• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Perceptual
rind
Motor
Skills,
1985,
61,
1091-1
105.
@
Perceptual and Motor Skills
1985
PERCEPTUAL STYLE
AND
DUAL-TASK PERFORMANCEAS A
FUNCTION
OF TASK DIFFICULTY
AND
TASK EMPHASIS1
LORETTA B. MARINCOLA AND GERALD
M.
LONG
Villanova University
Sumnuny.-Differences in dual-task performance by field-dependent andfield-independent college students were investigated. The perceptual styles ofthe 102 subjects were determined by their performance on the Rod-and-FrameTest. Dual-task performance required the subjects to perform concurrently acentral tracking task and a peripheral light-detection task. The effect of stresson dual-task performance was examined by employing three widely differinglevels of tracking task difficulty. Three sets of instructions varied the relativeimportance of the two tasks within the dual-task situation. Both manipulationof task difficulty and instructional set had powerful effects on performance.However, performance differences among subjects with differing perceptualstyles were found only on the central tracking task, with field-independent sub-jects consistently outperforming field-dependent ones. The results are dis-cussed in terms ofihe theoreticalbasis for the perceprual style of field-de-
pendence/field-independence
as well as the potential value of this dimension
in
dual-task situations.
Over the past
30
years, one of the most popular dimensions for character-izing individual differences has been the perceptual style of field-dependence/field-independence originally formulated by Witkin and his associates (Wit-kin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough,
&
Karp, 1962; Witkin, Lewis, Herttman,Machover, Meissner,
&
Wapner, 1954). On numerous tasks, ranging fromhypothesis-testing to incidential memory to compensatory tracking to drivingperformance, individuals who differ on the traditional measures of field de-pendence-field independence, such
as
the Rod and Frame Test and the Em-bedded Figures Test, differed markedly; see Goodenough
(
1976), Long
(
1974),and Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, and Cox (1977) for reviews. However,the results of these numerous studies almost unanimously indicate that field-independent individuals perform better than field-dependent individuals onthe myriad of perceptual, cognitive, and psychomotor tasks that have been ex-amined (Barrett
&
Thornton, 1968; Benfari
&
Vitale, 1965; Davis
&
Haueisen,1976; Dickstein, 1968; Haronian
&
Sugerman, 1966; Loo, 1978;
Mhal
&
Bar-rett, 1976; Ohnmacht, 1966; Olson, 1974; Shinar, McDowell, Rackoff,
&
Rock-well, 1978). This is a somewhat puzzling state of affairs given the dominantinterpretation of this perceptual style (see below), which distinctly rejects the
'This article is based on the thesis submitted by the first author in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the Master of Science degree at Villanova University. The authorsthank ~rs.avid Bush and Douglas Klieger lor their suggestions on various aspects ofthis research. Please address all reprint requests to
Dr.
Gerald Long, Department ofPsychology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA 19085.
 
1092
L.
B.
MARINCOLA
&
G.
M.
LONG
"good perceiver" versus "bad perceiver" basis to the differences between field-independent and dependent individuals. One objective of the present study wasto devise a situation in which the field-dependent subjects, because particularperceptual characteristics theoretically are exhibited by them, would performbetter than field-independent subjects.
A
dual-task situation in which the in-dividual must simultaneously perform a central tracking task and a peripherallight-detection task was chosen for this purpose.Witkin,
et
al.
