University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effect of cooperative and individualistic goal structures on the preferences and attribution of field-dependent and field-independent students

(USC Thesis Other)

The effect of cooperative and individualistic goal structures on the preferences and attribution of field-dependent and field-independent students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE AND INDIVIDUALISTIC GOAL
STRUCTURES ON THE PREFERENCES AND ATTRIBUTIONS OF
FIELD-DEPENDENT AND FIELD-INDEPENDENT STUDENTS
by
Rebecca Childers Cowan
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
August 19 84
UMI Number: DP71318
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
in the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
Dissertation R jblishing
UMI DP71318
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
uesf
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA (% T S L , L
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written hy
REBECCA CHILDERS COWAN
under the direction of h^x Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
D O C TO R OF PH ILO SO PH Y
Dean
D a te .
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
r ,
ff Chairperson
DEDICATION
To the source of my inner strength,
Jesus Christ my LORD and SAVIOR.
To my beloved family.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express gratitude to the following
persons for their assistance and encouragement;
The members of my dissertation committee:
Dr. Myron Dembo, Chairman
Dr. Penny Richardson
Dr. J. Tilman Hall
The family members and friends who provided support
and encouragement during not only the development and
completion of this research project but also during the
years spent on my doctoral coursework.
Ill
CONTENTS
DEDICATION.................................................... il
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................ ill
LIST OF tables...................... ' ................vi
ABSTRACT......................................................vii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ....................................1
Need for the Study
Research Questions
Terms and Definitions
CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE...........................11
Ove rview
At t ribut ion
Goal Structure
Cognitive Style; Field Dependence-Independence
The Interrelationships Between Attribution,
Goal Structure and Field Dependence-Independence
Attribution and Goal Structure
Attribution and Cognitive Style
Goal Structure and Cognitive Style
Attribution, Goal Structure and Cognitive Style
Development of Research Questions
CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY.....................................62
Subj ects
Measures
Task
Procedure
Statistical Procedures
Pilot Study
CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................74
Results
Research Question #1
Research Question #2
Group Data: Means and Standard Deviations
i V
Significant Findings: Attributions
Ability
Effort
Task Difficulty
Luck
Significant Findings: Attitudes
"Liking"
"Different Outcome"
"Preference"
"Group Cooperation"
"Personal Contribution"
Discussion
CHAPTER 5 - SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS... 89
Int roducti on
Summary of Research Results
Research Question //I
Research Question #2
Future Recommendations
Conclusion
REFERENCE LIST................................................98
APPENDICES................................................... Ill
Appendix A - List of Participating Colleges
and Universities
Appendix B - Dependent Measure: Attitude/Preference
and Attribution Questionnaire
Appendix C - Synonym Task Sheet
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Causes of Success and Failure,
Classified According to Internality,
Stability and Intentionality . . . . . .16
Table 2.2 Self-Fulling Prophecies for
Achievement Expectancies.................17
Table 3.1 Research Design.............................72
Table 4.1 Group Means and Standard
Deviations for Attribution Measures. . .77
Table 4.2 Group Means and Standard
Deviations for Attitude Measures . . . .79
Table 4.3 Means and Standard Deviations
for Group Attitude Measures............ 80
vi
ABSTRACT
Undergraduate male college students (N=88) were used
to study the relationship between cognitive style,
learning environment and causal attributions. This
research attempted to investigate whether or not
differential motivational response patterns existed for
individuals of opposing cognitive styles under goal
structures similar and dissimilar to their learning style
preference. Specifically, it was questioned whether or
not field-dependent and field-independent subjects would
report differential goal structure preferences and, if so,
would these preferences lead to different motivational
response patterns as indicated by their causal
attributions for success and failure.
Field-dependent and field-independent subjects were
randomly assigned to either cooperative or individualistic
goal structures and to a success or failure outcome.
Causal attributions and student preferences and attitudes
were the dependent variables in the 2X2X2 research
design (cognitive style by goal structure by
success/failure).
The first research question asked whether field-
dependent subjects would report a greater liking of the
cooperative goal structure while the field-independent
vi i
subjects would indicate a greater preference for the
individualistic goal structure. Findings from this
investigation supported this question at the 2. ^ *05 level
of significance.
Research question #2 sought to answer whether or not
differential motivation responses would be cited for
subjects when in the goal structure similar and when in
the goal structure dissimilar to their indicated cognitive
style preference. Research findings in general did not
support the theory that attributional differences would
exist. No interactions were reported with regards to the
ability, effort or task difficulty attributions. A
significant two-way interaction between goal structure and
cognitive style was reported, however, with the
attribution of luck (2. < .05). Subjects felt luckier when
in the goal structure preferred by their cognitive style.
vi ii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Educational researchers and practitioners have become
increasingly aware of the need to study the effects of
various teaching methods on the individual characteristics
of the learner. Educators involved in instructional
design have similarly desired to provide classroom
environments and instructional strategies which seek to
assist the variety of learner needs and learning styles.
Research in the area of student cognitive style
differences has begun to address the need to identify
student differences in the learning environment. Findings
have repeatedly revealed that individuals differ in the
way they process information. Studies have been designed
which focus on instructional designs that assist learners
of various cognitive styles. Many educators believe that
these differences in learner needs and cognitive style
need not result in differences in learning. Cronbach
(1957) recommended that researchers try to find learner
aptitudes and characteristics that interact with
variations in instructional treatments and to design such
treatments to fit particular aptitudes of students of
varying learning styles. This search for ways of adapting
instruction to individual differences is known as
1
aptitude-treatment interaction (ATI) research.
Recent research on various classroom strategies
(treatments) has focused primarily upon the cooperative,
competitive and individualistic goal structures. Aptitude
research has centered mainly upon cognitive style
differences. Most research on classroom goal structures
and cognitive style differences has assessed only
achievement outcome differences between subjects. Studies
are needed which extend the investigations to include an
examination of factors underlying the motivational
differences of these students.
The research proposed here sought to further
investigate this relationship between individual
differences and classroom goal structure by examining the
preferences and attributional differences of field-
dependent and field-independent (cognitive style) students
under the cooperative and individualistic goal structures.
Need for the Study
An extensive review of literature on classroom goal
structure (Johnson & Johnson, 1974) reported that research
findings overwhelmingly favor the use of the cooperative
goal structure over the competitive or individualistic
structures. Although each goal structure has its
situational appropriateness, Johnson and Johnson
concluded,-however, that almost all instructional
activities should take place within the cooperative
structure.
In another comprehensive review of research on the
field dependent-independent cognitive style (Witkin &
Goodenough, 1977), investigations consistently found
field-independent individuals to be more impersonal in
orientation, preferring non-social situations, and
exhibiting greater autonomy in ambiguous situations.
Conversely, the field-dependent person tends to have more
of an interpersonal orientation, shows interest in others,
gravitates towards social situations and tends to get
along with others. Additionally, other research (Mahlios,
1978, 1981a, 1981b; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977)
has reported that whereas field-dependent students utilize
other people (mediators) in accomplishing a task, field-
independent students tend to work independently. Witkin
(1977) has suggested that optimal learning occurs when the
instructional style of the teacher is designed to
concentrate on the particular strengths of the learner's
I
cognitive style. We can assume the teacher's j
instructional style to include classroom goal structure. I
i
Optimal learning can occur when the student's cognitive i
style learning preferences are enacted in the classroom
process.
While proponents of the cooperative classroom goal
structure may be correct in stating its overall
effectiveness for students in general, it may, in
actuality, not be the most beneficial for individuals of
different cognitive styles. In order to maximize student
motivation in the educational setting, it therefore seems
necessary to provide opportunities which are conducive to
the development of both field-dependent and field-
independent individuals. Research is needed to study the
interaction of these two variables; classroom goal
structure and student’s cognitive style.
Investigations of aptitude-treatment interactions, as
mentioned earlier, have focused primarily on achievement
as the dependent variable. Researchers' aim has been to
determine which treatment condition produces greater
results in terms of student learning. Recent studies have
extended an understanding of aptitude-treatment
interaction using classroom goal structures by
investigating students' causal attributions as the outcome
measure (Ames, Ames & Felker, 1979; Ames & Ames, 1981;
Ames & Felker, 1979). These studies reported differential
responses for individuals within the various goal
structures.
The student's belief about success and failure
(attributions) have been found to be an important
predictor of his/her reaction to that event and future
events. The study of students' attributions is directly
related to their expectancies of future success or
failure, their liking of the classroom, its environment
and/or tasks, and their self-esteem (Freize, 1979).
While it is important to study under which classroom
settings (goal structures) students of differing cognitive
styles improve achievement, it is also of paramount
concern as to which settings foster postive student
affects and self-esteem.
Investigators have sought to identify and isolate
factors that contribute to the student's motivation to
achieve in an effort to assist students toward positive
expectancies, affects and self-esteem. Maehr (1978)
proposes a situational-contextual model of achievement
motivation which is concerned with social expectations,
the relative importance of task attainment, the situation
and the indiviual characteristics of the learner. He
suggests that future research should focus on individual
differences and that the achievement situation or context
should be considered when studying variations in students'
motivation to achieve. When individuals are in situations
they prefer and working on tasks they consider important
then their motivational levels will be different than when
in an environment they dislike and working on a task with
relatively little personal importance. Research is needed
which examines students' achievement motivation under
differing situation-contextual settings, taking individual
differences into account. Such research might assist
educators in developing classroom environments which
enhance motivation, fostering positive attributions,
growth and development.
Researchers and practitioners must ask themselves, is
one classroom context (goal structure) more beneficial in
terms of student affect, attributions and development than
another for a specific student with a specific cognitive
style? When in situations similar to their cognitive
style orientation do individuals cite different
motivational-attributional responses? The study presented
here sought to answer these questions utilizing field
dependence-independence as the individual difference
variable and the cooperative and individualistic goal
structures as the situational differences. These
variables were chosen in response to research findings
which indicate the field-independent individual's
preference for working alone and the field-dependent
individual's preference for social situations.
Research Questions
Answers to two research questions were sought in the
present study:
1. Will field-dependent students report greater liking
for the cooperative learning structure, and will field-
independent individuals prefer the individualistic goal
s t ruetu re ?
2. If subjects of opposing cognitive styles do indicate a
preference for one learning structure over another
(question #1), then do these preferences result in
differential attributional responses? Will field-
dependent and field-independent subjects respond
differentially to the measures of attribution when in the
goal structure similar and dissimilar to their cognitive
style orientation?
Terms and Definitions
Attribution. The study of attribution is concerned
with an individual’s beliefs about the causes of his/her
success and failure in different situations, on different
tasks. Although the list of conceivable causes of success
and failure is infinite, most research is based upon the
original framework (Weiner, Freize, Kukla, Reed, Rest, &
Rosenbaum, 1971) which cites four basic causal
attributions: ability, effort (mood), luck, and task
difficulty. These are further classified into three
dimensions: internality, stability and intentionality.
The internality dimension refers to whether the cause
of the event is associated with the individual himself;
whether the individual takes personal responsibility
(blame or credit) for the outcome and is therefore
internal (ability and effort), or whether the cause is
external (in a sense, beyond their perceived control) to
the person (task difficulty, luck).
The stability dimension refers to attributions which
are considered stable and change relatively little over
time (ability, typical effort and/or task difficulty) or
those which are highly changeable and therefore unstable
(luck, mood).
Intentionality refers to the amount of perceived
control the individual has over the situation. For
example, if the individual has control over the internal
cause, it is intentional. Ability and mood are
unintentional, although still internal whereas effort is
internal and intentional.
Cognitive Style. Cognitive style refers to an
individual’s reactions to different situations based on
broad systematic characteristics. The concept of
cognitive style refers to psychological dimensions that
represent consistencies in an individual’s manner of
acquiring and processing material.
Field Dependence-independence. Field dependence-
independence is determined by the extent to which persons
perceive part of a field as discrete from the surrounding
field as a whole, rather than embedded in the field. A
8
field-dependent person's perception is dominated by the
surrounding field whereas the field-independent individual
experiences items as more or less separate from the
prevailing field. Research (Witkin et al., 1977) has
shown field-dependent and field-independent individuals to
differ in many areas including perceptual abilities,
vocational aspiration, social and analytical abilities,
and learning styles.
Goal Structure. Goal structure refers to the way
students interact in learning situations and how the
classroom activities are structured and organized.
Researchers in this area of instructional goal structures
have identified three basic types: cooperative,
individualistic, and competitive.
The cooperative structure exists when an individual's
reward is directly related to the quality of the group's
work in which he/she is involved. Cooperative groups may
consist of two or more members who are striving together
toward a common goal.
In the individualistic structure, students' rewards
are based on the quality of their own work independent of
the quality of other students' work. The individual's
achievement is unrelated to that of the other students.
The competitive situation is one in which an
individual's quality of work is compared to other's. In
this structure, when a student increases his/her chance of
goal attainment, he/she decreases the chance that the
other with whom he/she is linked will achieve their goal
Students obtain their goal if and only if the other
students fail to obtain their goal
Chapter two presents a review of the literature
related to these areas of goal structure, cognitive style
and attribution.
