Introduction
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in cognitive and learning style, but a major problem facing researchers and practitioners has been a shortage of valid and reliable assessment instruments convenient for adoption in organisational settings. The Cognitive Style Index (CSI) is a psychometric measure that meets this need. It was designed to be used primarily with managerial and professional groups, but has also been applied successfully with students and non-managerial employees.
The CSI is a 38-item self-report questionnaire. Each item has ‘true’, ‘uncertain’ and ‘false’ response options, and scores of 2, 1 or 0 are assigned to each response with the direction of scoring depending on the polarity of the item. The nearer the total score to the maximum of 76, the more ‘analytical’ the respondent, and the nearer to the minimum of zero, the more ‘intuitive’ the respondent.
There is evidence that knowledge of a person’s cognitive style is valuable in selection, placement, careers guidance, task design, team composition, conflict management, mentoring and training and development. The CSI should prove useful in each of these applications.
Theoretical Background
Cognitive style is an individual’s preferred way of gathering, processing and evaluating data. It influences how we scan our environments for information, how we organise and interpret it, and how we integrate our interpretations into mental models and subjective theories that guide our behaviour.
Many dimensions of cognitive style have been highlighted in the literature. Hayes and Allinson (1994) identified 29 of these, including, for example, field dependence – field independence, convergence – divergence, reflection – impulsivity, serialism – holism and rationality – intuition. Armstrong (1999) extended the list to 54, and, more recently, Coffield et al (2004) evaluated 71 measures of cognitive and learning style that represent a wide variety of theoretical models. While certain authors (e.g. Globerson and Zelniker 1989; Streufert and Nogami 1989) argue that this multiplicity of descriptors reflects the sheer complexity of cognition, others claim that many, if not most, are simply different conceptions of a generic dimension that is associated with the traditional notion of ‘the dual nature of human consciousness' (Robey and Taggart, 1981). Nickerson et al (1985) describe one of the elements of consciousness as analytic, deductive, rigorous, constrained, formal and critical, and the other as synthetic, inductive, expansive, unconstrained, divergent, informal, diffuse and creative. Similarly, Ornstein (1977) differentiates between analytic thinking which implies processing information in an ordered, linear sequence, and holistic thinking which involves viewing the whole situation at once in order to facilitate the synthesis of all available information. These approaches essentially refer to the rational and intuitive sides of the individual. In keeping with established terminology, however, these modes of cognition are labelled ‘analytic’ and ‘intuitive’ respectively.
Models of Cognitive Style
The duality of consciousness has been viewed in different ways. Some have conceived it as a simple dichotomy in which a person is deemed to be either basically analytic or intuitive, an approach consistent with the type theory of personality. This perception has now, however, largely fallen out of favour. Human attributes can rarely be thought of as simply being one thing or another. Rather, a person is predisposed toward, or has a preference for, a way of thinking or mode of behaviour that falls somewhere along a continuum. Many, therefore, view intuitive and analytic cognition as representing the poles of a single dimension. This suggests that the cognitive style of a particular individual may fall at any point on the scale. Those whose style is positioned toward the extremes would, in most circumstances, tend to favour the one mode of thought to the virtual exclusion of the other while those positioned toward the middle area would be comfortable drawing upon a combination of analysis and intuition in their problem solving and decision making. This perspective
views cognitive style essentially as a personality trait which may be thought of as a single factor in statistical terms, and suggests that the more analytical an individual, the less intuitive he or she will be, and vice versa. A study by Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith (2003) suggested that analysis and intuition as measured by the CSI could, in fact, be two separate, though correlated, dimensions, the implication being that a person may be not just high on one and low on the other (as suggested by the continuum model), but also high on both or low on both at the same time. Later, they reported evidence to suggest that the instrument may even yield three factors (Hodgkinson et al, 2009). The balance of independent research evidence, however, appears to support the one-factor perspective (see section on Factor Analysis below), and therefore the idea of the CSI as a measure of a single dimension was retained. Indeed, it is noteworthy that only a small minority of researchers have adopted the approach advocated by Hodgkinson and his colleagues since their findings were published. Aside from the statistical debate, to regard analysis and intuition as independent dimensions would be to deny a centuries-old perception of individual differences in human thought processes that can be traced back at least to the writings of Aristotle, as well as sacrificing the most parsimonious explanation of cognitive style. This is not to deny the idea of ‘dual processing’ as the integration of analytic and intuitive thinking is often called. Rather, there will be individual differences in the tendency to favour a particular combination of the two approaches. It is the various combinations that represent the different cognitive styles measured by the CSI.