(
1954) describe the field-independent individual as "ana-lytical" and thereby able to focus on specific aspects of a situation or task. Onthe other hand, they describe field-dependent individuals as strongly influencedby surrounding environmental cues in the total perceptual field. Such indi-viduals are considered to be "global" or nonfocused in their characteristic modeof perception (Witkin,
et
al.,
1962). Moreover, the results of numerous studiesare largely consistent with these theoretical differences between individuals whodiffer on the Rod and Frame and Embedded Figures Tests (Witkin,
et
d.,
1977). Based on this focused versus global characterization, it was hypothe-sized that both sorts of persons would very likely differ in their approach to adual-task situation. To perform dual tasks effectively, one must divide atten-tion between two tasks which demand relatively continuous montitoring. Be-cause, theoretically, field-dependent individuals are inclined to attend to thewhole rather than distinct aspects of a task and because they are relatively moreinfluenced by surrounding or peripheral cues, their global style could be bene-ficial in certain types of dual-task situations. On the other hand, the field-independent subjects' presumd analytical manner of focusing on specific aspectsof a situation may be disadvantageous under dual-task conditions, which typi-cally call for diffuse attention on multiple aspects
of
the situation.Hence, itwas predicted that field-dependent subjects may have relatively less difficultythan field-independent subjects in the performance of some dual tasks.In addition, two experimental manipulations were incorporated in thedual-task setting employed in the present study. First, the level of difficultyof the central tracking task was manipulated to assess the effect of arousal(stress) on the dual-task performance of field-dependent and field-independentindividuals. Arousal was expected to influence dual-task performance basedon Easterbrook's
(
1959) original hypothesis that a heightened state of arousalresults in a reduction in the subjects' responsiveness to irrelevant, peripheralcues and in
an
improvement in (or at least maintenance of) their responsive-ness to relevant, central cues. This pattern of results has, indeed, been reportedon many tasks including dual-task settings under increasing noise stress (Hart-ley, 1981; Hockey, 1970a, 1970b). Second, because subjects in a dual-taskexperiment do not always naturally divide their attention evenly between thetwo tasks (Jennings
&
Chiles, 1977), the subjects in the present work wereprovided
with
explicit direction designating which task was
to
be
considered
 
PERCEPTUAL STYLE/DUAL-TASK PERFORMANCE
1093primary (more relevant), and this instructional set was varied across subjects.Manipulating instructions is not only important in controlling possible incon-sistencies among individuals with respect to presumed task emphasis but italso allows the precise assessment of differences in performance on the tasksas each task is classified as primary or secondary.Concerning the predicted performance patterns from these manipulationsof task difficulty and task importance, it was hypothesized that as arousal wasincreased (by increasing tracking task difficulty), field-independent subjects,who already exhibit a focused perceptual style, would become even more focusedon the task classified as primary by the instructions. Because of this concen-tration on the primary task, the field-independent individual was not expectedto perform as well as the field-dependent individual on the secondary task.These performance differences between the two groups of subjects were
ex-
pected primarily on the secondary task, and particularly under the more diffi-cult levels of central tracking task difficulty. As the central tracking task wasmade more difficult, the field-independent individuals' tendency to attend toonly the relevant aspects of a situation or task was expected to result in theirprogressively poorer performance on the secondary task It was further pre-dicted that,
as
the level of tracking task difficulty increased, reaction time tothe outer lights of the peripheral light-detection task would be the slowest.This prediction was based on Hockey's (1970a, 1970b) finding that increasednoise-induced arousal impaired detection of the more peripheral lights, whileit improved detection of the centrally located lights.
Subjects
The subjects were 102 (63 women and 39 men) undergraduate studentsfrom Villanova University. Each subject participated individually in a
l-h.
session. Participation in this experiment partially fulfilled a research require-ment for their General Psychology course.
All
subjects who normally worespectacles were asked to wear them during
all
experimental trials.
A
portable rod-and-frme apparatus (Stoelting, Model 12011), originallydesigned by Olunan (1968), was used to measure each subject's degree of
field-dependence/fieId-independence.
This table-top model consists of a rec-tangular enclosure made of translucent plastic, which serves
as
the frame andcan be tilted to the right or to the left by specific amounts. At the closed endof the frame is positioned a black rod which can be tilted separately from theframe. The subject sits at the open end of the rectangular box with his headkept still in a headrest. In the present work, the level of illuminance withinthe apparatus was constant at 1.3 ft-c.
A
Lafayette rotary pursuit apparatus (Model 300014) was used for the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...