527727
research-article2014
PSIXXX10.1177/1529100614527727SternbergAdopted at Last!
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2014, Vol. 15(1) 1–2 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1529100614527727 pspi.sagepub.com
Introduction: Adopted at Last! Robert J. Sternberg Department of Human Development, Cornell University
The field of cognitive styles has been one of the orphans of modern psychological science. What, exactly, is a cognitive style? A cognitive style is a preferred way of handling a particular cognitive task (Sternberg, 1997; Witkin, 1950; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006, 2009). As such, the study of cognitive styles has been seen as falling between the fields of personality and cognition (Sternberg & Zhang, 2001; Zhang, Sternberg, & Rayner, 2012), but neither field has adopted cognitive styles as its own (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). The closest any field has come to adopting cognitive styles is cultural psychology, (e.g., Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Nisbett, Choi, Peng, & Norenzayan, 2001), which itself has been somewhat of an orphan in psychological science more generally. The Kozhevnikov, Evans, and Kosslyn article (in press) provides the field of cognitive styles with the legitimacy it long has sought and places cognitive styles not only in the families of cognition and personality, but also in the families of organizational psychology, educational psychology, and neuropsychology as well. The article considers a wide range of available evidence regarding cognitive styles and provides a compelling case for the legitimacy of the construct. Moreover, it shows how the proliferation of different cognitive styles as proposed by different theories can be understood in terms of a comprehensive and accessible single framework. Other frameworks have been proposed (e.g., Riding & Cheema, 1991; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006), including a related one by one of the authors of this article (Kozhevnikov, 2007), so readers will have to decide for themselves which framework, if any, they prefer. Cognitive styles, the article shows, are important to understanding educational, organizational, and other practical life outcomes, including how people approach personal decisions in their lives. Psychologists and educators have tended to focus heavily on ability constructs, and part of the reason that so much variance has been unaccounted for in criterion behavior may be the lack of meaningful consideration of cognitive styles (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Zhang, 2008). Most important, the article does not fall prey to the confirmation bias rife in this literature of people intent on
proving cognitive styles are a blessing or a bust. The field has been very contentious, with investigators aiming to either demonstrate the viability of the cognitive-styles construct (Sternberg et al., 2008; Zhang, Sternberg, & Rayner, 2012) or verify the (null) hypothesis that they do not exist in any instructionally meaningful way (Pashler, McDaniel, Rowher, & Bjork, 2009). The Kozhevnikov et al. article will be among the most important in the field of cognitive styles and also will show how investigators can take a field that has been known for its disorder and make sense of it. Most important, the field of cognitive styles is no longer an orphan. If you are a psychological scientist, you just became a parent, or perhaps a stepparent, of yet another adopted child. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.
References Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464–481. Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. K. (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business and management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 3–33. Nisbett, R. E., Choi, I., Peng, K., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and system of thoughts: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rowher, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.
Corresponding Author: Robert J. Sternberg, Department of Human Development, Cornell University, B44 MVR Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 7, 2015
Sternberg
2 Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193–216. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700–712. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L.-F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 486–506.
Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. F. (Eds.). (2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Witkin, H. A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19, 1–15. Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 1–53. Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2009). Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles. New York, NY: Springer. Zhang, L.-F., Sternberg, R. J., & Rayner, S. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of intellectual styles. New York, NY: Springer.
Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 7, 2015
research-article2014
PSIXXX10.1177/1529100614527727SternbergAdopted at Last!
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2014, Vol. 15(1) 1–2 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1529100614527727 pspi.sagepub.com
Introduction: Adopted at Last! Robert J. Sternberg Department of Human Development, Cornell University
The field of cognitive styles has been one of the orphans of modern psychological science. What, exactly, is a cognitive style? A cognitive style is a preferred way of handling a particular cognitive task (Sternberg, 1997; Witkin, 1950; Zhang & Sternberg, 2006, 2009). As such, the study of cognitive styles has been seen as falling between the fields of personality and cognition (Sternberg & Zhang, 2001; Zhang, Sternberg, & Rayner, 2012), but neither field has adopted cognitive styles as its own (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). The closest any field has come to adopting cognitive styles is cultural psychology, (e.g., Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992; Nisbett, Choi, Peng, & Norenzayan, 2001), which itself has been somewhat of an orphan in psychological science more generally. The Kozhevnikov, Evans, and Kosslyn article (in press) provides the field of cognitive styles with the legitimacy it long has sought and places cognitive styles not only in the families of cognition and personality, but also in the families of organizational psychology, educational psychology, and neuropsychology as well. The article considers a wide range of available evidence regarding cognitive styles and provides a compelling case for the legitimacy of the construct. Moreover, it shows how the proliferation of different cognitive styles as proposed by different theories can be understood in terms of a comprehensive and accessible single framework. Other frameworks have been proposed (e.g., Riding & Cheema, 1991; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005, 2006), including a related one by one of the authors of this article (Kozhevnikov, 2007), so readers will have to decide for themselves which framework, if any, they prefer. Cognitive styles, the article shows, are important to understanding educational, organizational, and other practical life outcomes, including how people approach personal decisions in their lives. Psychologists and educators have tended to focus heavily on ability constructs, and part of the reason that so much variance has been unaccounted for in criterion behavior may be the lack of meaningful consideration of cognitive styles (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Zhang, 2008). Most important, the article does not fall prey to the confirmation bias rife in this literature of people intent on
proving cognitive styles are a blessing or a bust. The field has been very contentious, with investigators aiming to either demonstrate the viability of the cognitive-styles construct (Sternberg et al., 2008; Zhang, Sternberg, & Rayner, 2012) or verify the (null) hypothesis that they do not exist in any instructionally meaningful way (Pashler, McDaniel, Rowher, & Bjork, 2009). The Kozhevnikov et al. article will be among the most important in the field of cognitive styles and also will show how investigators can take a field that has been known for its disorder and make sense of it. Most important, the field of cognitive styles is no longer an orphan. If you are a psychological scientist, you just became a parent, or perhaps a stepparent, of yet another adopted child. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.
References Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464–481. Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. K. (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business and management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 3–33. Nisbett, R. E., Choi, I., Peng, K., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and system of thoughts: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rowher, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.
Corresponding Author: Robert J. Sternberg, Department of Human Development, Cornell University, B44 MVR Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 E-mail: [email protected]
Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 7, 2015
Sternberg
2 Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11, 193–216. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700–712. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L.-F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 486–506.
Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. F. (Eds.). (2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Witkin, H. A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19, 1–15. Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 1–53. Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2009). Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles. New York, NY: Springer. Zhang, L.-F., Sternberg, R. J., & Rayner, S. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of intellectual styles. New York, NY: Springer.
Downloaded from psi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 7, 2015
