Field Dependence-Independence and Implications for Art Education Research

Carleton Palmer

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to improve access to the field dependence-independence cognitive/perceptual style distinction for research in art education. It discusses the conceptual framework, theoretical rationale, related literature and implications of research in psychological differentiation for teaching and learning in visual art. A research example in the domain is presented: To explore the contention that differentiation of mental function is pervasive, performance on tasks of differential recognition memory for pictures and words, and cognitive/perceptual style field dependence-independence were compared. A dual-coding model of memory was adopted. The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was used to measure field dependence-independence, and word and picture recognition memory tests were designed for the study. No significant differences or interactions were shown. Results are discussed, and recommendations are made for future study.

Field Dependence-Independence and Implications for Art Education Research

It can be as direct as a particular painter’s color harmonic or a choreographer’s definition of space, and can be as large or obscure as the thread which connects various art forms in a movement. Style is the result of applying consistent strategy. The concept of style in art is understood to concern pervasive problem solving strategies which determine the character of the outcome. It is a short intellectual leap from that realization to the observation that there are styles of knowing and perceiving. Such strategies need not be as conscious or voluntary as the word style implies; they are part of an individual’s mental equipment which, when one is creating, modify expression, and when one is consuming, structure perception. This complex relationship of knowing and perceiving is cognition, and so the strategic objects of study through which knowledge and perception are formed are called cognitive styles.

Cognitive style is a term which, as used by Witkin (1973), denotes any of the stable features of mental organization which determine individual approaches to solving perceptual problems. Different terms describing the same phenomenon include conceptual style, as in Lovano’s (1970) study; cognitive control, used by Gardner and his colleagues (1959, 1960) in exploring the development of structured controls and specialized defenses; perceptual style in the language of Long’s (1974) review of field dependence-independence.

The strongest case for any of the variables known as cognitive styles has been made for field dependence-independence, with its support by the powerful conceptual rational of psychological differentiation.

Psychological differentiation is the observation of general system isomorphism between observed process in biology and implied process in psychology. Werner (1948) stated the biological point of view: “We have found that the essence of organic development is the steadily increasing differentiation and centralization, or hierarchic integration, within the genetic totality.” (p. 53) Witkin, Dyk, Paterson, Goodenough and Karp, in Psychological Differentiation (1962), applied the developmental, systemic approach and concept of differentiation to research in personality:

“Our analysis of the growth and experience of the self and the world led us to postulate that progress toward differentiation would be expressed in increasing articulation (that is, analysis and structuring) of experience. Included in this is a more articulated way of experiencing the world; also included are a more clearly defined body concept, and a growing sense of separate identity, which together reflect particularly the development of self-differentiation.” (p. 15)

Developmentally, the individual can be considered a system moving from lesser to greater differentiation at maturity, although stylistic preference can be identified early. The more differentiated personality is expected to be capable of organizing and mobilizing in a relatively more specific fashion than the less differentiated, because “ . . .people with a field-independent style are likely to use internal referents as primary guides in information processing; field-dependent people place more emphasis on external referents.” (Witkin 1977, p. 14)

Perceptually, field-independence is characterized by analytic restructuring of a field, and field-dependence by response to dominant properties of the field as given. The criterion measures for field dependence-independence are tests which require subjects to orient themselves and/or objects in an environment with severely limited spatial clues, or to extract figures from complex and confusing surroundings. The unfortunate fact is that this method of determining style is a defect of the stylistic concept. The assumption made by such tests is that, given a context which demands a particular kind of behavior, superior performance indicates one style, and inferior performance another style. Successful performance on tests of the ability to extract the salient features from a complex surround is presumed demonstration of greater differentiation and field-independence. Actually, there are life situations which require that a person behave with analytic remove from a situation, and other life situations which require that a person perform globally, with less self-conscious differentiation. Present evidence suggests some examples characterizing the styles:

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

The rationale that persons who can perform field-independently by virtue of a higher degree of systemic differentiation will do so, and that persons of relatively low systemic differentiation will be unable to do so, and are therefore field-dependent, fails to account for mobility. This is definition by default, and one may expect to find more than two styles if more effective measures are found:

1. Those who can shift between modes on demand, moving from one level of development to another.

2. Those who can perform analytically, but not globally.

3. Those who can perform globally, but not analytically.

This would be of great importance to visual arts education given the current attention devoted to shifting of cognitive modality associated with drawing, and the relationship observed between art and field-independence behavior (Edwards 1980; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox 1977). So far, attempts to test this mobility have not been successful (Haronian and Sugarmamn 1966, 1967), but the potency of the conceptual rationale and framework, and the mass of evidence obtained through a great variety of tests and methods make it impossible to discount the dimension:

