Field Dependence and Memory for Social vs Neutral and Relevant vs Irrelevant Incidental Stimuli

Abstract

In 2 experiments, field-dependent Ss showed better incidental memory for social words, while field-independent Ss showed an even division between recall of social and neutral words and a selective preference in recognition for neutral words.

Field‐dependent and Field‐independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications

“…On this basis we may expect that field-dependent students would be more likely to require externally defined goals and reinforcements than field-independent students who tend to have selfdefined goals and reinforcements. 7 Other studies have demonstrated a similar superiority of field-dependent persons in incidental learning of social cues (for example, Eagle et al, 1969;Messick & Damarin, 1964), although there have been studies in which this superiority was not evident (for example, Beijk-Docter & Eishout, 1969;Fitz, 1971). In contrast to this picture for incidental learning of social material, the results of numerous studies of incidental learning of nonsocial material show a small but general superiority offield-independent subjects in such learning tasks (for example, Beck, 1971;Iman, 1973;Klein, 1968;Valinsky, 1971;Witkin et al, 1962Witkin et al, /1974.…”

“…This tendency shows itself in many social modalities. Thus, it has been demonstrated that relatively field-dependent persons, more than field-independent ones, literally look more at the faces of others, the primary source of information about what others are feeling and thinking (for example, Konstadt & Forman, 1965;Nevill, 1972;Ruble & Nakamura, 1972 is not entirely consistent) that they attend more to verbal messages with social content, even when these messages occur in the periphery of attention (for example, Eagle, Fitzgibbons, & Goldberger, 1966;Eagle, Goldberger, & Breitman, 1969;F'itzgibbons.& Goldberger, 1971;Fitzgibbons, Goldberger,& Eagle, 1965).…”

The Role of Cognitive Style in Academic Performance and in Teacher‐student Relations12

“…To the extent that they look at faces more, it is not surprising that field-dependent persons also tend to be better at remembering faces (Crutchfield, Woodworth & Albrecht, 1958;Messick & Damarin, 1964). Their special attention to the social environment is not limited to faces of others; it is reflected also in their superiority over field-independent persons in attending to, and hence rememberin&verbal messages that are more social in content (Eagle, Fitzgibbons & Goldberger, 1966;Eagle, Goldberger & Breitman, 1969;Fitzgibbons & Goldberger, 1971;Fitzgibbons, Goldberger & Eagle, 1965;Goldberger & Bendich, 1972). Finally, again reflecting the~r reliance on external social standards, field-dependent subjects show a'significantly stronger tendency than field-independent subjects to adapt their performance on a cognitive -9-task to a modelling demonstration viewed on TV (Toomey, 1972) and to be more responsive to differences in emotional content (aggressive or neutral) of TV programs (Thomas, 1971).…”

Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment.

“…Relatively field dependent people are more likely to take account of the frames of reference provided by the social surroundings in defining such attributes of self as attitudes, sentiments, feelings and selfview (Rudin & Stagner, 1958) and to be selectively attentive to social cues (Eagle, Goldberger & Breitman, 1969). Field dependent people have an interpersonal orientation, show strong interest in others, and prefer to have people around them and even physically close to them, whereas field independent people have an impersonal orientation, show relatively little interest in others, and prefer more solitary and nonsocial situations (Greene, 1973;Witkin & Goodenough, 1977).…”