... But her voice was drowned out by the voices of the crowd. “We don’t have our consent, let him ruin it!” We don’t take your bread, we don’t have our consent! Princess Marya again tried to catch someone's gaze from the crowd, but not a single glance was directed at her; the eyes obviously avoided her. She felt strange and awkward. - See, she taught me cleverly, follow her to the fortress! Destroy your home and go into bondage and go. Why! I'll give you the bread, they say! – voices were heard in the crowd. Princess Marya, lowering her head, left the circle and went into the house. Having repeated the order to Drona that there should be horses for departure tomorrow, she went to her room and was left alone with her thoughts. For a long time that night, Princess Marya sat at the open window in her room, listening to the sounds of men talking coming from the village, but she did not think about them. She felt that no matter how much she thought about them, she could not understand them. She kept thinking about one thing - about her grief, which now, after the break caused by worries about the present, had already become past for her. She could now remember, she could cry and she could pray. As the sun set, the wind died down. The night was quiet and fresh. At twelve o'clock the voices began to fade, the rooster crowed, the full moon began to emerge from behind the linden trees, a fresh, white mist of dew rose, and silence reigned over the village and over the house. One after another, pictures of the close past appeared to her - illness and her father’s last minutes. And with sad joy she now dwelled on these images, driving away from herself with horror only one last image of his death, which - she felt - she was unable to contemplate even in her imagination at this quiet and mysterious hour of the night. And these pictures appeared to her with such clarity and with such detail that they seemed to her now like reality, now the past, now the future. Then she vividly imagined that moment when he had a stroke and was dragged out of the garden in the Bald Mountains by the arms and he muttered something with an impotent tongue, twitched his gray eyebrows and looked at her restlessly and timidly. “Even then he wanted to tell me what he told me on the day of his death,” she thought. “He always meant what he told me.” And so she remembered in all its details that night in Bald Mountains on the eve of the blow that happened to him, when Princess Marya, sensing trouble, remained with him against his will. She did not sleep and at night she tiptoed downstairs and, going up to the door to the flower shop where her father spent the night that night, listened to his voice. He said something to Tikhon in an exhausted, tired voice. He obviously wanted to talk. “And why didn’t he call me? Why didn’t he allow me to be here in Tikhon’s place? - Princess Marya thought then and now. “He will never tell anyone now everything that was in his soul.” This moment will never return for him and for me, when he would say everything he wanted to say, and I, and not Tikhon, would listen and understand him. Why didn’t I enter the room then? - she thought. “Maybe he would have told me then what he said on the day of his death.” Even then, in a conversation with Tikhon, he asked about me twice. He wanted to see me, but I stood here, outside the door. He was sad, it was hard to talk with Tikhon, who did not understand him. I remember how he spoke to him about Lisa, as if she were alive - he forgot that she died, and Tikhon reminded him that she was no longer there, and he shouted: “Fool.” It was hard for him. I heard from behind the door how he lay down on the bed, groaning, and shouted loudly: “My God! Why didn’t I get up then?” What would he do to me? What would I have to lose? And maybe then he would have been consoled, he would have said this word to me.” And Princess Marya said out loud the kind word that he said to her on the day of his death. “Darling! - Princess Marya repeated this word and began to sob with tears that relieved her soul. She now saw his face in front of her. And not the face that she had known since she could remember, and which she had always seen from afar; and that face is timid and weak, which on the last day, bending down to his mouth to hear what he said, she examined up close for the first time with all its wrinkles and details. “Darling,” she repeated. “What was he thinking when he said that word? What is he thinking now? - suddenly a question came to her, and in response to this she saw him in front of her with the same expression on his face that he had in the coffin, on his face tied with a white scarf. And the horror that gripped her when she touched him and became convinced that it was not only not him, but something mysterious and repulsive, gripped her now. She wanted to think about other things, wanted to pray, but could do nothing. She looked with large open eyes at the moonlight and shadows, every second she expected to see his dead face and felt that the silence that stood over the house and in the house shackled her. - Dunyasha! – she whispered. - Dunyasha! – she screamed in a wild voice and, breaking out of the silence, ran to the girls’ room, towards the nanny and girls running towards her. On August 17, Rostov and Ilyin, accompanied by Lavrushka, who had just returned from captivity, and the leading hussar, from their Yankovo ​​camp, fifteen versts from Bogucharovo, went horseback riding - to try a new horse bought by Ilyin and to find out if there was any hay in the villages. Bogucharovo had been located for the last three days between two enemy armies, so that the Russian rearguard could have entered there just as easily as the French vanguard, and therefore Rostov, as a caring squadron commander, wanted to take advantage of the provisions that remained in Bogucharovo before the French. Rostov and Ilyin were in the most cheerful mood. On the way to Bogucharovo, to the princely estate with an estate, where they hoped to find large servants and pretty girls, they either asked Lavrushka about Napoleon and laughed at his stories, or drove around, trying Ilyin’s horse. Rostov neither knew nor thought that this village to which he was traveling was the estate of that same Bolkonsky, who was his sister’s fiancé. Rostov and Ilyin let the horses out for the last time to drive the horses into the drag in front of Bogucharov, and Rostov, having overtaken Ilyin, was the first to gallop into the street of the village of Bogucharov. “You took the lead,” said the flushed Ilyin. “Yes, everything is forward, and forward in the meadow, and here,” answered Rostov, stroking his soaring bottom with his hand. “And in French, your Excellency,” Lavrushka said from behind, calling his sled nag French, “I would have overtaken, but I just didn’t want to embarrass him.” They walked up to the barn, near which stood a large crowd of men. Some men took off their hats, some, without taking off their hats, looked at those who had arrived. Two long old men, with wrinkled faces and sparse beards, came out of the tavern and, smiling, swaying and singing some awkward song, approached the officers. - Well done! - Rostov said, laughing. - What, do you have any hay? “And they are the same...” said Ilyin. “Vesve...oo...oooo...barking bese...bese...” the men sang with happy smiles. One man came out of the crowd and approached Rostov. - What kind of people will you be? - he asked. “The French,” Ilyin answered, laughing. “Here is Napoleon himself,” he said, pointing to Lavrushka. - So, you will be Russian? – the man asked. - How much of your strength is there? – asked another small man, approaching them. “Many, many,” answered Rostov. - Why are you gathered here? - he added. - A holiday, or what? “The old people have gathered on worldly business,” the man answered, moving away from him. At this time, along the road from the manor's house, two women and a man in a white hat appeared, walking towards the officers. - Mine in pink, don’t bother me! - said Ilyin, noticing Dunyasha resolutely moving towards him. - Ours will be! – Lavrushka said to Ilyin with a wink. - What, my beauty, do you need? - Ilyin said, smiling. - The princess ordered to find out what regiment you are and your last names? “This is Count Rostov, squadron commander, and I am your humble servant.” - B...se...e...du...shka! - the drunk man sang, smiling happily and looking at Ilyin talking to the girl. Following Dunyasha, Alpatych approached Rostov, taking off his hat from afar. “I dare to bother you, your honor,” he said with respect, but with relative disdain for the youth of this officer and putting his hand in his bosom. “My lady, the daughter of General Chief Prince Nikolai Andreevich Bolkonsky, who died this fifteenth, being in difficulty due to the ignorance of these persons,” he pointed to the men, “asks you to come... would you like,” Alpatych said with a sad smile, “to leave a few, otherwise it’s not so convenient when... - Alpatych pointed to two men who were running around him from behind, like horseflies around a horse. - A!.. Alpatych... Eh? Yakov Alpatych!.. Important! forgive for Christ's sake. Important! Eh?.. – the men said, smiling joyfully at him. Rostov looked at the drunken old men and smiled. – Or perhaps this consoles your Excellency? - said Yakov Alpatych with a sedate look, pointing at the old people with his hand not tucked into his bosom. “No, there’s little consolation here,” Rostov said and drove off. - What's the matter? - he asked. “I dare to report to your excellency that the rude people here do not want to let the lady out of the estate and threaten to turn away the horses, so in the morning everything is packed and her ladyship cannot leave.” - Can't be! - Rostov screamed. “I have the honor to report to you the absolute truth,” Alpatych repeated. Rostov got off his horse and, handing it over to the messenger, went with Alpatych to the house, asking him about the details of the case. Indeed, yesterday’s offer of bread from the princess to the peasants, her explanation with Dron and the gathering spoiled the matter so much that Dron finally handed over the keys, joined the peasants and did not appear at Alpatych’s request, and that in the morning, when the princess ordered to lay money to go, the peasants came out in a large crowd to the barn and sent to say that they would not let the princess out of the village, that there was an order not to be taken out, and they would unharness the horses. Alpatych came out to them, admonishing them, but they answered him (Karp spoke most of all; Dron did not appear from the crowd) that the princess could not be released, that there was an order for that; but let the princess stay, and they will serve her as before and obey her in everything. At that moment, when Rostov and Ilyin galloped along the road, Princess Marya, despite the dissuading of Alpatych, the nanny and the girls, ordered the laying and wanted to go; but, seeing the galloping cavalrymen, they were mistaken for the French, the coachmen fled, and the crying of women arose in the house. - Father! dear father! “God sent you,” said tender voices, while Rostov walked through the hallway. Princess Marya, lost and powerless, sat in the hall while Rostov was brought to her. She did not understand who he was, and why he was, and what would happen to her. Seeing his Russian face and recognizing him from his entrance and the first words he spoke as a man of her circle, she looked at him with her deep and radiant gaze and began to speak in a voice that was broken and trembling with emotion. Rostov immediately imagined something romantic in this meeting. “A defenseless, grief-stricken girl, alone, left at the mercy of rude, rebellious men! And some strange fate pushed me here! - Rostov thought, listening to her and looking at her. - And what meekness, nobility in her features and expression! – he thought, listening to her timid story.