10
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In recent years, the study of classroom goal ^
structure, student attributions and cognitive style has
gained the attention of both educational practitioners and
researchers. As the study of attributional behavior
continues, researchers are seeing a need to analyze these
attributions within various contexts.Cooperative,
competitive and individualistic classroom goal structures
are beginning to be utilized in this research in order to
determine how the situation-environment effects students'
causal attributions. Recent studies have also begun to
study the attributional patterns of various groups.
Research investigating attributional and indivdual
differences has utilized only sex, racial and ethnic
differences. To date, the author is unaware of any
research which has utilized students' cognitive style
differences as the determinant of group differences with
regards to the study of attributional variations.
Studies involving different classroom structures
(environments) and cognitive styles have proven insightful
but have not included the study of attributions. These
studies have focused on student achievement as the
dependent variable. The purpose of the present study was
11
to examine these interrelationships between attribution,
classroom goal structure and cognitive style differences
in an effort to provide educational implications for the
classroom. More specifically, this research studied the
effects of the cooperative and indvidualistic goal
structures on the attributional and attitudinal responses
of field-dependent and field-independent subjects.
This chapter presents a review of the literature on
research which has investigated the relationships between
these three areas: attributions, goal structure, and
cognitive style. A review of the research which has dealt
with these interrelationships is presented following a
brief overview of each of the three subject areas.
Ove rview
Att ribution
The study of attributions is concerned with students’
beliefs about their success and failure on various
activities. Research has indicated that the individual's
causal attributions are an important predictor of the
individual's reaction to that event and to similar
subsequent events. This process of making a causal
attribution about a specific event and then having this
attribution mediate the emotional and cognitive reactions
to the situation is known as the attribution process
(Frieze, 1980). Research has focused on both this process
12
of how causal beliefs are reached and on the psychological
effects of perceived causality.
Various studies focusing on these effects have
reported interesting findings. Folkes (1978) found that
individuals are more likely to search for causal
attributions when they have experienced failure and/or
rejections rather than success and/or acceptance. A study
conducted by Lau and Russel (1978) cited that unexpected
events are more likely to elicit "why" questions than
expected events. In another study (Diener and Dweck,
1978), the researchers found that during task performance
"failure-oriented" or "helpless" students especially tend
to supply attributions.
Attribution researchers assume that people are
constantly forming causal explanations for why various
events occur in their lives (Frieze & Bar-Tal, 1979;
Weiner, 1979). Within an academic-achievement situation
several investigations have been conducted in an attempt
to identify the perceived causes of success and failure
(Bar-Tal & Darom, 1979; Bar-Tal, Ravgad & Zilberman, 1978;
Cooper & Burger, 1978; Elig & Frieze, 1979; Frieze, 1976;
Frieze & Synder, 1980). These perceived causes include
effort, ability, task difficulty, another person (teacher
or other), mood, luck, preparation, home conditions,
interest in the subject matter, maturity, habits, previous
13
experience, physical and emotional ability, attention,
directions, instruction, and attitude. Much research,
however, tends to be based upon the original framework
(Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest & Rosembaum, 1971)
which cites four basic causal attributions; ability,
effort, luck, and task difficulty.
The list of conceivable causes of success and failure
is infinite and therefore has led to the development of a
classification scheme or taxonomy of causes. In this
process, similarities and differences were delineated and
the underlying properties of the causes identified.
Causal categories can be analyzed in various ways (see
Weiner, 1979) and yet, current research has identified a
useful attribution categorization system based upon three
dimensions of causality: internality, stability, and
intentionality.
The internality dimension refers to whether the cause
of the event is associated with the individual himself and
is therefore internal, or whether the cause is external to
the person. Internal attributions include ability,
effort, mood, maturity or background whereas external
factors might include task difficulty, teacher or helpful
other.
The stability dimension defines causes on a stable
(invariant) versus unstable (variant) continuum. Ability,
14
background, typical effort and unchanging environmental
factors are considered stable and change relatively little
over time. Mood, immediate effort, and attention are
highly changeable and therefore unstable. Task
difficulty, if perceived as changing from trial to trial
or exam to exam, can be considered unstable, although it
is generally viewed as stable.
The third dimension, intentionality (which Weiner
believes is mislabeled and should be viewed as control) is
concerned with the individual's control of a situation.
If the individual has control over the internal cause it
is intentional. Thus effort is internal and intentional,
and ability and mood are unintentional, although still
inte rnal.
Causes of success and failure, categorized according
to the three dimensions of causality are presented in
Table 2.1.
Educational reseachers are interested not only in the
existence and classification of causal attributions but
also on their psychological effects on the individual
student. From attributions, expectancies and affective
reactions are formed.
Several studies have indicated that changes in
expectancy are related to the stability of the causal
attribution made to explain the outcome (Fontaine,
15
Table 2.1
Causes of Success and Failure, Classified According to
Internality, Stability and Intentionality
Internal
Intentionality Stable_____________Unstable
Unintentional Ability Mood
Intentional Typical Effort Immediate Effort
External
Intentionality Stable_____________Unstable
Unintentional Task Difficulty Luck
Intentional Teacher Bias Unusual help
from others
(Weiner, 1979)
1974; McMahan, 1973; Valle & Freize, 1976). Attributions
to relatively stable causes, such as ability or the
difficulty of an on-going task, lead to expectancies that
future outcomes will continue to be the same. More
unstable attributions, such as luck, immediate effort, and
mood, produce expectancy shifts away from the outcome.
This leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy where those who
expect to do well will continue to have those
expectancies, and those who have low expectations will
maintain them regardless of their actual performance
(Freize, 1980). This model, developed by Valle and Freize
(1976) and later modified by Freize, is presented in Table
2. 2.
16
Table 2.2
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies for Achievement Expectancies
Initial Performance
Expectancy Level
Causal
Attribution
High
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Final
Expectancy
Highe r Ability or other
stable internal
factors
Bad luck or lack High
of effort or other
unstable factors
Good luck, special Low
effort or o the r
unstable factors
Lack of ability or Lower
other stable,
internal factors
In addition to the formation of future expectations,
the attribution process also involves certain emotional or
affective reactions to success or failure that are
effected by the type of causal attribution made for the
event (Freize, 1980). Outcomes attributed to internal
factors tend to produce stronger affective responses than
do those attributed to external factors (Reimer, 1975;
Weiner, 1974). Additionally, research confirms our
experience that success makes people feel good and/or
happy and failure is accompanied by bad and/or unhappy
feelings, regardless of the attribution (NichoIIs, 1975;
Ruble, Parson & Ross, 1976). Attributions for success are
often accompanied by feelings of pride, happiness,
competence, luck, gratefulness, relief, or surprise.
Failure situations may lead to feelings of shame, guilt,
17
incompetence, sadness, resignation or bad luck (Weiner,
Russel, & Lerman, 1978).
Similar to the study of affective reactions and
attributions are studies related to self-esteem. Students
with high self-esteem attribute success to more internal
causes than low self-esteem students. The low-esteem
students attribute failure to more internal factors
(Fitch, 1970). The development of a positive self-concept
is fostered by stable, internal success attributions and
by unstable, external failure attributions (Ames, 1978;
Freize, 1980; Shrauger & Terbovic, 1976).
Another related area of study beginning to receive
more and more attention by educational researchers focuses
on attributional difference derived from one’s motivation
to achieve based upon socio-cultural and/or personality
orientations. Differences in students’ causal perceptions
of success and failure have been identified in studies
examining the motivation of students from different ethnic
groups (Chandler, Sharma, Wolf, & Planehard, 1981; Friend
& Neale, 1972 ; Fry & Ghosh, 1980; Shaw & Iwawaki , 1972 ;
Dembo & Gurney, 1982). Shaw and Iwawaki (1972), for
example, found differences in Japanese and Americans’
attributions of responsibility for task outcomes.
Americans attributed greater responsibility for negative
than for positive outcomes whereas Japanese attributed
18
about the same for both negative and positive outcomes.
Dembo and Gurney’s (1982) findings indicate that students
take greater personal responsibility (stable, internal)
for their success when in situations (classroom goal
structures) more related to their socio-cultural
experience.
McClelland (1961,1971) believes that early learning
experiences (based on cultural norms effecting child-
rearing practices) create personality patterns that
determine one’s motivation to achieve. He acknowledges
the contributions of both culture and society in the
development of achievement motivation. It is Maehr (1978)
that furthers this concern about the factors contributing
to an individual’s motivation in his analysis of culture
and the situational-contextual causes of achievement
motivation. He views an individual’s motivation to
achieve as resulting from the interplay of social
expectations, task characteristics, the situation, and the
self.
According to Maehr’s model, social expectations
include normative expectations (the norms of the social
group in which an individual belongs) and role-related
expectations (the position an individual occupies within a
group and its accompanying expectations (those which exist
apart from either normative or role-related expectations
19
and are personal)).
Task characteristics, on the other hand, involve an
understanding of the task’s sociocultural definition (or,
its value or meaning to a group), any interpersonal
demands or expectations (for example, different groups
place different stress on individualism, cooperation and
competition), task orientation (whether the task is done;
for work or play; for someone else or for self; for
extrinsic or intrinsic reasons), and, intrinsic interests
(the relative importance of task attainment).
Like social expectations and tasks, the self is
another component to be considered in a situational-
contextual analysis of acheivement motivation. Maehr
identifies three facets of selfhood that are important:
identity (an individual’s association with certain groups
with their norms, definitions and expectations), judged
competence (perception of self as either competent or
incompetent (demonstrably subject to variation due to
immediate situational factors)), and self-as-intiator (the
perceived origin of an act: is the individual the
initiator or the pawn?).
Lastly, according to Maehr’s model, the situation
refers to environmental factors and/or arrangements on how
the task is to be accomplished, i.e. individually, in
groups, etc. Maehr views the interplay of these four
20
factors (social expectations, task characteristics, the
self, and the situation) as contributing to an
individual's motivation to achieve.
Maehr emphasizes the need to analyze individual
differences in achievement and suggests that future
research should focus in two areas. First, the
achievement situation or context should be considered when
studying variations in achievement motivation across
groups. Secondly, the individual and his/her perceptions
of self, others and the task in the situation must be
examined. In other words, it is not enough to view a
student as either motivated or not motivated to achieve;
as giving either stable or unstable, internal or external
responses to success and failure but it is also important
to study situational-contextual elements and individual
differences. Two individuals in the same learning
situation may not give the same success or failure
attributions. Their perceptions of the success or the
failure will be conditioned by such factors as their
sociocultural background, their personality, (or, we may
include, cognitive style), which, as Maehr identified,
interplay with social expectations and task
characteristics.
This line of inquiry has led to the research on
attributional differences of students of various groups
21
(primarily ethnic groups as cited earlier), and, on
attributional differences from one situation to another.
Educators and researchers are acknowledging that both
individual differences and situational differences affect
attributional responses. Research is needed, however,
which combines these two concerns and investigates the
attributional differences of individuals both of different
groups and under different situations.
The current investigation sought to address these
concerns by examining this relationship between the
attributional differences of individuals both of differing
groups and under various situations. This research was
needed in an effort to identify which individuals under
which settings develop greater motivation. Although the
proposed study does not consider individual perception of
task importance, as Maehr suggests, it does seek to answer
those issues relating to variations in individual
motivation as a result of situational and individual
differences.
Returning to the earlier discussion of expectancies,
affects and self-esteem, it seems all the more relevant
that researchers and practitioners seek to identify and
isolate factors which contribute to different
attributional responses. In light of the self-fulfilling
prophecy paradigm and the maintenance of low self-esteem
22
phenomena, it is all the more important to discriminate
between elements which result in negative and detrimental
attributions. Educators need to design and implement
classroom structures which acknowledge individual
differences and which foster and enhance attributions
leading to positive growth and development. Studies are
beginning to confirm the need for more attributional
research which examines various classroom contexts and
student differences. These concerns, examined in the
present study, lead now to an overview of several of these
situational differences (classroom structures), and then
to an examination of individual cognitive style
differences.
Goal Structure
There is much evidence that the process by which
students learn (the way in which students interact and
behave in learning situations) and the outcomes of
learning are both largely determined by the goal structure
implemented by educators (Johnson & Johnson, 1974).
Researchers in this area of instructional goal structures
have identified three basic types: cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic. Johnson (1980) believes
that the ideal classroom uses each of these types of
structure and uses them appropriately.
The cooperative structure has been defined as one in
23
which the individual's rewards are directly proportional
to the quality of the group work. When an individual
increases his chance of goal attainment, he also increases
the chances of other group members. A cooperative goal
structure exists when students perceive that they can
obtain their goal if, and only if, the other students with
whom they are linked obtain their goals.
The competitive situation is one in which individuals
are rewarded so that one receives a maximum reward and the
others receive a minimum reward. In this structure, when
the student increases his chance of goal attainment, he
decreases the chance that the others with whom he is
linked will achieve their goals. Students perceive that
they can obtain their goal if, and only if, the other
students fail to obtain their goals.
In the individualistic structure students are
rewarded on the basis of the quality of their work
independent of the quality of work of other students. The
individual's goal attainment is unrelated to the goal
achievement of other students. Whether or not an
individual accomplishes his goal has no bearing upon
whether others attain their goals.
