AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
decisiveness were replaced by items expressing more the need,
rather than the ability. Therefore, we decided to use the revised
version of NFC scale instead of PNS survey.
1.1 The need and the ability to achieve closure in connection
with dependency and independency from field
From the both concepts - the need for cognitive structure and its
ability to achieve it, only the need was inspected in connection
with cognitive style of dependency and independency from the
field by the academic community; by the authors Sarmány-
Schuller and Sollár (2002), who haven't confirmed the
assumption of statistically important relationship between the
need for cognitive structure (measured by PNS) and dimensions
of cognitive style-dependency and independency of field.
According to Ruisel (2004), the cognitive style could be defined
as a way of exploring the objective reality which is about
perception, choice, saving and coding accepted impulses.
Cognitive style –dependence and independence from the field –
was created and exactly defined by Witkin et al. (1962). Ruisel
(2004) states that individual who is independent from the field,
is able to notice less conspicuous characteristics of the impulse,
can better reorganize accepted information for more effective
saving, is recalling and prompter generalising of accepted or
already saved information. Bahar (2003) and Tinajero and
Paramo (1997) who were dealing with content character of
cognitive structures and performance of recognizing abilities
which state that participants independent from the field are better
at solving performance tests than participants dependent from
the field. They are better at solving various tasks which identify
quantitative character of cognitive structures as academic
achievement test or word association test.
As Macizo et al. (2006) states, the performance of the
participants who are independent from the field is better. They
can pay attention to a given stimulus also when distractors
appear. On this basis, it can be assumed that the participants
independent from the field are able to learn better thanks to more
effective visual and auditory memory – moreover, they can filter
relevant stimuli from irrelevant ones better. The hypothesis was
tried to be proved by Jia, Zhang, Li (2014) having a sample of
168 students of Shandong Normal University. To test the ability
to filter relevant information from irrelevant one, they used a
procedure of introducing three different combinations of objects
(little squares of various colours) inside the squares, in series, in
rectangular (4° vertical and 7,3° horizontal) background. Picture
No. 1 shows that in all three combinations, the square with a
fixative point + appears first. It separates the field scanned by the
left hemisphere from the field of the right hemisphere, and the
upper part from the lower one. About 600 or 700 milliseconds
after the first empty square has been introduced, a full square
appeared. This one contained visible objects (colourful little
squares) whose colour and placement a participant was supposed
to remember (colour and placement was determined by an arrow,
or either the lower or upper part of the left or right quadrant of
the whole square). Consequently, after 900 milliseconds, the
participant was supposed to compare remembered colour and
placement with the colour and placement of objects in a new test
square. In case the colour and placement of the objects in the
first square corresponded with the colour and placement of the
objects in the following test square, the participant was supposed
to press “F” button; if not, “J” button was supposed to be
pressed. In the first combination, in the first and test squares, two
colourful objects appeared – either in the upper or the lower part,
symmetrically in the fields of the both hemispheres. In the
second combination, in the first and test squares, two objects of
different colours appeared up and down, symmetrically in the
both fields of the hemispheres (which the participant was
supposed to concentrate on and later compare them with the test
square), and two distractors (which the participant was supposed
to ignore). In the third combination, in the first and test squares,
four objects of different colours appeared up and down,
symmetrically in the both hemispheres – the participant was
supposed to compare them and confirm their match. In parallel,
during solving these tasks, activity of specific neuronal parts of
the brain was scanned through an electroencephalogram. The
results prove that the performance of participants dependent on
the field was significantly worse in the second task
(combination) where distractors occurred, compared with the
first task where no distractors existed. The performance of the
participants independent from the field reached a similar level of
success in the both - first and second tasks. An analysis of the
encephalogram data through the method of contra-lateral delay
activity shows that participants independent from the field
processed the task with the distractors differently from those
dependent on the field. The amplitude rate during solving the
second task (two test objects and two distractors) of those who
were dependent on the field was similar to the amplitude rate
during solving the third task (four test objects and no distractor).
The amplitude rate measured during solving the second task
(two test objects and two distractors) of the participants
independent from the field was similar to amplitude rate during
solving the first task (two test objects and no distractor). We thus
may deduce that the participants dependent on the field have a
significant difficulty to keep their attention on deliberate relevant
stimuli – when they consider them irrelevant – which is finally
visible also on the activity of neuronal correlates. According to
the authors, this ability to separate irrelevant stimuli from the
relevant ones is determined by a level of selective attention of
every individual.
Fig. 1 Research procedures to test the ability to separate relevant
information from irrelevant one used by Jia, Zhang and Li
(2014) (Jia, Zhang, Li, 2014)
1.2 Need and ability to achieve closure linked with creativity
Likewise, in case of cognitive style - dependence and
independence from the field, the connection between the need
for cognitive structure and the ability to achieve it was
researched by the same authors and in the same work of
Sarmány-Schuller and Sollár from 2002; however, the authors
didn't accept statistically important relationship between
creativity, its dimensions and need for cognitive structure.
In past decades many definitions describing creativity have been
made. One of the most famous and respectable is definition of
Torrance (1966, in Jurčová 1983), who describes creativity as a
process in which sensitivity is applied on problems and defects,
gaps in knowledge and missing parts; or as a process of looking
for a solution, estimating or formulating hypothesis. He states
that creative individuals feel strong need to get rid of
incompleteness and indefiniteness. They focus on details, see
defects, test and communicate about problems they can't find
answer to (complex of these processes and abilities is captured in
Torrance's figural test, which measures figural fluency,
flexibility, originality and elaboration). Fluency represents the
ability to produce as many ideas as possible. Without high
creativity they are often just very common, clear or even banal.
Flexibility is the ability to cut off from the rigidity of thinking
and flexibly create various ways of solving a problem, use
multiple points of view and quickly change strategies.
Elaboration which is typical also for people who are independent
from the field is characteristic with its ability to work out details
of solution, complete this solution and adjust its proportions.
Such description of a creative individual, who focuses on details
and works with them, creates natural space for reflection of its
connection with independence from the field. Flach (1986)
identified these connections between creativity and
independence from the field. In their research, participants who
were independent from the field had better results in tests of
creativity such as “alternative uses test” and “new uses test” than
- 15 -