mindfulness, need for cognition, and thinking styles predict cognitive failures

Upload: ashley-nicole

Post on 04-Jun-2018

251 views

Category:

Documents


8 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/14/2019 Mindfulness, Need for Cognition, and Thinking Styles Predict Cognitive Failures

    1/1

    Abstract

    Cognitive failures are minor task failures such as losing ones keys or forgetting anappointment. Such failures, though small, may hinder academic and professionalsuccess or the management of daily activities. For some, these failures are rare butothers experience them regularly; the cause of cognitive failures is not well understood.

    Research suggests that individuals who practice mindfulness may experience fewercognitive failures because they attend to information in the here and now rather than to

    the past or future (Herndon, 2008). Cognitive failures may also be attributed to onespreferred thinking style. Thinking styles are patterns in the way that one prefers toengage in cognitive work. For instance, an individual may prefer to focus on details,whereas another would prefer more abstract ideas. Sternberg proposed 13 thinking

    styles with an individuals thinking style profile being comprised of a combination ofpreferences within these styles (Sternberg & Wagner, 1992). An individuals Need forCognition is defined as a tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors(Cacioppo & Petty, 1982); those high in NFC pay more careful attention to detail, similarto those that are mindful. We investigated the role that mindfulness, need for cognition,

    and thinking style play in cognitive failures. We found that high-CF individuals differedfrom low-CF individuals in terms of mindfulness, Need for Cognition, and thinking style.

    Background

    Losing ones keys, having someones name on the tip of the tongue, and turning rightinstead of left when driving are all examples of cognitive failures. These small deficits inperception, memory, and motor function impair ones ability to complete a task that one is

    ordinarily able to do (Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald, & Parkes, 1982; Wallace, 2004).

    The cause of a cognitive failure is not well understood. Encoding style may help toexplain the differences between those who experience many cognitive failures and thosewho experience very few. Those who rely heavily on internal encoding may be moresusceptible to these failures. The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ: Broadbent et al.,1982) was developed as a measure of common errors and was derived from three

    categories: memory slips (e.g., absentmindedness), attention slips (e.g., fail to noticesomething relevant), and psychomotor slips (e.g., action slips). Individuals differ in theamount of task failures they experience. However, this rate remains constant over timeindicating that cognitive failures are more likely a trait than a particular psychologicalstate (Wallace, 2004). For this reason it is believed that other cognitive individual

    difference variables such as need for cognition and mindfulness could be used to predictthe occurrence of cognitive failures.

    There is ample evidence to suggest that an individuals orientation to their internal worldcould be a factor in determining the cause of a cognitive failure (Ishigami& Klein, 2009;

    Herndon, 2007). Herndon (2008) showed that mindfulness, defined as, being attentivelypresent to what is here and now, was related to cognitive failures. Herndons (2008)results suggested that individuals who were mindful, or attentive and aware of what is

    happening at the moment, had a lower rate of cognitive failures, whereas individuals whowere focused on the past or future had more. Fortunately, mindfulness seems to be a skillthat can be taught. Several studies report that mindfulness training can result in

    increases inattentional control (Brown & Ryan, 2003).

    Another factor that could contribute to the number of cognitive failures an individual

    experiences is their need for cognition (NFC) level. Need for cognition is an individualdifference variable that measures how interested one is in participating in effortfulthinking. NFC has been shown to be positively related to student achievement and testperformance (Sadowski& Gulgoz, 1992). Students high in NFC seem to prefer analyzingarguments, discussing abstract issues, and paying careful attention to detail ( Cacioppo &Petty, 1982). Similar to NFC, ones thinking style might help to explain cognitive failures.

    Sternberg (1988) proposed a Mental Self Government (MSG) model of thinking style. Inthis model, Sternberg used a governmental model to illuminate individuals preferences indoing cognitive work. For instance, the judicial thinking style refers to a function, inwhich one compares and evaluates ideas, rules, and procedures. The oligarchic and

    anarchic styles, in comparison, focus on goal-setting behaviors. Those who prefer theoligarchic style prefer to have multiple simultaneous goal pursuits, and those who prefer

    an anarchic style take a random approach to pursuing goals and problems. Global andlocal preferences refer to the level of abstraction at which a thinker prefers to work; globalthinking style refers to a high level of abstraction, in comparison to local thinking style,

    which requires more attention to detail. The scope refers to how one prefers to work;those that prefer to work independently show an internal preference in comparison withthose that prefer to work collaboratively in group settings, who would show an externalpreference. Finally, a leaning refers to how an individual prefers to complete tasks. Onewith a conservativeleaning would prefer to complete tasks according to set rules and

    guidelines.

    Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) suggested that certain tasks and situationaldemands might encourage the development of the various thinking style preferences.

    Thus, it may be the case that someone scoring high in anarchic thinking style wouldexperience greater cognitive failures purely based on this stylistic preference. Weinvestigated the relationship between mindfulness, NFC, thinking styles, and cognitivefailures.

    Method

    MeasuresCognitive FailuresThe Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ; Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald, & Parkes,

    1982) was used to measure minor task failures such as losing ones keys or f orgettingwhere ones car is parked. The CFQ contained 25 questions answered on a 4 -pointLikert scale (1 =never, 4 = very often). The CFQ is divided into four subscales:Distractibility, Memory, Blunders, and Names, each measuring a different type ofcognitive failure. Participants were scored on the CFQ using their average response

    on each subscale (a = .78 - .80) and on the CFQ as a whole (a = .92), a high scoreindicating a high probability of cognitive failures.

    Mindfulness

    The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Herndon, 2008) was used tomeasure ones attentiveness to the here and now and contained 15 questions

    answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =never, 5 = always). A high score on the MAASindicated that an individual was more focused on the present than on the past orfuture; a low score on the MAAS indicated that an indi viduals focus was generally noton the here and now. The MAAS demonstrated acceptable internal consistency ( =

    .86).

    Need for CognitionThe Need for Cognition Scale (NFC;Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) was used to measureones interest in engaging in cognitively demanding tasks and contained 45 questions

    answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =very strong agreement, 4 = very strongdisagreement). The mean scores of participants were used to differentiate betweenindividuals with a high need for cognition and a low need for cognition. The NFCdemonstrated acceptable internal consistency ( = .84).

    Thinking StylesThe Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI; Sternberg & Wagner, 1991), based on Sternbergstheory of Mental Self Government, was used to measure the dimensions of MSGincluding functions, forms, levels, scope, and leanings. The TSI contained 104

    questions answered on a 7-pointLikert scale(1 = Not at all Well, 7 = Extremely Well).The TSI included 13 subscales including Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Monarchic,

    Oligarchic, Hierarchical, Anarchic, Local, Global, Internal, External, Liberal, andConservative.Cronbachs alphas for each subscale were acceptable ( = .74 .93).

    Results

    We predicted that individuals high in mindfulness would experience fewer cognitivefailures than those who were lower in mindfulness. A median split comparing those

    scoring high and low on mindfulness was conducted. An independent samples t-testshowed a significant difference in total amount of cognitive failures, t(72) = 5.04,p=.00 (see Figure 1). Likewise, Figure1 also shows that significant differences werefound on all subscoresof the CFQ, with higher mindfulness leading to lower cognitive

    failures: Distractions, t(72) = 5.12,p = .00; Memory, t(72) = 4.24,p = .00; Blunders,t(72) = 4.21,p = .00; and Names, t(72) = 2.89,p = .01.

    Mindfulness, Need for Cognition, and Thinking Styles

    Predict Cognitive FailuresMary Frame, Kathleen Szymczuk, & Ashley Abraham

    Department of Psychology

    DiscussionA predictive relationship was found between mindfulness, need for cognition, thinkingstyle, and cognitive failures. Individuals who are more mindful, have a higher NFC, andwho prefer to work independently tended to have fewer cognitive failures overall.

    As the concept of mindfulness grows in public awareness, more people are becomingaware of its positive and long-lasting effects on attentionalprocesses (Brown & Ryan,2003). We found that higher mindfulness scores were related to fewer cognitive failures

    across the three types of failures: perception, attention, and action. Future researchshould attempt to further explore these differences. It is possible that mindfulness couldsimply be the equivalent ofattentional encoding. However, with recent definitions ofmindfulness calling for a distinction between attention and awareness (Brown & Ryan,2003), the construct may be the result of something much more complex than pure

    encoding.

    Importantly, mindfulness is seen as a skill that can be learned, whereas encoding isgenerally considered to be an individual difference. If mindfulness can be taught, we

    might be able to teach people to have fewer cognitive failures. Similarly, thinking stylesare preferences that some see as skill-based, and can therefore also be taught.Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) suggested that certain tasks and situational demandsmight encourage the development of the various thinking style preferences. Thus, it

    may be possible to train individuals to use their thinking styles to ward off cognitivefailures.

    ReferencesBroadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures

    Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1-16.doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x

    Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 42, 116-131. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.42.1.116

    Herndon, F. (2008). Testing mindfulness with perceptual and cognitive factors: External vs. internal

    encoding, andthe cognitive failures questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,3241. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.002

    Ishigami, Y. & Klein, R. M. (2009) Are individual differences in absentmindedness c orrelated withindividual differences in attention? Journal of Individual Differences, 20, 220-237.doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.4.220

    Sadowski, C. J., & Gulgoz, S. (1992a). Association of need for cognition and course grades. PerceptualandMotor Skills, 74, 498.

    Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: Ath eory of intellectual styles and their development.HumanDevelopment, 31(4), 197-224. doi:10.1159/000275810

    Sternberg, R. & Grigorenko, E. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52,700-712. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.52.7.700

    Sternberg, R.J. & Wagner, R.K. (1991). MSG Thinking Styles Inventory: Manual, Unpublished Test, YaleUniversity, New Haven, CT.

    Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Tacit knowledge: An unspoken key to managerial s uccess.Creativityand Innovation Management, 1, 513. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.1992.tb00016.x

    Wallace, J. C. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire: Evidence fordimensionality and construct validity. Personality and Individual Differences , 37(2), 307-324. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.005

    Figure 1: Mean NFC Scores for Low and High CFQ Groups

    0

    0.5

    1

    1.5

    2

    2.5

    3

    3.5

    4

    4.5

    5

    Low CFQ

    High CFQ

    Our second hypothesis was that individualsreporting more cognitive failures wouldhave a lower need for cognition. Using a median split of cognitive failures, an

    independent samples t-test was conducted using total need for cognition as adependent variable. As predicted, Figure 2 showsthat those scoring higher incognitive failures were lower in need for cognition, t(73) = 3.99,p = .00. Thus, ahigher need for cognition may serve as a preventative factor for cognitive failures.

    Figure 3 shows comparisons between those who scored high and low on cognitivefailures on several of the thinking styles. In particular, independent samples t-tests

    resulted in significant differences on each of the following thinking styles: judicial (t(74)= 2.27,p = .03), oligarchic(t(74)= 4.28,p = .00), anarchic(t(74)= 3.36p = .00),

    global(t(74)= 2.26,p = .03), local(t(74)= 2.80,p = .01), external(t(74) =2.90,p =.01),and conservative(t(74) =2.24,p = .03). In all cases, those scoring higher in thevarious thinking styles reported fewer cognitive failures. Importantly, differences in

    thinking styles encompassed all dimensions of Sternbergs (1988) Mental SelfGovernment (MSG) model, including function, form, level, scope, and leanings.

    0

    0.5

    1

    1.5

    2

    2.5

    Low Mindfulness

    High Mindfulness

    A backward multiple regression was conducted to predict the amount of variability incognitive failures accounted for by thinking styles, mindfulness, and need for cognition.

    Variables entered in the regression included mindfulness, need for cognition, and the13 thinking styles. In the final model, mindfulness, need for cognition, and internalthinking styles were significant predictors of cognitive failures, R2= .445, F(4, 74) =14.06,p = .00. We found that mindfulness ( = .34,p = .00), need for cognition ( = -.013,p = .02), and internal thinking style ( = .10,p = .04) were significant predictors,

    and there was a strong trend with external thinking style ( = .09,p = .07). Takentogether, these four variables accounted for 44.5% of the variability in cognitive failurescores, and suggest that those individuals who are higher in mindfulness and need forcognition, and who show a preference for an internal thinking style are less likely to

    have cognitive failures.

    Figure 2: Mean CFQ Scores for Low and High Mindfulness Groups

    Figure 3: Mean CFQ Scores for thinking styles (with significant differences)

    A follow-up simple regression indicated that mindfulnessalone, R2= .343,F(1, 75) = 38.65 , p = .00, accounted for 34.3% of the variability within

    cognitive failure scores(see Figure 4).Thus, mindfulness accounted for theoverwhelming majority of the variance in cognitive failures.

    Figure 4: Linear Regression Predicting Cognitive Failures from Mindfulness