American education has primarily focused upon the
competitive goal structure. This approach to education
has been supported by the following myths: 1) Our society
24
is highly competitive and students must therefore be able
to function in a "survival of the fittest" world; 2)
Achievement, success, drive, ambition and motivation
depend upon successfully competing with other individuals;
3) Competition builds character and toughens the young for
life in the "real world"; and, 4) Students prefer
competitive structures. Johnson and Johnson (1974)
believe these myths to be largely false, citing empirical
evidence supporting their beliefs.
Staub (1971) found the socialization of American
children into competitive orientations and attitudes to be
so pervasive that American children often believe that
helping a person in distress is inappropriate and
disapproved by others. Additionally, American and Anglo-
American children have been found to be more competitive
than children from other countries and ethnic backgrounds
(Alvarez & Pader, 1979; Kagen & Madsen, 1971, 1972;
Madsen, 1971; Madsen & Shpiro, 1970; Nelson & Kagen,
1972).
The cooperative learning experience has been the
focus of much study. Research findings have
overwhelmingly favored the use of the cooperative goal
structure over the competitive or individualistic
structures. In their extensive review of literature,
Johnson and Johnson (1974) discuss the situational
25
appropriateness of each of the goal structures. They
concluded, however, that almost all instructional
activities should take place within the cooperative goal
structure.
Research findings have indicated that cooperative
learning experiences result in stronger beliefs that one
is liked, accepted and supported by others, and, that
trust is also developed in the cooperative interaction
(Cooper, Johnson, Johnson & Wilderson, 1980; Deutsch,
1962; Johnson, 1974; Johnson, Johnson, Johnson & Anderson,
1976; Johnson, Johnson & Tauer, 1979; Tjosvold, Marino &
Johnson, 1977). Further, evidence exists which
demonstrates that the cooperative structure results in
more positive interpersonal relationships characterized by
mutual liking, positive attitudes toward each other,
mutual concern and friendliness (Johnson & Johnson, 1975,
1978). In studies involving students from different
ethnic groups, disabled and non-disabled students, and
coed groups, evidence indicates that cooperative learning
experiences promote more positive attitudes among
heterogeneous individuals (Armstrong, Johnson & Balow,
1980; Blanchard, Adelman & Cook, 1975; Cooper, Johnson,
Johnson & Wilderman, 1980; Devries & Slavin, 1978;
Johnson, Rynders, Johnson, Schmidt & Haider, 1979; Slavin,
1978).
26
In the area of academic achievement, Johnson,
Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson and Skon (1980) conducted an
extensive review of literature which strongly indicated
that cooperative learning promotes higher achievement for
all age levels, all subject areas and for numerous types
of tasks. There is also correlational evidence that
cooperativeness is positively related to self-esteem in
students and that failure in competitive situations
promotes increased self-derogation (Ames, Ames & Felker,
1977; Johnson, Johnson & Scott, 1978). Cooperativeness
has also been found to be positively related to the
ability to take the emotional perspective of others and
that competitiveness is related to egocentrism (Barnett,
Mathews & Howard, 1979; Johnson, 1980a, 1980b).
Cooperative learning is also positively related to
psychological health, liking for school personnel,
exchange of information, motivation and emotional
involvement in learning. Students in this goal structure
seem more motivated, less anxious, more attentive, more
interested in the sharing of information, and are more
positive toward school personnel (Johnson, 1980b).
The individualistic structure has been used most
commonly in tutorial, mastery, and programmed learning
situations. The increased usage of the computer in
educational settings has also resulted in an increase in
27
individualistic classroom learning. Little research,
however, has been conducted comparing the effects of the
individualistic structure with cooperative or competitive
structures.
The benefits of the individualistic structure in
comparison to the competitive structure lie in its
emphasis on individual work unrelated to the work of
others. Whereas in the competitive structure students are
linked to one another by comparison of quality of work
and/or task attainment, in the individualistic structure
students compete only against themselves in an effort to
better their own quality of work and/or accomplishment.
On the other hand, an extensive review by Watson and
Johnson (1972) comparing individual and group problem
solving revealed that most research studies demonstrate
that group (cooperative) performance is superior to even
the individual work of the most expert group members and
considerably superior to individual efforts of any
randomly selected group member. This body of research
suggests that the cooperative structure may lead to higher
student achievement in problem solving tasks than the
individualistic structure. This line of research does
not, however, address the issue of student learning style
preference or cognitive style differences. That is, it
does not account for those learners whose preference is to
28
work alone.
A benefit of the individualistic structure in
comparison to the cooperative lies in its assessment of
individual progress and accomplishment. The contributions
of individual group members in the cooperative setting may
not be readily available for evaluation when it is often
only the group’s overall performance that is the basis of
task accomplishment, success or failure.
As mentioned earlier, Johnson and Johnson (1974) have
cited under which situations each of the goal structures
is most beneficial and/or appropriate. They are as
follows :
Competition is effective in increasing
performance on simple drill activities and speed
related tasks when sheer quantity of work is desired
on a project that requires little help from another
person; spelling, vocabulary, and athletic contests
may be examples of such tasks. In regard to
affective outcomes, when competition takes place
during low-anxiety producing, relatively unimportant
activities, it often seems to be a source of fun,
excitement, and release of energy. When winning or
losing does not create a great deal of anxiety for
any of the participants there seems to be a sense of
pleasure in matching one’s skills and abilities
against a peer’s to see who will win.
The appropriate use of the individualistic goal
structure is not clarified by research. Certainly
the success of certain learning materials and
programs indicates that the individualistic structure
is appropriate for the learning of specific cognitive
material and skills.
Cooperative goal structures should be used when
instructional objectives focus upon such cognitive
and affective outcomes as: problem solving
effectiveness; group productivity; memorization and
29
retrieval of information; competence in cooperative
situations; cognitive development and its related
areas of social adjustment, communication
effectiveness, autonomous moral judgment, and
empathetic ability; positive attitudes toward subject
areas, instructional activities, teachers, and other
students; reduction of prejudice and the appreciation
of cultural and individual differences; development
of positive self-attitudes and a belief in one's
basic competence and worth; development of
achievement motivation; development of interpersonal
skills; and development of behavior based upon
intrinsic motivation, A cooperative goal structure
should also be used when educators wish to emphasize
learning processes such as: moderate levels of
anxiety; positive interpersonal relationships and the
related cohesion and psychological support and
safety; the reduction of hostility and conflict among
students; open, effective, and accurate communication
among students; trust; mutual influence promoting
achievement and task orientation; sharing of ideas
and materials and mutual helpfulness; involvement;
divergent and risk-taking thinking; and the
coordination of efforts and division of labor.
(Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 230-231)
If the use of different goal structures has been
found to be effective in varying situations as just
mentioned, then educators need to be aware of these
situational differences in order to maximize student
growth and development. In relating this discussion of
goal structure to the previous section on attribution, we
see the need for the appropriate use of goal structures in
the fostering of positive student attributions and in the
lessening of potentially harmful traits and attributions.
Future research, however, must focus on the effects
of the different goal structures on students' motivation
but must also take into account individual differences as
30
Maehr (1978) suggested. The current investigation was
developed in order to examine this relationship between
goal structure and motivational-attributional differences
but also included the use of subjects of different
learning orientations. The unanswered question from past
research is whether or not motivational differences exist
for students (of opposing cognitive style orientations)
when in preferred goal structures. Would attributional
responses be different for students working on a task in a
situation or work environment they prefer as opposed to
one in which they disliked? In the previous discussion of
factors effecting one's motivation, the situation (or, for
our study, goal structure) was included as instrumental in
whether or not the individual would be motivated.
Although the research cited here by Johnson and Johnson
(1974) favors the general use of the cooperative setting,
its effects on the motivation of students preferring to
work alone, for example, has yet to be examined.
The different learning style orientations utilized in
this research are reviewed in this next section which
presents a brief overview of individual differences
related to cognitive style, specifically, field
dependence—independence.
31
Cognitive Style: Field Dependence-Independence
Over the past three decades the methods and concepts
derived from studies on cognitive style have been applied
at an ever increasing rate to research on education.
Cognitive styles can be viewed as broad, systematic
characteristics which effect an individual's reactions to
different situations (Saracho & Dayton, 1980). They refer
to the information-processing habits that are
characteristic of an individual's mode of perceiving,
thinking, problem solving, and remembering (Messick,
1976). The concept of cognitive style refers to
psychological dimensions that represent consistencies in
an individual's manner of acquiring and processing
material. To date, a number of different factors, or
dimensions of cognitive style, have been identified and
subjected to theoretical and empirical examination. These
factors have included Witkin's (1962) field dependent-
independent cognitive styles, Broverman's (1960)
conceptual us. perceptual dominance, Gardiner's (1959)
control patterns, Bruner's (1956) concept attainment of
focusers and scanners, Kagan, Moss & Sigel's (1960, 1963)
descriptive, relational, and categorical cognitive styles,
and the cognitive tempo of reflectivity-impulsivity
studied by Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert & Philipps (1964).
Even though cognitive styles' application to educational
32
settings is still young, research has already proven
helpful.
Among the cognitive styles identified to date, the
field dependent-independent dimension has been most
extensively studied and has had the widest application to
educational problems (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox,
1977). From the Rod and Frame test and the Body
Adjustment test (Witkin, 1949, 1950, 1952,; Witkin & Asch,
1948) to the Embedded Figures tasks (Axelrod & Cohen,
1961; White, 1954 ; Witkin, Birnbaum, Lomonaco , Lehr &
Herman, 1968), studies on field dependence-independence
are extending education research by providing more and
more implications for the classroom.
Field dependence-independence is determined by the
extent to which persons perceive part of a field as
discrete from the surrounding field as a whole, rather
than embedded in the field; or the extent to which the
organization of the prevailing field determines perception
of its componenets; or, in other words, the extent to
which a person perceives analytically. A field-dependent
person is one whose perception is strongly dominated by
the prevailing field whereas a field-independent
individual experiences items more or less separate from
the surrounding field.
Many studies, using a variety of approaches and
3 3
procedures, have found field dependent-independent
individuals’ psychological orientation to manifest
distinct differences in such areas as interpersonal
behavior, orientation to the environment, college major
and vocational choices, and, learning and teaching style
preference.
Studies have shown field-dependent persons to be much
more attuned to social components in the environment.
These individuals look more at the faces of others for the
primary source of information about what others are
feeling and thinking (Konstadt & Forman, 1965; Nevil,
1972; Ruble & Nakamura, 1972). The social orientation of
field-dependent individuals contributes to their being
liked (Dingman, 1972; Oltman, Goodenough, Witkin,
Freedmand & Friedman, 1975); perceived as warm, tactful,
considerate, socially outgoing, and affectionate by others
(Crutchfield, Woodworth & Albrecht, 1958; Pemberton, 1952;
Weissenberg & Gruenfeld, 1966); and knowing and being
known by more people (Oltman et al. , 1975).
A review of literature on field dependence-
independence and interpersonal behavior by Witkin and
Goodenough (1977) further substantiated the field-
dependent individual’s social and interpersonal
orientation. Field-dependent people were found to show
strong interest in others, prefer to be physically close
34
to people, are emotionally open, get along better with
others and gravitate toward social, interactive
situations. Field-independent subjects were found to have
a more impersonal orientation, to not be sensitive to
social undercurrents, were described as cold, distant with
others, individualistic, and more likely to be interested
in the abstract and theoretical (Biggs, Fitzgerald &
Atkinson, 1971; Crutchfield et al., 1958; Heath, 1964;
Pemberton, 1952; Stidham, 1967). Additionally, field-
independent people were found to function with greater
autonomy, not to be very interested in others, show both
physical and psychological distancing from people, and
prefer non-social situations (Witkin & Goodenough, 1977).
Although field-dependent people have social skills that
are not as readily apparent in field-independent people,
field-independent individuals possess greater skill in
cognitive structuring and analysis (Witkin & Goodenough,
1977).
Field-dependent students were found to favor
educational-vocational areas involving interaction with
other people whereas field-independent students favor
areas that are more solitary in their work requirements
and more abstract in their substantive content (Witkin et
al., 1977). With regards to career differentiation,
field-independent people report interests similar to
35
people in mathematics and science domains such as computer
programmer, physicist, chemist, architect, engineer,
physician, dentist, and psychiatrist* All of these areas
require analytical structuring competence. Field-
dependent persons show interest in practical, artistic and
humanistic domains, pursuing such careers as carpenter,
farmer, mechanic, art designer, social worker, minister,
counselor, teacher, salesperson, advertiser, and others
(Crutchfield et al., 1958; Gehlmann, 1951; Levy, 1969;
Pierson, 1965).
Field-dependent and field-independent persons seem
not to be appreciably different in learning ability or
memory except that field-dependent persons tend to do
better at learning and remembering social material (Ruble
& Nakamura, 1972; Crutchfield et al., 1958). Field-
independent students, however, were found to perform
significantly better in mathematics, science, engineering,
and architecture than field-dependent students (Dubois &
Cohen, 1970; Greenfield, 1971). Measures of field
dependence-independence bear little relation to college
grade point average and overall achievement (Gehlmann,
1951; Pohl, 1967).