“ . . . there is far too much evidence from many sources for psychologists to ignore Witkin’s claim that field dependence-independence is an important dimension of cognition, distinguishable from intelligence and verbal abilities, which has implications for personality, child development and pathology as well as form thinking and learning.” ( Vernon 1972, p. 379)

What may be the most informative work concerning the development of cognitive style inquiry will be published in Psychological Issues at about the same time this article appears. Monograph number 51, titled “Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins,” was authored by Drs. Witkin and Goodenough, and will be a significant posthumous publication of Dr. Witkin’s. The Educational Testing Service at Princeton, New Jersey, has been the center of activity for field dependence-independence research, and publishes periodic bibliographies. (Note 1) A recent review of the domain, (Witkin, Goodenough and Oltman 1979), outlines the recent conception of differentiation, and thereby recommends areas of legitimate study:

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

The implications of field dependence-independence for general education appear in several categories:

I. Academic Performance

A. Subject-matter performance

B. Learning style

C. Memory

II. Teacher-Student Relations

A. Teaching style

B. compatibility

III. Vocational/educational decisions

A. Selection of majors and electives

B. Shifting of majors

C. Vocational preference

D. Vocational choices

E. Vocational achievement

Concerning academic performance, Goodenough (1976) reviews studies in learning and memory, and concludes that “. . . field-dependent and field-independent people more often differ in how the learning process occurs than in how effective the learning process may be.” Further educational implications have been discussed by Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox (1977), and the contrasting stylistic performances outlined. Some of the observations supported by the literature are:

1. Although not demonstrably different in general learning ability or memory, people who are field-dependent are better at learning and remembering social material than field-independent people.

2. Field-independent people tend to learn more than field-dependent people when motivation is internal.

3. Field-dependent people have more difficulty than field-independent people in learning material which lacks its own organization, (use of mediators), or is less well defined (cue salience).

4. Where field-dependent teachers prefer interactive teaching methods, field-independent teachers prefer more impersonal situations.

5. In match-mismatch situations teachers and students matched in style view each other positively, and mismatches less positively.

6. Field-independent people show preference for vocations demanding analytical-restructuring abilities, and field-dependent people for interpersonal vocations that require social skills.

7. Vocational choices are generally consistent with vocational preferences.

8. There is a relationship between achievement in educational-vocational areas and compatibility of educational-vocational area with cognitive style.

Visual arts education has had a relatively long association with field dependence-independence research. At about the time the explanatory metaphor of differentiation was introduced into this literature, June King McFee noted that “The earlier haptic and visual concept of children needs to be revised to account for learning.” (McFee 1961, p. 53) Since criterion measures of field dependence-independence concern individual differences in establishing the upright in space, it served Perception Delineation Theory as a variable relating to readiness and having to do with spatial orientation. McWhinnie (1970) reported the “Stanford Studies in Perceptual Learning,” and other work which attempted to equate learning, art ad cognitive style. (Note 2) Studies in perceptual training have tantalizingly suggested such a relationship. (Kensler 1965; Rennels 19968; Salome 1972; McCord 1973; McWhinnie 1973(a); Gaines 1975; McCarter 1976; Szeto and Salome 1977)

Questions of perceptual preference, individual differences in expression and achievement relate field dependence-independence art. (Lovano 1970; Holtzman 1971; McWhinnie 1973(b); Dorethy and Reeves 1979; Savarese and Miller 1979) The starting point for many such arguments is an intuited similarity between the contrasting cognitive/perceptual style as described in the literature, and a stylistic polarity associated with perceptual, preferential or productive behavior in art. A coherent theory relating the findings remains to be distilled from or applied to the research.

Creativity has long been a concern of art education, and it naturally extends to exploration of a possible relationship with field ddependence-independence. The specific interest involves creative behavior in making, judging, appreciating and teaching art, but the general study of creativity remains a legitimate interest of visual arts education researchers. (Klein, Skager and Erlbacher 1966; Bloomberg 1967, 1971; McWhinnie 1967; Grossman 1970; Brennan 1971; DelGaudio 1976; Wilson 1976; Duffy 1978; Moris and Bergum 1978)

Field dependence-independence is historically and conceptually an appropriate study within visual arts education. The considerable problems with cognitive style and psychological differentiation reflect the state of an evolving idea to which art educators have made, and can continue to make a contribution.