Cognitive Continuum Theory
The single trait approach is consistent with Cognitive Continuum Theory (Hammond et al, 1987), a framework for linking cognitive style to task performance that has been highly influential in recent years. Hammond and his colleagues propose two continua: one for cognitive mode, ranging from analysis at one end to intuition at the other; one for tasks, ranging from the analysis-inducing to the intuition-inducing. They contend that individuals ‘oscillate’ between the poles of the cognitive continuum in order to respond to the cognitive demands of the task. The greater the correspondence between the cognitive style used and the task demands, the better the task performance is likely to be. Associated with the idea of a cognitive continuum is the notion that individuals will have a preference for, or disposition towards, a particular cognitive mode. As indicated above, it is this preference, disposition or ‘style' that is measured by the CSI. It is argued that it is the tendency to favour a specific cognitive style that may reduce the correspondence between cognitive mode and task demands and thus hinder task performance.
The intuition-analysis dimension assessed by the CSI is depicted in Figure 1. Five notional styles representative of the full range are identified. At the extremes are the pure cases of ‘intuition’ and ‘analysis’ respectively. The full exercise of either precludes the adoption of the other. The cognitive
style of most people, however, involves elements of both intuition and analysis. In the middle range, the ‘Adaptive’ style implies a balanced blend of the two cognitive modes. Either side of this are the ‘Quasi-Intuitive’ and ‘Quasi-Analytical’ styles, each of which denotes a tendency towards, but not the full adoption of, one of the extreme cognitive modes. A distinction should be made here between the
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in cognitive and learning style, but a major problem facing researchers and practitioners has been a shortage of valid and reliable assessment instruments convenient for adoption in organisational settings. The Cognitive Style Index (CSI) is a psychometric measure that meets this need. It was designed to be used primarily with managerial and professional groups, but has also been applied successfully with students and non-managerial employees.
The CSI is a 38-item self-report questionnaire. Each item has ‘true’, ‘uncertain’ and ‘false’ response options, and scores of 2, 1 or 0 are assigned to each response with the direction of scoring depending on the polarity of the item. The nearer the total score to the maximum of 76, the more ‘analytical’ the respondent, and the nearer to the minimum of zero, the more ‘intuitive’ the respondent.
There is evidence that knowledge of a person’s cognitive style is valuable in selection, placement, careers guidance, task design, team composition, conflict management, mentoring and training and development. The CSI should prove useful in each of these applications.
Theoretical Background
Cognitive style is an individual’s preferred way of gathering, processing and evaluating data. It influences how we scan our environments for information, how we organise and interpret it, and how we integrate our interpretations into mental models and subjective theories that guide our behaviour.
Many dimensions of cognitive style have been highlighted in the literature. Hayes and Allinson (1994) identified 29 of these, including, for example, field dependence – field independence, convergence – divergence, reflection – impulsivity, serialism – holism and rationality – intuition. Armstrong (1999) extended the list to 54, and, more recently, Coffield et al (2004) evaluated 71 measures of cognitive and learning style that represent a wide variety of theoretical models. While certain authors (e.g. Globerson and Zelniker 1989; Streufert and Nogami 1989) argue that this multiplicity of descriptors reflects the sheer complexity of cognition, others claim that many, if not most, are simply different conceptions of a generic dimension that is associated with the traditional notion of ‘the dual nature of human consciousness' (Robey and Taggart, 1981). Nickerson et al (1985) describe one of the elements of consciousness as analytic, deductive, rigorous, constrained, formal and critical, and the other as synthetic, inductive, expansive, unconstrained, divergent, informal, diffuse and creative. Similarly, Ornstein (1977) differentiates between analytic thinking which implies processing information in an ordered, linear sequence, and holistic thinking which involves viewing the whole situation at once in order to facilitate the synthesis of all available information. These approaches essentially refer to the rational and intuitive sides of the individual. In keeping with established terminology, however, these modes of cognition are labelled ‘analytic’ and ‘intuitive’ respectively.