In the educational setting studies have been
conducted on the difference in learning styles of field-
dependent and field-independent students. Field-dependent
36
students are more likely to ask the teacher for academic
help and to require more structure and organization of
course material. Additionally, they respond better to
material with social content, are more affected by
criticism, learn more when reinforced externally, and are
more likely to utilize mediators in learning. In
contrast, field-independent students learn more under
conditions of intrinsic motivation, when allowed, will
tend to work independently, and prefer more abstract, non
structured material (Mahlios, 1978, 1981a; Witkin et al.,
1977).
In a study on the effects of praise, criticism and
failure on field-dependent and field-independent students
(Randolph, 1971) results indicated the field-dependent
students' need for reassurance and support. Subjects
performed better after being praised; worked less
effectively after failure; and were impaired more by
criticism than field-independent subjects. The stress of
the failure and criticism situation was not found to
impair, and in some cases even slightly facilitated the
performance of field-independent students. The author
suggests the need for a closer and more systematic
examination of the relationship between cognitive style,
different stress situations and anxiety.
Cognitive style theory suggests that field-dependent
37
students should learn more in settings where greater
social skills would be an advantage. Such settings have
been identified as discussions, field discovery methods,
expository, small groups, and others. Field-independent
students, on the other hand, would be expected to excel
more in instructional designs which allow individual work
(McLeod & Adams, 1979).
In many ways, the differences between field-dependent
and field-independent individuals may be said to be social
or nonsocial in orientation. Field-dependent individuals
demonstrate a preference for being and working with people
whereas field-independent people prefer being and working
alone. With regards to the previous discussion on
classroom goal structures it seems logical to assume that
field-dependent students, if given the opportunity, would
choose a cooperative classroom setting. Field-independent
students, on the other hand, would probably select
opportunities for autonomous work, either the
individualistic or competitive structure. With regards to
attributions we may conclude that individuals cite
different attributions in situations that are similar and
situations that are dissimilar to their cognitive style
orientation. That is, when working autonomously, the
field-independent person would respond differently and
express a greater preference for the situation than when
38
working in a more social situation. The field-dependent
person, on the other hand, would express greater liking of
and cite different attributions in socially-oriented task
situations. This, however, has yet to be verified by
research and therefore was the focus of the present
research study.
It is obvious from this brief overview that field-
dependent and field-independent individuals differ in
several significant areas. Their perceptual abilities,
vocational aspirations, social and analytical abilities,
and learning styles vary in substantial ways.
In order to maximize student learning in the
educational setting, it therefore seems necessary to
provide opportunities which are conducive to the
development of both field-dependent and field-independent
individuals. Research is needed on goal structure and
cognitive style which examines this interaction with
regards to its effect on outcomes other than student
achievement. As a result, the current research
investigated this relationship with regards to its effects
on student preferences and motivation, specifically
attribution. This needed research should help in
determining under which goal structures field-dependent
and field-independent students would be best motivated and
achieve greater emotional and academic success.
39
The Interrelationships Between Attrribution,
Goal Structure and Field Dependence-independence
Relatively few studies have been conducted on the
relationships between attribution and goal structure,
attribution and cognitive style, and goal structure and
cognitive style. Most of the research on goal structure
has dealt with its effect on achievement, personal and
interpersonal development, heterogeneous groups,
ethnicity, and other variables. Studies of attribution
have focused on the causes and development of
attributions, the causal dimensions, achievement
expectations, attitudes, self-concept, affects and
ethnicity. Field dependent-independent research has
centered around the difference between the two styles in
such areas as social orientation, career aspirations,
learning style, sex differences, and matching.
Some recent studies have begun to investigate some of
these interrelationships citing practical implications of
the findings for educational settings. This section
reviews such studies in an effort to identify areas of
needed improvement and recommendations for future
research. The current study was developed with these
concerns and Issues in mind.
40
Attribution and Goal Structure
As seen earlier, studies on goal structures have
demonstrated the cooperative learning experience to be
overwhelmingly beneficial in many areas of student
development. However, research has focused almost
exclusively on successful cooperative groups when
comparing to the competitive and individualistic
structures. Because cooperative groups can fail as well
as succeed, the positive effects of such groups must be
viewed in accordance with their goal attainment.
Additionally, the amount of involvement and contribution
to group success or failure by individual members was not
considered in much of the research presenting positive
cooperative effects. Ames (1981), in an effort to address
some of these research voids, compared the effects of
cooperative versus competitive reward contingencies on
children's cognitive attributions. She states that on
cooperative group tasks, the input of individual group
members is often quite disproportional. That is, some
members contribute very little, others, a great deal, to
the group outcome. Therefore, the positive effects of the
cooperative experience may be proportional to the
individual's perception of his/her contribution and
dese rvednes s.
Using 84 fifth and sixth grade children (equal number
41
of boys and girls), Ames tested the children both
individually and in pairs utilizing solvable and
insolvable puzzles. After involvement in the
experimentally manipulated activities subjects responded
to a questionnaire (assessing attributions) evaluating
their performance and that of the other child in the
pairing situation. In the group or pair situation, one
child was given a greater number of solvable puzzles than
the other so that group success or failure was
disproportionally attributed. Results indicated that the
success and failure and competitive versus cooperative
structures have significantly different effects on the
cognitive attributional and affective responses. Winning
in a competitive situation was attributed more to ability
while losing lowered children's self-perceptions of their
ability. The findings also suggested that cooperative
group structures may provide an important mechanism for
changing the self-defeating thought processes of
competitive losers following a failure. A cooperative
group that failed, however, generated negative
disproportional attributions much like a competitive
failure. The failure of the group accentuated the
disproportional contributions and led to some attempt by
the high performers (those given the greater number of
solvable puzzles) to impart "blame". Ames cautions that
42
while successful groups may help low-achieving students
increase their self-concept' of ability, cooperative
settings which end in group failure may have substantial
negative consequences for children’s behavior. She
concludes by stating that the results provide strong
evidence to show that goal structure is an important
determinant of children’s ability attributions.
The proposed study sought to further clarify this
relationship between attribution and goal structure hoping
either to duplicate some of Ames’ findings or to
demonstrate differences when cognitive style is taken into
account. Although the present study did not incorporate
disproportional contributions by the subjects. Ames
conclusion that goal structure is an important determinant
of ability attributions is relevant to the present study.
An earlier experiment (Ames, Ames & Felker, 1977)
studied how success and failure outcomes in competitive
and noncompetitive reward structures influenced children’s |
attributional and affective responses. Forty fifth grade j
boys were randomly assigned to outcome (success and
failure) and then to goal structure (competitive versus
noncompetitive). Similar to Ames (1981), the results of
this study provided evidence that the effects of success
and failure outcomes depends upon the goal structure of
the performance setting. The competitive and
43
noncompetitive structures showed differential effects on
self and other attributions. Competitive conditions
caused self-punitive behavior for failure outcomes and
some ego enhancing strategies for success outcomes. The
authors state the importance of investigating
attributional behavior within various contexts.
Another study (Ames & Ames, 1981) compared students’
attributions and affective responses within competitive
and individualistic goal structures. Sixth grade boys and
girls (N=80) were randomly assigned to outcome and then to
goal structure, controlling for outcome and sex. Findings
demonstrated marked differences in the competitve and
individualistic structures resulting in contrasting
patterns of causal attributions. Success and failure were
attributed more to effort in the individualistic
structure. Perceiving one’s efforts, an internal,
controllable (intentional) factor, as the cause of success
and failure is likely to produce a sense of accomplishment
following success and prevent feelings of helplessness
following failure. In the competitive structure success
and failure were attributed more to luck which does not
foster feelings of personal responsibility nor does it
contribute to success motivation. This latter finding is
contrary to earlier studies which found competitive
structures to lead to ability attributions.
44
In summary, Ames and Ames conclude that the
individualistic structure (when standards for performance
are self-generated) fosters a positive, achievement
motivation pattern absent in competitively structured
settings.
Goal structure and its effects on children's
attributions was also studied (Ames & Felker, 1979)
utilizing 400 children from five grade levels (grades 1-
5). Once again, the findings demonstrated that children's
attributions are strongly dependent upon the social
context of the setting. Competitive and individualistic
structures accentuate perceptions of individual
differences and the value placed on achievement outcomes.
Attributions of cooperative versus competitive outcomes
are dependent upon the level of individual performance
within the groups and the success of the cooperative
group. A successful outcome in a competitive setting
elicited the highest ability attributions whereas a
competitive loss led to a more harsh attribution. The
success of a cooperative group enhanced the perceptions of
the low performer but proved to be the most negative
condition under failure. As a consequence, the
researchers suggest that precautions are necessary before
generalizing the value of cooperative settings* A group
failure caused by lower performing individuals elicits
45
harsh judgments of all students involved. Similar
solvable and insolvable puzzles were used and were
disproportionally distributed so that individual
contributions to group success and failure were markedly
uneve n•
Summary. In summary, studies on attribution and goal
structure have begun to provide educational practitioners
with useful information for classroom settings. The
research conducted by Ames and associates has proven
especially helpful in the understanding of context-
specific attributions. Perhaps the most significant
contribution of these investigations has been on the
separation of group member attributions in the cooperative
setting. Especially important is the effect of
cooperative group failure on the low achieving and low
performance contribution member.
Although this research has expanded our knowledge in
the area of attributions and goal structure, there still
remains several unanswered questions and issues.
All of the studies reviewed used elementary school
children (primarily fifth and sixth grade students).
Would the same findings occur with high school, college or
adult populations? Do attributions change, vary, or
develop as the individual matures (see Nicholls, 1978;
Ruble, 1978)? The cooperative groups in each of these
46
studies consisted of only two member groups. Research is
needed to determine if group size might contribute to
differential findings. Further, the contrasting findings
(Ames, 1978 and Ames et al., 1977, with Ames & Ames, 1981)
regarding competitive ability versus luck attributions
must be clarified. The authors suggest that perhaps the
presence or absence of tangible rewards or the existence
of friends as competing partners contributed to the
different findings. This needs to be clarified in order
to determine specifically the relationship between verbal
and tangible rewards and attributions.
Finally, the Ames studies utilized puzzle tasks in
their experimental manipulation of success and failure.
Would attributions vary if other subject areas or types of
tasks are utilized? Perhaps a task failure might be more
detrimental under one type of task over another, according
to the indiviudal’s perception of its relative level of
importance (either to him/herself and/or society/peers).
Also, perhaps students of differing cognitive styles (such
as field dependent-independent individuals), who are
attuned to different cues and exhibit different ability
strengths (social versus analytical), would exhibit
different attributions.
Some of the answers to these questions were tackled
in the present study. Whereas Ames’ studies utilized only
47
elementary school children, college students were used as
subjects in the present study in an effort to expand our
understanding of the relationship between g o a l structure
and attributions to other age groups. Additionally, the
cooperative groups in the Ames' inveotigations consisted
of only two individuals and the task was not worked on
cooperatively although the goal structure was considered
to be cooperative. These key concerns were addressed in
the present research which studied three member groups
which worked cooperately on the task. The negative
consequences cited by Ames with the cooperative group
dealt only with its effect on the low contributing member
under the failure condition. Disproportional
contributions of individual group members was not under
investigation in the present study in an effort to examine
only the overall effects of goal structure on individuals'
causal attributions for success and failure. Lastly,
whereas puzzles might be found to favor field-independent
persons due to their analytic orientation, a neutral task
was developed (a synonym task) which attempted to
eliminate any favorable effects for subjects of a
particular cognitive style. Unfortunately, the issue of
perceived individual task attainment importance was not
addressed in this research. The relative importance of
task attainment for each individual was not investigated.
48
As Maehr suggested, this also interplays with an
individual’s achievement motivation and needs to be
examined by future research.
The question still remains, however, as to the type
of attributions individuals of differing cognitive styles
will demonstrate under goal structures similar and
dissimilar to their learning style orientation. Although
helpful and foundational, the Ames’ studies do not provide
insight into this question due to their emphasis on group
member contributions and not on individual differrences as
proposed here. The only finding somewhat applicable to
the present investigation was the finding by Ames and Ames
(1981) that subjects in the individualistic setting,
whether succeeding or failing, attributed their outcome
more to effort. This finding was viewed as being positive
in that perceiving one’s efforts (an internal,
controllable factor) as the cause of success and failure
is likely to produce a sense of accomplishment after
succeeding and prevent feelings of helplessness after
failure. Whether this finding holds true in studies
incorporating individuals of opposing cognitive styles has
yet to be determined.
49
Attribution and Cognitive Style (Field Dependence-
Independence)
Most of the research focusing on attribution has
centered around situational variables, outcomes, and
affects. That is, it has dealt with different
environments and outcomes which effect attributions as
well as emotional reactions which accompany the various
attributions. Very little research has dealt with
individual differences and their effect on causal
attributions in success and failure situations.