Cognitive or Mental Flexibility

Cognitive flexibility plays a significant role in learning and the ability to solve complex problems. It helps us choose the strategy we should follow to adapt to the different circumstances that come our way. This gives us the ability to receive information from the environment and respond flexibly to it, adjusting behavior in accordance with changes and the requirements of the situation.

Subscribe to our INSTAGRAM account!

A person with good Mental or Cognitive Flexibility has the following characteristics:

• Good cognitive or mental flexibility allows us to quickly adapt to environmental changes.
• Cognitive flexibility helps us withstand changes that may occur while solving problems or completing tasks. It allows us to see alternatives.
• People with good Cognitive Flexibility easily move from one type of activity to another and know how to behave correctly in any situation.
• They can see multiple dimensions of the same reality, evaluate a situation from different perspectives and make hidden connections, which gives them the ability to find multiple solutions to the same problem.
• People with mental flexibility are better able to tolerate mistakes and changes in plans ; it is easier for them to put themselves in the shoes of another person and reach common agreements.

Cognitive flexibility is one of the core higher cognitive abilities of metacognition and part of processes called Executive Functions. Executive Functions are critical to success and development in both school and life. They allow us to formulate goals, build and implement plans, control and adjust actions, focusing on results.

Mental Flexibility is related to the level of development of intelligence , thinking and the ability to find a flexible and effective approach to solving new problems.

High cognitive flexibility allows us to consider other beliefs, values, ideas, or ways of thinking, helping us understand other people's points of view and evaluate options other than our own. Thus, Mental Flexibility is also closely related to empathy and the way we interact socially.