Models of Cognitive Style
The duality of consciousness has been viewed in different ways. Some have conceived it as a simple dichotomy in which a person is deemed to be either basically analytic or intuitive, an approach consistent with the type theory of personality. This perception has now, however, largely fallen out of favour. Human attributes can rarely be thought of as simply being one thing or another. Rather, a person is predisposed toward, or has a preference for, a way of thinking or mode of behaviour that falls somewhere along a continuum. Many, therefore, view intuitive and analytic cognition as representing the poles of a single dimension. This suggests that the cognitive style of a particular individual may fall at any point on the scale. Those whose style is positioned toward the extremes would, in most circumstances, tend to favour the one mode of thought to the virtual exclusion of the other while those positioned toward the middle area would be comfortable drawing upon a combination of analysis and intuition in their problem solving and decision making. This perspective
views cognitive style essentially as a personality trait which may be thought of as a single factor in statistical terms, and suggests that the more analytical an individual, the less intuitive he or she will be, and vice versa. A study by Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith (2003) suggested that analysis and intuition as measured by the CSI could, in fact, be two separate, though correlated, dimensions, the implication being that a person may be not just high on one and low on the other (as suggested by the continuum model), but also high on both or low on both at the same time. Later, they reported evidence to suggest that the instrument may even yield three factors (Hodgkinson et al, 2009). The balance of independent research evidence, however, appears to support the one-factor perspective (see section on Factor Analysis below), and therefore the idea of the CSI as a measure of a single dimension was retained. Indeed, it is noteworthy that only a small minority of researchers have adopted the approach advocated by Hodgkinson and his colleagues since their findings were published. Aside from the statistical debate, to regard analysis and intuition as independent dimensions would be to deny a centuries-old perception of individual differences in human thought processes that can be traced back at least to the writings of Aristotle, as well as sacrificing the most parsimonious explanation of cognitive style. This is not to deny the idea of ‘dual processing’ as the integration of analytic and intuitive thinking is often called. Rather, there will be individual differences in the tendency to favour a particular combination of the two approaches. It is the various combinations that represent the different cognitive styles measured by the CSI.
Cognitive Continuum Theory
The single trait approach is consistent with Cognitive Continuum Theory (Hammond et al, 1987), a framework for linking cognitive style to task performance that has been highly influential in recent years. Hammond and his colleagues propose two continua: one for cognitive mode, ranging from analysis at one end to intuition at the other; one for tasks, ranging from the analysis-inducing to the intuition-inducing. They contend that individuals ‘oscillate’ between the poles of the cognitive continuum in order to respond to the cognitive demands of the task. The greater the correspondence between the cognitive style used and the task demands, the better the task performance is likely to be. Associated with the idea of a cognitive continuum is the notion that individuals will have a preference for, or disposition towards, a particular cognitive mode. As indicated above, it is this preference, disposition or ‘style' that is measured by the CSI. It is argued that it is the tendency to favour a specific cognitive style that may reduce the correspondence between cognitive mode and task demands and thus hinder task performance.
The intuition-analysis dimension assessed by the CSI is depicted in Figure 1. Five notional styles representative of the full range are identified. At the extremes are the pure cases of ‘intuition’ and ‘analysis’ respectively. The full exercise of either precludes the adoption of the other. The cognitive
style of most people, however, involves elements of both intuition and analysis. In the middle range, the ‘Adaptive’ style implies a balanced blend of the two cognitive modes. Either side of this are the ‘Quasi-Intuitive’ and ‘Quasi-Analytical’ styles, each of which denotes a tendency towards, but not the full adoption of, one of the extreme cognitive modes. A distinction should be made here between the
 |
| FILE FULL DOWNLOAD HERE |