The studies that have addressed this issue of
attributional differences among specific groups or types
of individuals has included sex differences (Cole, King &
Newcomb, 1977; Crandall, 1969, 1978; Bar-Tal & Freize,
1977; Dweck & Gilliard, 1975; Dweck & Repucci, 1973;
Feather & Simon, 1975; Freize, Fischer, Hanusa, McHugh &
Valle, 1978; Gjesme, 1973; Nicholls, 1975), racial
differences (Friend & Neale, 1972; Lefcourt, 1970; Murray
& Mednick, 1975), and ethnic differences (Chandler,
Sharma, Wolf & Planchard, 1981; Dembo & Gurney, 1982; Fry
& Ghosh, 1980; Shaw & Iwawaki, 1972).
To date, this writer is unaware of any attributional
research which has studied the difference between subjects
of opposing cognitive styles. Further research is needed
to assess if significant attributional differences exist
50
between individuals who are of such cognitive styles as
field dependence-independence, introversion-extroversion,
or ref1ectivity-impulsivity. These and other individual
difference variables studied in conjunction with causal
attribution will not only further our knowledge in this
area but hopefully will also provide us with practical
implications for classroom settings.
Although the research studies previously mentioned,
dealing with various individual differences (primarily
sex, racial and ethnic), have contributed to our
understanding of attributional patterns, most of them do
not carry the findings further to also include situational
differences. Information on the types of attributional
responses characteristic of different individuals under
varying settings is not yet known. Individual differences
in attributional responses may exist for some groups only
in certain situations. Are individuals differentially
motivated based upon their own personal orientation and
situational preferences? The current study was developed
to respond to this need to investigate the relationship of
these variables; motivational-attributiona1 variations and
individual and situational differences.
51
Goal Structure and Cognitive Style
Several studies have investigated the interaction
between the field dependent-independent cognitive style
and various teaching methodologies. In a study with
undergraduates using high versus low levels of guidance as
the treatment groups (McLeod & Adams, 1979), no
significant interaction was reported with field
dependence-independence. Achievement (the dependent
variable) was significantly higher in the high guidance
group, however.
Treadgill (1979) using the achievement of seventh
graders as the dependent variable, also found no
significant interaction in her study using a discovery and
a didactic method of instruction. She recommended that
additional research consider alternative instructional
variables and criterion measures.
In a study with college students investigating
passive-responding and active-responding treatment groups
with field dependence-independence, Provost (1981)
reported no interactions of treatment and cognitive style.
The intent of the study was to compare a passive-
responding treatment in which the learner is exposed to
instruction that does not require overt participation and
an active-responding treatment in which the learner must
overtly interact with the subject matter. Further, "our
52
intent was to see whether during learning students of
different cognitive styles are affected by free recall or
recognition" (p. 164).
Ritchey and LaShier (1981) studied cognitive style’s
relationship with two methods of instruction using
information learning as the dependent variable. The
experimental group was given organizational schema for the
memorization of information, while the control group used
self-study units with no schema. The results showed no
significant interaction between the cognitive style and
educational treatment with the college students. Gorton
(1975) also reported no significant differences in
achievement of field-dependent and field-independent first
grade pupils in each of three teaching methodologies for
reading.
Another study examing the relationship of the field
dependent-independent cognitive style to different
teaching methodologies was conducted by MacNeil (1980).
Using college students and achievement scores MacNeil
studied field dependence-independence and expository and
discovery instructional styles. The discovery treatment
was characterized by verbalizing the generalizations being
taught as the terminal step in the instructional sequence,
low level of instructor guidance, and an emphasis on
student-centered presentation methods such as discussion,
53
role-playing, self-paced work and group problem solving.
The expository treatment, on the other hand, was
characterized by verbalizing the generalizations to be
taught as the initial step in the instructional sequence,
a high degree of instructor guidance, and an emphasis on
teacher-centered presentation methods, especially
lectures. The study revealed that differential effects
between cognitive style and instructional style did not
occur.
Shymansky and Yore (1980) investigated the
interaction of cognitive style and three methods of
discovery instruction; semi-deductive, structured
inductive, and hypo thetico-deductive. Findings indicated
that the field-independent college students achieved
significantly better in a semi-deductive strategy than did
field-dependent subjects. This strategy was not only the
most individualized instructional mode of the treatments
explored, it also had the least inherent structure built
into its design. These findings coincide with those of
Witkin el al. (1977) which reported that field-independent
subjects prefer greater isolation and social distance than
field dependent subjects, and, that they are better able
to provide their own organization and structure. Although
no significance was reported with the interaction of field
dependence, it should be mentioned that the structured
54
inductive and hypothetico-deductive strategies
incorporated group investigations with group planning and
discussions.
The research conducted by McLeod and Adams (1979,
1979-80) has investigated the field dependent-independent
cognitive style and small group versus individual
instruction with college students. These researchers
based their interactive hypotheses on cognitive style
theory which suggests that "field-dependent students
should learn more in a small group setting where greater
social skills would be an advantage" (p. 119). Further,
that the field-dependent student would indicate a more
positive attitude toward small group instruction while
field-independent students would prefer individual
instruction. Interaction was expected to occur in both
the assessment of achievement and in the student ratings.
When achievement was the dependent variable, there were
significant interactions with field-independence.
However, the researchers caution that the interaction
appeared to be due more to general ability than to
cognitive style. The authors discuss the problem in
distinguishing between field dependence and general
ability acknowledging the difficulty in producing the kind
of aptitude-treatment interaction that was predicted.
Although small group instruction did not assist learning
55
any more overall, students consistently (and
significantly) gave it higher ratings than individual
instruction. No interactions were reported with the
ratings and field dependence-independence.
This study by McLeod and Adams provides some useful
information in our understanding of the cooperative and
individualistic goal structures and field dependence-
independence. It is, however, in need of replication
under more experimentally controlled conditions and
utilizing a larger subject pool than fifty-three.
Additionally, as recommended by Threadgill (1979) further
research must consider other dependent variables beyond
achievement. It is with this in mind also that the
present research sought to further clarify this
relati onship.
Most of the studies cited in this section did not
find any significant trait-treatment interactions when
using achievement as the dependent variable. Perhaps
students have learned to adjust to our educational system
which does not take into account individual learning
environment preferences and which usually conducts most
learning in only one or two settings. (Additionally, it
should be remembered that studies have not shown any
differences in intelligence and/or student achievement
with regards to the field dependent-independent cognitive
56
style.) Perhaps trait-treatment interaction differences
would appear if other dependent variables, such as
attributions, were utilized. The current investigation
included such a variable, in an effort to provide more
insight into the relationship of cognitive style and goal
structure beyond its effect on acheivement.
Attribution, Goal Structure and Cognitive Style
Although this writer is unaware of the existence of
any studies relating all three of these variables, one
similar study is worth discussing. An investigation by
Dembo and Gurney, (1982) studied the causal attributions
for success and failure performances of students of
different ethnic origins under cooperative and
individualistic goal structures. Their findings revealed
differential attributions of the two student ethnic groups
under different goal structures. The data indicated that
Samoan-American junior high school students (N=48)
attributed their success more to ability and task
difficulty and made fewer ability attributions for failure
in a cooperative than individualisitic setting.
Conversely, the Korean-American (N=48) students attributed
their success more to ability and task difficulty and made
fewer ability attributions for failure in the
individualistic than cooperative setting. The Samoans
took greater responsibility for success in the cooperative
57
setting, while the Koreans took greater responsibility for
success in the individualistic setting. Additionally,
each ethnic group responded differently to failure in the
two goal structures, i.e., the Samoans were less likely to
blame themselves for failure in the cooperative setting,
while the Koreans were less likely in the individualistic
setting. Contrary to prediction, the attributional
differences between groups appeared in the stability
(ability and task difficulty) rather than internal
(ability and effort) dimensions of Weiner’s (1974) model
of attributions. The researchers conclude by indicating
that the findings of Ames and Ames (1981) and Ames and
Felker (1979) that individualistic settings foster a sense
of personal responsibility not found in cooperative
structures, or that success in a competitive setting
elicits higher ability attributions than in a cooperative
setting, respectively, may not be supported with subjects
from diverse ethnic groups. This study demonstrates the
existence of attributional differences of indivduals of
different orientations under varying settings.
As mentioned, the study presented here sought to
further this line of research utilizing cognitive style
rather than ethnicity as the determinant of student
differences. While helpful, the study by Dembo and Gurney
cannot be directly applied to our study of cognitive style
58
differences. We might be able to conclude that
attributional differences should be present but we are
unable to predict what those attributional differecnes
might be. As of yet, research has not provided us with
information as to whether or not a significant and/or
differential relationship does, in fact, exist between
cognitive style, goal structure and attribution. The
purpose of the current investigation, therefore, was to
attempt to discover if a differential relationship existed
between the attributions of subjects of different
cognitive styles under goal structures similar and
dissimilar to their orientation. Research findings
focusing on this relationship should prove helpful to
educational settings in an effort to maximize students’
emotional and academic development.
Development of Research Questions
The answers to two research questions were sought in
the proposed investigation after overviewing and reviewing
the related research in the areas of attributions, goal
structure, and cognitive style.
The first question was developed from the review of
research on the field dependent-independent cognitive
style which overwhelming stated fieId-dependento’
preference for social situations and fieId-independents’
preference for working autonomously. It was therefore
59
questioned whether field-dependent subjects would report a
greater liking for the cooperative task structure while
field-independent subjects would indicate a preference for
the individualistic goal structure. Whether or not field
dependent-independent subjects indicate differential
preferences would serve as partial foundation for the
second question.
Research question # 2 was developed after reviewing
research examining the interrelationships between
cognitive style, attributions and goal structure and was
also based upon subjects goal structure preferences. If
differential preferences do, in fact , exist, then would
there also be differences in motivaton? If motivation
increases with one’s situational and task preferences,
would individuals with opposing preferences demonstrate
different motivation and causal attributions? Therefore,
this research queston sought to examine the existence of
differential attributional response patterns between
field-dependent and field-independent subjects under the
two goal structures under investigation. No specific j
1
attributional differences could be infered from previous }
I
related research. Previous research studies found j
differences in attributional responses of individuals }
I
under different goal structures (refer to the Ames’
studies), and, of individuals of various groups (refer to
60
the section on attribution and cognitive style/individual
differences). The question asked here was developed in
line with those studies. Would different attributions be
given for success and failure for individuals of different
cognitive styles under goal structures similar and
dissimilar to their orientation/preference? What kind of
causal attributions would be cited? In summary, are
individuals of opposing cognitive styles differentially
motivated under different environments? These are but a
few of the questions that the current investigation
attempted to answer.
61
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Sub.i ect s
The subjects were 184 male undergraduate college
students from introductory psychology courses (and one
sociology class) at various colleges and universities in
the southern California area. (For a listing of schools,
see Appendix A.) From the initial group of 184 students,
42 were excluded due to age (over 28), scoring neutral on
the test of field dependence, incorrect completion of the
dependent measure, or, lack of facility with the English
language. From the 142 remaining, another 54 were
randomly deleted from various cells for the purpose of
analyzing cells with equal Ns. The final N was 88 or 11
per cell. Subjects were either required to participate in
research as part of their course design, or, received
extra credit for signing up. Research sessions were
offered on numerous dates and times and students were free
to sign-up for involvement according their own schedule.
The subjects (N=88) ranged in age from 18-28 with the
majority (N=74) being 18-22 years old. Those 18-24 years
old encompassed 94.3% of the subjects. All subjects were
undergraduates, with most (N=67 or 80%) being freshmen and
sophomores. One-fourth of the subjects (N=22) stated
62
their major as ’undeclared', while 16% (N=14) indicated
’Business’ and 10% (N=9) were ’Communications’ majors.
The remaining subjects (N=43) were spread amongst 26
different majors. The majority of the subjects were
Causcasian (N=61 or 73.5%), with Hispanic (N-10 or 12%)
and Oriental (N=7 or 8.4%) students representing the two
next largest ethnic groups.
The research study used only male subjects in an
effort to obtain data not influenced by sex interactions
and due to the fact that the independent measure has been
shown to be more accurate with males than with females.
Measures
Two measures were administered in this research: a
measure of field dependence-independence (the independent
measure assessing cognitive style) and a questionnaire
identifying student preferences and attributions (the
dependent measure).
Independent Measure. The Group Embedded Figures Test
(GEFT) was used to determine students’ cognitive style
orientation. The GEFT, designed by Oltman, Raskin and
Witkin, assessed its validity by means of criterion
measures. The correlation of the GEFT with its "parent"
form of the test, the individually administered Embedded
Figures Test (EFT), was -.82 for males and -.63 for
females. (The correlations are negative because the tests
63
are scored in reverse fashion.) Another measure of
psychological differentiation, the degree of articulation
of the body concept (ABC) was also used as a criterion
measure and correlated with the GEFT. Male subjects'
scores between the ABC and the GEFT recorded a .71
correlation while female subjects' scores correlated at
.55.
Reliability was assessed with internal consistency by
using the split-half method, corrected by the Spearman-
Brown prophecy formula. The first (9-item) section of the
GEFT was correlated with the second (9-item) section,
producing a reliability estimate of .82 for both males and
females.
The norms given indicate college student scores for
each quartile and are to be limited to college age
populations. Unfortunately, no further information was
provided on the type of college population normed.
Further, beyond the presentation of the norm quartile
scores, the GEFT manual does not provide any basis for
determining whether an individual is either field-
dependent or field-independent. MacNeil (1980), in a
study on field dependence-independence and various
teaching styles, categorized those above and below the
medium as being either field-dependent or field-
independent. In another, more conservative study, Ritchey
64
and LaShier (1981), subjects scoring in the top third were
classified as field-independent while those scoring in the
lower third were categorized as field-dependent. These
two studies represent extremes with regards to the
determination of field dependence. For the purpose of
this study, information on GEFT scores was gathered from a
recent study conducted at a southern California university
(Errico, 1984) and combined with the normative data from
the GEFT manual to determine the scores for field
dependence-independence.
The GEFT consists of two sets of nine figures in
which the individual must find and trace a smaller, simple
embedded figure in the larger, more complex figure. A
practice set of seven simple figures is provided before
actual scoring of the test begins. Subjects are given
five minutes to complete each set of nine figures. Scores
are determined by the number of embedded figures correctly
found and traced and may range from 0-18. For this
research, field-dependent subjects were those completing
11 or less of the figures whereas field-independent
subjects were those able to find 14 or more of the
embedded figures. (Those scores deleted (used as neutral
cooperative task members) represent the upper and lower
thirds of the middle quartiles for men.)
Although additional research is still needed to
65
further validate this construct, and more norming data
must be developed, those critiquing the test cite its
usefulness in screening subjects on the construct for
research purposes.
Dependent Measure. The attribution measure used in
this study was the structured independent unipolar rating
method. This method allows subjects to indicate the level
of importance of each specific causal factor. Elig and
Freize (1979), in their article evaluating various methods
of measuring causal attributions, stated that, "there are
multiple criteria for selection of a measure, but many of
them would lead to the use of the scale (unipolar) measure
for attribution research" (p. 633). They further stated
that scale measures have good face validity and do not
force intercorrelations among attributions (as does the
ipsative/percentage method). As a result, for the
purposes of this research, the scale or independent
unipolar ratings method was selected as the most useful
and informative.
On this attribution measure subjects were asked to
rate on a likert scale (one to seven) how much they felt
each of the causal factors (ability/smart, effort/amount
tried, task difficulty/hard to solve, and luck)
contributed to their outcome (success or failure). (A
copy of this measure is included in Appendix B.) A rating
66
of one indicated that the subject felt he was not very
smart, didn’t try very hard, the task wasn’t difficult, or
that he was not very lucky. A rating of seven conveyed
that the subject considered himself to be smart, his
effort to be great (tried very hard), the task to be
difficult, or himself to be very lucky.
Additional questions on the measure gathered
information on the subjects’ attitudes or liking
of/preference for the treatment situation (cooperative or
individualistic). The students were asked to indicate the
extent to which they liked working as they did (alone or
in a group), if they thought the outcome would have been
different if they had worked in the other treatment
situation, which type of situation they generally prefer,
and, if they worked in the cooperative treatment, how well
they thought the group worked together on the task and how
much they personally contributed to the group while
working on the task. This information was also gathered
with the use of a likert scale of one to seven.
Task
For the purpose of this study a synonym task was
developed by the researcher. Subjects were given a list
of 25 capitalized words each with four words in smaller
print to the right. They were then asked to circle the
word in the four that was closest in definition similarity
67
to the word with bold letters in the left hand column.
The synonym task was chosen in an attempt to create
as unbiased a task as possible taking into ac.roimf the
differences between field-dependent and field-independent
individuals. The use of anagrams was initially desired
until recent unpublished research (Frank & Noble, 1983)
indicated field-independent subjects are more easily able
to put structure and therefore complete anagrams. This
research, however, included a prior vocabulary test for
investigating initial differences among the cognitive
styles and found no significant difference between field-
dependent and field-independent students. Additionally,
their research sought to examine differences in the use of
social versus non-social words with field dependent-
independent subjects. Their findings indicated that the
"socialness" of a word did not interact with field
dependence. With this information in mind, a
vocabulary/synonym task was developed.
Words were selected from the dictionary somewhat
randomly although care was taken so that some words would
be common to most subjects. Synonyms were selected for
the capitalized, bold words with the use of both a
dictionary and a thesarus. Additional words were then
chosen to serve as the incorrect choices. A copy of the
synonym task sheet may be found in Appendix C.
68
Success and failure outcomes on the task were
experimentally manipulated. Subjects were told that
success and failure were based upon "average college
student scores" and yet were not told what the actual
scores were for determining success and failure. Subjects
turned in the task sheet upon completion and then were
seated and waited while the researcher scored it. Prior
categorization of subjects according to the GEFT allowed
the researcher to previously randomly assign subjects to
success and failure outcomes even before the synonym task
was actually taken. As a result, the researcher pretended
to correct the task sheet, circled the subject’s/group’s
outcome (success or failure) on the dependent measure
questionnaire and then returned it (keeping the synonym
task sheet).
Procedure
Research sessions were conducted at various times and
locations (see Appendix A) over a period of 12 weeks.
Students were previously informed that the experiment
would take approximately one hour and would be limited to
20 students. The announced title of the research was
"Students’ Reactions to Working Alone and in Groups".
After a brief introduction and explanation, the GEFT was
administered. Upon completion, subjects were given a 10-
15 minute break and told not to discuss the test. During
69
this break, the researcher hand scored the GEFT,
categorizing subjects according to the number of correctly
traced embedded figures and placing them into three
groups; field-dependent, neutral, field-independent.
Subjects were then randomly assigned to treatment group
(cooperative or individualistic) and outcome (success or
failure).
Cooperative groups consisted of one field dependent
student, one neutral student, and one field-independent
student (on a few occasions, low scoring FI subjects and
high scoring FD subjects were used as nuetral group
members). Subjects in the cooperative setting worked
together on one synonym task sheet, consulting with each
other on the possible answers. Previous research
utilizing the cooperative setting (see the studies by
Ames, and Ames and associates) determined group success or
failure on a total composite score of each member's
individually achieved score, rather than having the
outcome based on the working together toward a common goal
(more in alignment with the definition of a cooperative
goal structure). This method of working cooperatively on
the task was used in order to maximize the cooperativeness
of the treatment. Although outspoken members could have
influenced group liking/preference for the work situation,
it was believed that the nature of the task assisted in
70
eliminating any undesireable effects.
Those subjects assigned to the individualistic
structure were each given a synonym task sheet to complete
by themselves without discussing it with anyone else.
Upon completion of the task and feedback as to the
outcome (success or failure), subjects completed the
attribution and affect questionnaire. Data from each
individual was collected and placed together with others
of the same cognitive style in the same treatment and
outcome condition. Research sessions were conducted until
a minimum of eleven subjects were obtained for each cell
of the 2X2X2 research design*
Statistical Procedures
An experimental 2X2X2 factorial design was
utilized to permit factorial analysis of variance for
scores on each of the dependent variables (attribution
measures). The three factors in the design included the
randomly assigned treatment of outcome (success/failure)
and goal structure (cooperative/individualistic) and the
trait or cognitive style (field dependence-independence).
Each cell contained eleven subjects. Additional dependent
variables measuring subjects’ affects for the goal
structure treatment were also gathered and analyzed.
Table 3*1 illustrates the research design.
71
TABLE 3.1
Research Design
Field-Dependent Field-Independent
Goal Structure Success Failure Success Failure
Individualistic N = 11 N = 11 N = 11 N = 11
(Worked Alone)
Cooperative N = 11 N = 11 N = 11 N = 11
(Worked in a Group)
Pilot Study
A Pilot Study was conducted to establish procedures
and to seek to eliminate any potential problems in the
methodology. Sixty-two male and female undergraduate
students participated in five research sessions. As
mentioned earlier, originally, anagrams were to be
utilized. Anagram difficulty and average latency of
solutions were previously determined through individual
testing of random students on a university campus.
Different anagram task sheets were developed for success
and failure outcomes, some including much more difficult
anagrams and others easier ones. The Pilot Study
demonstrated a lack of outcome control (success and
failure) with the use of anagrams due to the fact that
some students (perhaps field-independent students)
naturally did better and therefore solved more anagrams.
The use of synonyms was therefore selected because of the
control it provided in giving success and failure
feedback, and because synonyms were viewed as being less
72
biased toward either field-dependent or field-independent
students. The Pilot Study was helpful in finalizing the
task, the procedures and the space/environment needed to
adequately conduct the research
73
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The effect of cooperative and individualistic goal
structures on the preferences and attributions of field-
dependent and field-independent male college students was
studied. This chapter presents results related to the
research questions, the compiled data (group means and
standard deviations), significant research findings for
each dependent measure (attitudes/preferences and
attributions), and a discussion.
Results
Research Question #1. It was questioned whether
field-dependent individuals would report a preference for
the cooperative goal structure while field-independent
subjects would indicate a preference for the
individualistic goal structure. Findings supported this
question, JF ( 1,80) = 5.07, 2 . ^ «05, indicating that
subjects of these opposing cognitive styles demonstrated
differences in their preference of work situations.
Field-dependent subjects, whether succeeding or failing,
significantly preferred the cooperative setting whereas,
field-independent subjects overall significantly preferred
the individualistic goal structure.
Research Question #2. It was asked if subjects would
74
report differential attributional responses under the goal
structure similar and dissimilar to their cognitive style
preference. Findings from this research only partially
supported this question. No significant interactions were
reported with regards to the attributions of ability,
effort and task difficulty. A significant two-way
interaction was reported, however, with regards to the
luck attribution, JF ( 1 , 80) = 5. 33 , < .05. When in the
goal structure preferred by their cognitive style
orientation, subjects reported that they felt
significantly ’luckier’ than when in the goal structure
dissimilar to their preference. Field-dependent subjects
felt ’luckier’ in the cooperative setting whereas field-
independent subjects felt ’luckier’ in the individualistic
goal structure.
According to the attribution model, luck is an
external, unstable causal attribution for success and
failure. Whereas luck attributions are viewed as positive
after failure (not self-defeating), they represent
feelings of lack of personal control after success (which
may enforce self-derogative affects). It is interesting
to note that when blocked for success and failure, a
significant interaction remained (2 < .05) for those in
the success outcome but did not exist for those in the
failure outcome. That is, those succeeding individuals
75
felt luckier in the goal structure related to their
cognitive style preference whereas those individuals who
failed did not report any preferential response. The
researcher believes that this finding needs further
clarification and could be a response to the brevity
or/and difficulty of the task. The probable reason for
the interaction was not clear.
Group Data: Means and Standard Deviations
Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 present the data means and
standard deviations for each group for each dependent
variable (each question on the dependent measure).
Table 4.1 contains information on the measures of
attribution. ’Ability’ refers to the amount of ability
the subject indicated he possessed (How smart do you think
you were in solving the synonyms?). ’Effort’ refers to
the amount of effort the individual stated that he
exhibited (How hard did you try to solve the synonyms?).
’Task Difficulty’ is used to represent the amount to which
the subject thought the task to be difficult (How hard do
you think the synonyms were to solve?). ’Luck’ represents
the amount to which the participant attributes his outcome
to good or bad luck (How lucky do you think you were in
solving the synonyms?).
76
TABLE 4.1
Group Means and Standard Deviations
for the Attribution Measures
Ability Effort Task
Difficulty
Luck
FD-S-A M 4.18 5.18 5.0 3.18
SD 1.47 0.87 0.89 1.17
FD-F-A M 3.27 4.73 4.82 2.36
SD 0.91 0.91 1.47 1.29
FI-S-A M 4.82 5.09 4.73 4.64
SD 1.17 1.64 1.74 1.12
FI-F-A M 3.36 4.09 5.0 2.46
SD 1.21 1.58 1.0 1.21
FD-S-G M 5.37 5.73 4.73 3.64
SD 0.81 1.19 1.01 1.63
FD-F-G M 4.27 5.18 4.91 3.2
SD 1.19 0.87 1.05 1.62
Fl-S-G M 5.46 5.36 5.09 3.0
SD 0.93 1.57 1.37 1.41
FI-F-G M 4.73 3.91 5.36 2.73
SD 1.10 1 .58 0.81 1.27
Note. FD=PJi e ld“JDep e nd en t subjects; FI= ^ield-
J^ndependent subjects; S=^uccess outcome;
F=Failure outcome; A=Individualistic
goal structure (worked ^1 one); G = Coop-
erative structure (worked in a G^roup)
Each attribution measure/question provided
respondents with a one to seven likert scale answering
option. A response of 1 (one) represented: not very smart
(low ability), didn’t try hard (low personal effort), task
not difficult, and, not very lucky; whereas a 7 (seven)
represented: smart (high ability), tried very hard (high
personal effort), task very difficult, and, very lucky.
77
(The dependent measure, as mentioned, may be referred to
in Appendix B.)
Group means and standard deviations for. the goal
structure attitude measures are cited in Table 4.2.
’Liking’ refers to the rating subjects gave their goal
structure. A one means that they did not like working as
they did (either alone or in a cooperative group) and a
seven signifies that they liked the goal structure alot.
’Different Outcome’ is used to represent the question
that gathered information as to whether or not the
subjects felt that their outcome (success or failure)
would have been different had they been in the other work
situation. That is, if a subject in the individualistic
structure felt that he would have done better or worse
(depending upon his outcome) had he been in the
cooperative structure and vice versa. If the student felt
that the other setting would definitely not have changed
his outcome, he would indicate by circling a lower number
on the likert scale. A higher number would indicate that
the other goal structure setting, in the opinion of the
respondent, would definitely have produced a different
outcome.
’Preferred Situation’ refers to a forced-choice
question in which respondents were asked, ’’Which situation
do you generally prefer most of the time?". Subjects
78
circled either ’working alone’ (represented by 1), or,
’working in a group’ (represented by a 2).
TABLE 4.2
Group Means and Standard Deviations
for the Attitude Measures
Liking Different Preferred
Outcome Situation
FD-S-A M 5.0 3.36 1.27
SD 0.77 1.12 0.47
FD-F-A M 4.64 4.91 1. 4
SD 0.81 0.7 0.52
FI-S-A M 4.55 3.64 1.27
SD 1.04 2.2 0.47
FI-F-A M 4.82 4.18 1.27
SD 1. 6 1. 72 0.47
FD-S-G M 5.45 3.36 1 .27
SD 1.13 1.36 0.47
FD—F—G M 5.55 4.0 1.64
SD 0.82 1 . 48 0.5
FI-S-G M 4.64 2.91 1.27
SD 0.81 1.14 0.47
FI-F-G M 3.64 5.0 1.36
SD 2.11 1.67 0.5
Note. FD=FJield“^ependent subjects; FI = FJield-
independent subjects; S=iuccess outcome;
F=Failure outcome; A=Individualistic goal
structure (worked _Alone); G=Cooperative
goal structure (worked in a Group)
Table 4.3 presents cooperative structure attitude
data from the last two questions or dependent variables.
Only those (N=44) who worked on the task in the
cooperative goal structure answered these questions.
79
’Group Cooperation’ is used to represent the degree to
which the subject felt that the group in which he was
linked cooperated (’worked together’) on the task. The
lower numbers indicate that the group did not work
together very well, whereas higher numbers on the one to
seven likert scale indicate that the group worked together
’very well’.
Lastly, ’Personal Contribution’ refers to the amount
of personal involvement the individual ackowledges he had.
Lower numbers mean the individual ’contributed very
little’ whereas higher numbers signify a greater personal
cont ribut ion.
TABLE 4.3
Means and Standard Deviations
for Group Attitude Measures
Group Personal
Coopérât ion____Contribution
FD-S-G M 6.45 5.27
SD 0.69 1.0
FD—F—G M 6.0 4.9
SD 0.82 0.88
FI-S-G M 5.82 5.73
SD 1.08 0.9
FI-F-G M 4.55 4.36
SD 1.44 1.43
Note. FD=Fleld-Dependent subject; FI=Field-
^ndependent subjects; S =^uccess
outcome; F=Failure outcome; G= Coop
erative goal structure (worked in a
Group)
80
Significant Findings: Attributions
Ability. Several significant findings occured in the
area of ability attributions. As would be expected, those
who failed rated their ability significantly lower than
those who succeeded, EJ (1, 80) = 18-62, 2 ^ .000.
Additionally, another main effect was found with subjects
working in the cooperative structure. These individuals
rated their abilities significantly higher, _F (1,80) =
19.09, 2 ^ .000, than did those in the individualistic
structure. No significance was reported with regards to
two way interactions.
Effort. Two main effects were found to be
significant with regards to the attribution of effort.
Subjects in the success treatment indicated that they
'tried harder’ than subjects in the failure condition, F_
(1, 80) = 9.27, 2 ^ .005. Stated conversely, those who
failed attributed the failure more to lack of effort than
did those who succeeded.
Another main effect occured with field dependence-
independence. Field-dependent students overall, whether
succeeding or failing, reported higher effort attributions
than did the field-independent students, 2 (1 * 8 0) = 4. 29 ,
2 < .05. Field-dependent individuals view themselves as
trying harder than did those who were field-independent.
81
Task Difficulty. No significant main effects or
interactions were reported by students attributing their
outcome to the ease or difficulty of the task.
Luck. As would be expected, a main effect for
success and failure was reported. Subjects who failed
considered themselves not as lucky as those who succeeded,
F (1, 80) = 10.58, 2 < .005.
Additionally, significant two way interactions were
found between success/failure and goal structure, and
between group structure and field dependence. Those
succeeding and working alone overall rated themselves as
'luckier’ than those succeeding and working in a group, 2
(1, 80) = 3.98, 2 ^ .05. (Although significance was
reported overall, it was not true for field-dependent
subjects. See group means in table 4.1.) Conversely,
those who failed alone rated themselves to be not as lucky
as those who failed in a group.
The two-way interaction between goal structure and
field dependence indicated that field-dependent subjects
working in groups considered themselves ’luckier’ than
their field-independent counterparts in the same goal
structure. Conversely, field-independent students working
alone considered themselves ’luckier’ than field-dependent
students also working alone, 2 (1 * 8 0) = 5.33, 2 ^ *05.
82
Significant Findings; Attitudes
"Liking". Subjects were asked to rate on the likert
scale of one to seven their liking for the goal structure
under which they completed the synonym task. A main
effect was reported between field-dependent and field-
independent students. Field-dependent students overall
liked their situations more than did the field-independent
students regardless of group structure, 2 (1 * 8 0) = 8. 64 ,
2 < .005.
A two-way interaction between goal structure and
field dependence was reported at the 2 ^ .05 level of
significance, 2 (1 » 8 0) = 5 .07 . As hypothesized, field-
dependent subjects preferred the cooperative setting over
the individualistic structure whereas field-independent
subjects preferred working alone rather than working in a
group.
"Different Outcome". If students felt that their
success or failure outcome would have been different had
they been in the opposite goal structure they would
indicate by circling a higher number on the likert scale.
If not, a lower number was circled. A significant main
effect was found with success and failure, 2 (1 * 8 0) =
13.41, 2 .000. Those who failed reported that they felt
their outcome would have been different (they would
probably have succeeded) had they been in the other goal
83
structure. That is, those failing in the cooperative
setting felt that the individualisitc setting might have
led to a success outcome and those failing in the
individualistic structure indicated that the group setting
might have led to a success outcome significantly more
than those succeeding (whether working alone or in a
group) felt that the other setting would have contributed
to failure.
"P refe rence." No significant results were reported
with the forced-choice question on general goal structure
preference. Additionally, subjects occasionally voiced
confusion as to this question.
"Group Cooperation". Subjects in the cooperative
setting were asked to rate the degree to which they felt
their group had cooperated together on the task. Main
effects were reported for both success and failure and
field dependence-independence. Those in success groups
reported that the group worked together better than those
who failed, 2 ( 1 ,40) = 7 . 42 , 2 *01. That is, those in
the cooperative setting who failed attributed part of the
failure to the fact that the group did not work together
very well.
Additionally, field-dependent subjects rated group
cooperation higher than did field-independent stubjects, 2
(1,40) = 10.42, 2 ^ .005. Field-dependent individuals
84
felt that the group worked together better than those who
were field-independent.
"Personal Contribution". Individuals in the group
setting were asked to indicate the amount of their
personal contribution to the group. A main effect was
reported with success and failure, 2 (1, 40) = 7.08, 2 ^
.01. Individuals in groups that succeeded took greater
responsibility for the outcome (indicating that they had
contributed more) than did those who were in groups that
failed. Or, in other words, those in failure groups
indicated that they had contributed less with the
cooperative task, thereby taking less responsibility for
the failure outcome.
Discus sion
Several findings seemed to further verify field-
dependent subjects’ social orientation. As questioned,
field-dependent subjects demonstrated a greater liking for
the cooperative setting (working with other people) over
the individualistic setting (working alone). Also, field-
dependent individuals rated group cooperation
significantly higher than did field-independent subjects.
Field-dependent individuals, whether succeeding or
failing, indicated that the group worked together better
than did their field-independent counterparts.
One result found in this trait-treatment interaction
85
study supported previous findings demonstrating the
positive effect of the cooperative goal structure. A main
effect was reported with regards to the attribution of
ability, 2 (1 * 8 0) = 19.1, 2 ^ .001. Those subjects in
the cooperative setting, whether succeeding or failing,
indicated that they felt significantly smarter than did
subjects in the individualistic setting.
A study by Ames (1981) cautioned that while
successful groups may increase children's self-concept of
ability, the failing group may have substantial negative
consequences for children’s behavior. The present study,
however, did not include an investigation of and feedback
on disproportions^ contributions. Therefore, these
’negative consequences’ would not apply. Ames’ study
found the highest ability attributions from those
succeeding and working individually (competitively). The
current study presented here did not support these latter
findings by Ames but found that whether succeeding or
failing, individuals working in a group rated themselves
to be ’smarter’ (higher in ability) than did those
subjects working alone. In fact, the mean ability
attribution scores of those in failing groups was
approximately the same as those succeeding alone (FD-F-G:
M=4.27; FI-F-G: M=4.73 as compared to FD-S-A: 2"4.18; FI-
S-A: M=4.82). In other words, those who failed in a
86
cooperative setting reported feeling as smart as those who
succeeded in the individualistic setting. For further
reference see Table 4.1.
As mentioned earlier, an interesting two-way
interaction was reported with regards to the luck
attribution. Subjects felt ’luckier’ in the goal
structure related to their cognitive style. That is, when
field-dependent subjects are not in the cooperative
setting, they felt less ’lucky’ than when in the
cooperative setting. Field-independent subjects, on the
other hand, felt less ’lucky’ in the cooperative setting
than in the individualisitc setting. Research by Ames and
Ames (1981) which studied attributions of elementary
chldren in the competitive and individualistic structures
found that in the competitive structure success and
failure were attributed more to luck. This finding was
contrary to earlier studies which found competitive
structures to lead to ability attributions. Both this
finding and that of the present study demonstrate the need
for future research to clarify this relationship between
goal structure and and the luck attribution.
In summary, this research supported previous studies
in the area of cognitive style, specifically, field
dependence-independence, which reported different
situational preferences. Attributional research was also
87
supported with regards to individuals’ responses to
success and failure. Investigations on goal structure
were partially confirmed by this study with regards to the
overall main effect of individuals’ ability attribution in
the cooperative setting as mentioned earlier. Various
findings in this current investigation, therefore,
supported research in each of the three areas.
Additionally, several interacitons were reported between
the areas. Most relevant to the present study, findings
did support the research question asking if cognitive
style goal structure preferences would exist. These
preferences did not, however, lead to motivational
interactional differences (as indicated by attributional
response differences).
88
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Educational researchers have become increasingly
aware of the need to study the effects of various teaching
methods on the individual characteristics of the learner.
Practitioners desire to provide classroom environments and
instructional strategies which assist the variety of
student needs and learning styles. Research on individual
differences has repeatedly shown that people differ in the
way they process information. Researchers are studying
these differences in learning styles under different
teaching methodologies in an effort to determine under
which settings student motivation best occurs.
The research presented here examined students of two
different cognitive styles (learning styles) under two
different classroom environments. Outcomes under
investigation included both student beliefs about success
and failure (causal attributions) and student preferences
and attitudes. More specifically, the effects of the
cooperative and individualistic goal structures on the
preferences and attributions of field-dependent and field-
independent college s tud ent s was studied in an effort to
assist educational practitioners in the identification of
89
classroom environments most conducive to the development
of students of different learning styles.
This chapter will present a summary of the findings
related to the research questions, include future
recommendations, and, provide a conclusion of the
inves tigation.
Summary of Research Results
Research Question #1. It was questioned whether
subjects would indicate a greater preference for the goal
structure similar to their cognitive style orientation.
Would field-dependent subjects prefer the cooperative
learning structure while field-independent subjects would
indicate a greater liking for the individualistic goal
structure? In support of this research question, as well
as previous research (Witkin & Goodenough, 1977; Witkin,
Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977), the findings of this
investigation confirmed the fact that field-dependent
individuals prefer social and/or group situations while
fieId-indpendent individuals prefer more autonomous and
less social environments.
Research Question #2. The second research question
was developed in response to research reporting
differential attributional responses of individuals in
various settings (refer to the studies by Ames and
associates) and of subjects of differing groups (utilizing
90
sex, racial and ethnic differences). It was asked whether
differential attributiona1 response patterns would also
exist between indivduals of opposing cognitive styles
under goal structures similar and dissimilar to their
cognitive style preference. Findings indicated that
differential responses did not necessarily exist for
individuals of opposing cognitive style orientations. No
significant interactions were reported with regards to the
attributions of ability, effort and task difficulty. A
significant two-way interaction was reported, however,
with the luck attribution, ( 1 , 80) = 5.33 , 2 . ^ «03.
When in the goal structure prefered by their cognitive
style orientation subjects reported higher 'luck'
attributions than when in the situation opposite their
preference. That is, field-dependent subjects felt
'luckier' in the cooperative setting than in the
individualistic setting while field-independent subjects
reported feeling 'luckier' in the individualistic setting
as opposed to the cooperative setting. Possible
explanations for this finding are unclear. The author
cautions that this finding is in need of replication and
recommends that future research utilize a longer and less
difficult task.
