Advertisement

Closure Factors: Evidence for Different Modes of Processing

  • M. J. Ippel
  • J. M. Bouma
Chapter
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 14)

Abstract

The study investigates whether the perceptual factors Closure speed (Cs) and Closure flexibility (Cf) reflect individual differences in mode of information processing. Forty subjects were selected for their factor scores on both factors and placed into four groups: high Cf, low Cf, high Cs and low Cs. Each subject participated in three tachistoscopic tasks: one verbal recall task and two binary classification tasks with visuo-spatial stimulus material. The results were tentatively interpreted in terms of differences in focal attention related to Cf under conditions that favoured analytic processing. In one experiment differences in speed of wholistic processing appeared to be related to Cs.

Keywords

Letter Position Binary Classification Task Left Hemifield Closure Factor Visual Asymmetry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Botzum, W. A. A factorial study of the reasoning and closure factors. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradshaw, J. L., Gates, A., Patterson, K. Hemispheric differences in processing visual stimuli. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1976, 28, 667–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, L. A. Individual differences in visual comparison processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 1976, 19, 5, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. French, J. W. The relationship of problem-solving styles to the factor composition of tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1965, 25, 9–28.Google Scholar
  5. French, J. W., Ekstron, R. B. and Price, L. A. Manual for Kit of Reference Tests for Cognitive Factors. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Garner, W. R. The processing of information and structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. Garner, W. R. and Clement, D. E. Goodness of pattern and pattern uncertainty. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2, 446–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heron, W. Perception as a function of retinal locus and attention. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hock, H.S., Gordon, G. P., and Marcus, N. Individual differences in the detection of embedded figures. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hunt, E. Quote the Raven? Nevermore! In: L. Gregg (Ed.) Knowledge and Cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. Ippel, M. J. Generalizability of Performance-scores on Embedded Figures Material. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1973.Google Scholar
  13. Messick, S. and French, J. W. Dimensions of Cognitive Closure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1975, 1, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.Google Scholar
  15. Pemberton, C. The closure factors related to other cognitive processes. Psychometrika, 1953, 17, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. White, M. J. Order of Processing in Visual Perception. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1976, 30, 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Ippel
    • 1
  • J. M. Bouma
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations