AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Analysis of fourth question, whether the statistically important,
positive relationship between figural dimensions of creativity
exists, revealed that there isn't such relationship within our
sample, which is completely in accordance to our results
obtained by Sarmány-Schuller and Sollár (2002). However,
more detailed analysis of factors of need for closure and
individual figural dimension revealed weak, but statistically
important relationship between figural elaboration and facet
decisiveness of NFC survey (r = 0,166, p = 0,22). Facet
decisiveness of NFC survey contains items, which evaluates
individual as generally decisive or indecisive. Some items of
AACS survey basically research the same, which explains the
relationship between AACS and NFC, to which points Bar-Tal
(2013). By way of an example of fifth research question, we can
see clear medium strong, statistically important relationship (r =
0,352, p = 0,001) between figural elaboration and independency
from the field; which not only clearly confirms logical analogy
between these two concepts, but also is used to explain these
weak, achieved relationships between figural elaboration,
independence from the field with need and ability to achieve
closure to a certain extent. We assume, that these weak
relationships, which we obtained, are based on the limits of
surveys NFC and AACS themselves. These surveys don’t have
projective function unlike tests which measure independency
from the field and figural dimensions of creativity and thus they
don't measure directly whether the respondent tends to decide
systematically more often, but only latently, through
hypothetical attributes of people, whom we assume to decide
strictly heuristically.
3.1 Limits
One of the main limits is weak representativeness of our research
sample caused by not identifying normal distribution nearly in
all variables, and thus excessive number of respondents
achieving extreme values on the edges of Gauss's curve. Hardly
controllable impacts like insufficient attention of participants or
descending motivation directly proportioned with time needed to
fill in test sheets. Using too long surveys AACS (24 items) and
NFCS (41) which nowadays already have their shortened
versions or wrong discriminatory ability of AACS survey, which
doesn't discriminate between deciding with economic, moral or
legal context.
4 Conclusion
Our results imply that independency from the field within our
sample probably doesn't allow participants to decide quickly and
without difficulties, oppositely, it forces them to slow, more
elaborated and deep deciding, which reflects in them presenting
themselves as people who decide longer and harder in AACS
survey. However, on account of lower value of correlation
coefficient and insufficient representativeness of population of
our sample these interpretations have significant limits. This is
why our future goal is to create more representative sample, i.e.
more participants and more randomly chosen sample, to design
new method of performance type, which would measure
tendency in various situations of deciding more validly and
decide quickly (heuristically) or slowly (systematically) with
variously differentiated context.
Literature:
1. Bahar, M., (2003). The effect of Instructional Methods on the
Performance of the students Having Different Cognitive Styles.
Hacettepe University Journal of Education 24. 26-32.
2. Bar-Tal, Y. (1994). The effect on mundane decision-making
in the need and ability to achieve cognitive structure. In
European Journal of Personality, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1994. CCC
0890-2070/94/010045-14. p. 45-58.
3. Bar-Tal, Y., Kishon-Rabin, L., Tabak, N., (1997). The effect
of need and ability to achieve cognitive structuring on cognitive
structuring. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6,
1158-1176.
4. Bar-Tal, Y., Raviv, A., Spitzer, A., (1999). The need and
ability to achieve cognitive structuring, In Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 33-51.
5. Bunder, S., (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality
variable. In Journal of Personality, 30: 29-51.
6. Flach, J., CH., (1986). Oculomotor deviations, visual
flexibility and theirt relevance to cognitive styles and creativity
in men (perception, field independence, divergent thinking,
ominibus personality inventory, optometry). Saybrook Graduate
School and Research Center, ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing, 8606983.
7. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an
emotional and perceptual personality variable. In Journal of
Personality. 18: 103-143.
8. Jia, S., Zhang, Q., Li, S. (2014). Field dependence-
independence modulates the efficiency of filtering out irrelevant
information in a visual working memory task. In Neuroscience.
278, pp. 136–143
9.
Jurčová, M. (1983). Torranceho figurálny test tvorivého
myslenia
. Príručka. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a didaktické
testy, N.R, 1983.
10. Kruglanski A. W., (1990). Motivations for judging and
knowing: Implications for causal attribution. In E. T. Higgings &
R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and
cognition: Foundation of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 333-368).
New York: Guilford Press.
11. Kruglanski, A. W. De Grada, E., Manneti, L., Atash, M. N.,
& Webster, D. M., (1997). Psychological theory testing versus
psychometric nay-saying: Comment on Neuberg et. Al. (1997)
critique of the Need for Closure Scale .In Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 73, 1005-1016.
12.
Nákonečný, M., (1995). Psychológie osobnosti. Praha:
Academica.
13. Neuberg, S. L. – Newsom J. T., (1993). Personal Need for
Structure: Individual Differences in the Desire for Simple
Structure. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
65, No. 1, 1993. Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological
Association, Inc. 0022-3514/93. p. 113-131.
14. Neuberg, S.L. Judice, T. N., West, S. G., (1997). What the
Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not: Toward
differentiating among related epistemic motives. In Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1396-1412.
15. Neuberg, S. L., West, S. G., Judice, T. N., & Thompson, M.
M., (1997). On dimensionality, discriminant validity, and the
role of psychometric analyses in personality theory and
measurement: Reply to Kruglanski et. Al. (1997) defense of the
Need for Closure Scale. In Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 73, 1017-1029.
16. Oltman, K., Raskin, E., Witkin, H. A., (1962), Skúska
vlozených tvarov (úprava: Musil) Embedded Figures Test
(modified by: Musil). Bratislava: PU FF UK.
17. Roets. A., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis I., (2006). The
dimensional structure of the need for closure scale: Relationship
with seizing and freezing processes. In Social Cognition, 24, 22-
45.
18. Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., (2007). Separating ability from
need: Clarifying the dimensional structure of the need for closure
scale. In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 266-
280.
19. Ruisel, I., (2004), Inteligencia a myslenie. Bratislava, Ikar.
20. Sarmány-
Schuller, I., (2000). Schopnosť vytvárania štruktúry
a kategorizácia. In M. Blatny, M. Svoboda, I. Ruisel, J. Výrost
(Eds.), Zborník príspevkov z medzinárodnej konferencie
„Sociálne procesy a
osobnosť“ (pp. 185-190). Psychologický
ústav FF MU a Psy
chologický ústav AV ČR. Brno.
21. Sarmány-Schuller, I., (2001). Potreba štruktúry a
schopnosť
vytvárania štruktúry ako osobnostné konštruky. In I. Sarmány-
Schuller (Ed.), Psychológia pre bezpečný svet. Zborník
príspevkov z medzinárodnej konferencie „Psychologické dni“,
Trenčin, 10.-12.9.2001 (pp. 336-339). Stimul, Bratislava, ISBN
80-88982-53-7.
22. Sarmány-Schuller, I., Sollárová, E., (2002). Kognitívny štýl,
inteligencia a
tvorivosť. In. F. Baumgartner, M. Frankovský, M.
Kentoš (Eds.) Sociálne procesy a o
sobnosť, Zborník príspevkov
(pp. 278-282).
- 18 -