Unrelated to the research questions, an interesting
finding was reported with regards to the ability
91
attribution. Individuals within the cooperative structure
attributed greater personal ability under all conditions
and cognitive styles than their counterparts in the
individualisitic setting. Subjects in the cooperative
setting rated themselves to be ’smarter’ than did subjects
in the individualistic setting. This finding partially
supports previous research (Johnson & Johnson, 1974) which
cites the overall benefits of the cooperative setting for
students in general.
The two basic questions addressed in this research
were: 1). Do individuals of opposing cognitive styles
prefer different classroom environments?, and, 2). If such
preferences exist, do they lead to differential
motivational-attributional response patterns? Research
findings confirmed indivduals preference for one situation
over another but did not substantiate motivational
differences reflected in attributional response patterns.
The majority of the studies reviewed which examined the
relationship of cognitive style (field dependence) and
various classroom methodologies did not report any
achievement differences. This study furthered this
understanding to include findings that differences also do
not occur with regards to students’ causal attributions.
This finding, however, is in need to replication. Future
research should re-examine these relationships correcting
92
for weaknesses of the present study
Future Recommendations
1. Further research is needed with other types of
tasks, to either validate or invalidate the findings
presented here.
2. Future research should utilize a longer task time.
One of the limitations of this study dealt with the amount
of time needed to complete the synonym task which provided
success and failure outcome feedback. After taking the
GEFT (which takes approximately 20 minutes), subjects
needed only 4-5 minutes for completion of the synonym
task. Due to the fact that investment time in the task
was brief, the importance/credibility of the task feedback
was minimized. Additionally, students occasionally asked
for clarification as to whether or not the dependent
measure questionnaire was to be answered with regards to
how they did on the GEFT or as to how they performed on
the synonym task thus indicating some confusion and/or an
interaction of outcomes.
3. Although a success task was administered to all
subjects after taking the GEFT (in an effort to counteract
the negative/failure affects of the field-dependent
individuals who were not able to find many of the embedded
figures), it is not known how much the GEFT outcome
affected the subjects. Verbal comments made by those
93
finding few of the embedded figures reflected feelings of
inferiority, shame, stupidity,... at not being able to
perform better on the GEFT. The researcher, did, however,
repeatedly mention throughout the research sessions that
the GEFT was only a test of perception and that it was in
no way related to intelligence. Although perhaps there
was a cognitive awareness of the lack of relationship
between the GEFT score and intelligence, there still
seemed to exist the negative affects related to a sense of
failure. Those field-dependent subjects in the failure
outcome may have inflated attributions due to double
feelings of failure. Whereas, those field-independent
subjects in the failure condition may not reflect
attributions from the synonym task failure only because
positive affects from successful completion of the
embedded figures may have interacted. Similar future
studies should further attempt to counteract this affect
by either developing a longer task or by lengthening the
lag time between the administration of the GEFT and the
success and failure task outcomes.
4. Maehr’s (1978) concerns with the cultural-
conceptual issues of motivation are relevant with regards
to each individual’s perception of task importance.
Another weakness of the present study was that it was not
as clearly stated to the subjects that success and failure
94
were based upon "average male college student scores" as
should have been emphasized. Subjects may not have felt
as compelled to succeed due to lack of a tangible reward
or lack of importance of task success (which was also a
concern cited in some of the Ames studies). The amount of
perceived task attainment importance is individually
determined and can interact not only with cognitive style
but also with environment (goal structure). Future
studies might seek to investigate this area of
attributional differences and perceived task attainment
impo rtance.
5. Further research is needed to study the luck
attribution trait-treatment interaction. Findings from
the present study seem to indicate that when in the
situation most similar to one's cognitive style
individuals consider themselves luckier than in situations
dissimilar to their style. Previous research has not
indicated this finding.
Conclusion
Findings from the current investigation confirmed
previous research which has indiciated cognitive style
preferences with regards to situational-environmental
differences. Attributional differences under different
structures, however, were not found. Studies over the
past few years have focused mainly on the relationship
95
between goal structure and attribution, on individual
difference preferences, and also on individual differences
and attributions but have not investigated the
relationship between the three areas.
The present research combined these variables in an
effort to determine if differential motivational responses
(as measured by attributions) existed for individuals of
different cognitive styles (individual difference) under
goal structures preferred by them. As reported, these
attributional differences were not found except with
regards to the luck attribution.
Results of the present investigation have added to
our understanding of some of these relationships. One
finding demonstrated the connectedness of cognitive style
and situational preferences. Other findings did not show
a relationship between cognitive style and attribution nor
attribution and goal structure. Perhaps future research
should, therefore, focus on these two relationships.
Past research on the relationship between goal
structure and attribution has reported several significant
findings with regards to differential responses of
subjects under different structures. Studies examining
individual differences, (specifically, field dependence),
and liking for different environments, have repeatedly
found situational preferences. Results from
96
investigations of individual differences (generally sex,
racial and/or ethnic differences and not cognitive style
differences) and attribution have also generally
demonstrated differential attribution response patterns
for the groups under investigation*
There is a need to investigate individual differences
and attributions beyond sex, racial and ethnic groups, by
using cognitive style. Additionally, research is needed
which further examines the relationship between cognitive
style and various classroom environments. This research
can assist in clarifying which structures are most
beneficial to students in general, that is, considering
students of all cognitive styles corporately. Lastly, as
mentioned earlier, a closer look is needed to examine
motivational differences of students of various groups
(cognitive styles, ethnic origins).
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvarez, C. M., & Pader, 0. F. (1979). Cooperative and
competitive behavior of Cuban-American and Anglo-
American children. The Journal of Psychology, 101,
265-27 1.
Ames, C. (1978). Children's achievement attribution and
self-reinforcement: Effects of self-concept and
competitive reward structure. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 7 0 , 345-355.
Ames, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward
structures: The influenece of individual and group
performance factors on achievement attributions and
affect. American Educational Research Journal, 18,
(3), 273-287.
Ames, C., Ames, R., & Felker, D. (1977). Effects of
competitive reward structure and valence of outcome on
children's achievement attributions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, (1), 1-8.
Ames, C., Ames, R., & Felker, D. (1979). Informational
and dispositional determinants of children's
achievement attributions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 68, 63-69.
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1981). Competitive versus
individualistic goal structures: The saliance of past
performance information for causal attributions and
affect. Journal of Educational Pyschology, 7 3, (3),
411-418.
Ames, C., & Felker, D. (1979). An examination of
children's attributions and achievement-related
evaluations in competitive, cooperative, and
individualistic reward structures. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, (4), 413-420.
Armstrong, B., Johnson, D. W., & Balow, B. (1981).
Effects of cooperative vs. individualistic learning
experiences on interpersonal attraction between
learning-disabled and normal-progress elementary school
students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (2),
102-109.
Axelrod, S., & Cohen, L. D. (1961). Senescence and
embedded figures performance in vision and touch.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 12, 283-288.
98
Barnett, M. , Matthews, K. , & Howard, J. ( 1979 ).
Relationship between competitiveness and empathy in 6
and 7-year-olds. Developmental Pyschology, 15 , 221-
222.
Bar-Tal D., & Darom, E., (1979). Pupil’s attributions for
success and failure. Child Development, 50, 264-267.
Bar-Tal, D., & Frieze, I. H. (1977). Achievement
motivation for males and females as a determinant of
attributions for success and failure. Sex Roles, 2*
301-313.
Bar-Tal, D., Ravgad, N., & Zilberman, D. (1978).
Development of causal perception of success and
failure. Unpublished manuscript, Tel-Aviv University.
Biggs, J. B., Fitzgerald, D., & Atkinson, S. M. (1971).
Convergent and divergent abilities in children and
teachers’ rating of competence and certain classroom
behaviors. British Journal of Educational Pychology,
41, 277-286.
Blanchard, F. A., Adelman, L., & Cook, S. A. (1975).
Effects of group success and failuure upon
interpersonal attraction in cooperating interracial
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
31, (6), 1020-1030.
Broverman, D. M. (1960). Cognitive styles and intra
individual variation in abilities. Journal of
Personality, 2 8, 240-256.
Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1956). A Study of
Thinking. New York: Wiley.
Chandler, T., Sharma, D., Wolf, F., & Planchard, S.
(1981). Multi-attributional causality: A five cross
national samples study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology , 1 2 , 207-21 1 .
Cole, D., Kind, K., & Newcomb, A. (1977). Grade
expectations as a functions of sex, academic
discipline, and sex of instructor. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, (4), 380-385.
, R. H., & Brown, L. D. (1971). The effects of
teaching method and cognitive style on categories of
achievement. In R. H. Coop & E. S. Irving, (Eds.)
Psychology in the Schools, (2).
99
Cooper, H. S., & Burger, J. M. ( 1978). Inte rnali ty,
stability, and personal efficacy; A categorization of
free response academic attributions. Unpublished
manuscript. University of Missouri-Columbia.
Cooper, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Wilderson, F.
(1980). The effects of cooperative, competitive, &
individualization experiences on interpersonal
attraction among heterogeneous peerc. Journal of
Social Psychology, 111, 243-252.
Crandall, V. C. (1969). Sex differences in expectancy,
intellectual and academic reinforcement. In C. P.
Smith (Ed.) Achievement-related Motives in Children.
New York; Russell Sage.
Crandall, V. C. (1978). Expecting sex differences and sex
differences in expectancies; A developmental analysis.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto.
Crutchfield, R. S., Woodworth, D. G., & Albrecht, R. E.
(1958). Perceptual performance and the effective
person (WADC-TN-58-60). Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Center,
Air Research and Development Command, (ASTIA No. AD-151
039).
Dembo, M., & Gurney, K. (1982). The effects of
cooperative and individualistic goal structures on
causal attributions for performance by Korean and
Samoan American students. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust; Some
theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.) Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University
of Nebraska Press, 275-320.
DeVries, D., & Slavin, R. (1978). Teams-games-
tournaments; Review of ten classroom experiments.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12,
28-38.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. (1978). An analysis of learned
helplessness; Continuous changes in performance,
strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 , 451-
462.
100
Dlngman, R. L. (1972). A study of cognitive style
differences as a factor of communications in school
counseling. (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State
University, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 32, 6756A.
Dubois, T. E., & Cohen, W. (1970). Relationship
betweenmeasures of psychological differentiation and
intellectual ability. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31,
411-416.
Dweck, C., & Gillard, D. (1975). Expectancy statements as
determinants of reactions to failure: Sex differences
in persistence and expectancy change. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32 , ( 6 ), 1077-1084.
Dweck, C., & Repucci, N. S. (1973). Learned helplessness
and reinforcement responsibility in children. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 5 , 109-1 16.
Elig, T., & Frieze, I. H. (1979). Measuring causal
attributions for success and failure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3 7 , ( 4), 62 1-634.
Errico, M. A. (1984). Factors affecting privacy among
college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Southern California.
Feather, N. T., & Simon, J. G. (1975). Reactions to male
and female success and failure in sex-linked
occupations: Impressions of personality, causal
attributions, and perceived likelihood of different
consequences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, (1), 20-31.
Fitch, G. (1970). Effects of self-esteem, perceived
performance and choice on causal attributions. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 311-315.
Folkes, V. S. (1978). Causal communication in the early
stages of affiliative relationships. Unpublished
doctoral disssertation. University of California, Los
Angeles.
Fountaine, G. (1974). Social comparison and some
determinants of expected personal control and expected
performance in a novel task situation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 487-496.
101
Frank, B. M., & Noble, J. P. (1983). Field independence-
dependence and cognitive restructuring. Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Anaheim, California.
Friend, R. M., & Neale, J. M. (1972). Children’s
perceptions of success and failure: An attributional
analysis of the effects of race and social class.
Developmental Psychology, 124-128.
Frieze, I. H. (1976). Causal attribution and information
seeking to explain success and failure. Journal of
Research in Personality, 10, 298-305.
Frieze, I. H. (1979). Beliefs about success and failure
in the classroom. In I. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tal, & J. S.
Carroll, (Eds.), New Approaches to Social Problems:
Applications of Attribution Theory. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bas s.
Frieze, I. H., Fisher, J., Hanusa, B., McHugh, M. C., &
Valle, V. A. (1978). Attributions of success and
failure as internal and external barriers to
achievement in women. In J. Sherman and F. Denmark
(Eds.), Psychology of Women: Future Directions of
Research. New York: Psychological Dimensions.
Frieze, I. H. & Synder, H. N. (1980). Children’s beliefs
about the causes of success and failure in school
settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 , 186-
196.
Fry, P. S., & Ghosh, R. (1980). Attribution of success
and failure: Comparison of cultural differences between
Asian and Caucasian children. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 11, 343-363.
Gardiner, R. , Holaman, P. S. , Klein, G. , Linton, H. , &
Spence, D. S. (1959). Cognitive control: A study of
individual consistencies in cognitive behavior.
Psychological Issues, (whole No. 4).
Gehlmann, F. (1951). Performance on objective tests as
indicators of temperment and other personality traits.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Chicago.
Gjesme, T. (1973). Achievement-related motives and school
performance for girls. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 2 6 , 131-136.
102
Gorton, T. T. (1975). The relationship of cognitive style
to reading achievement of first grade pupils instructed
in one of the three approaches. Doctoral dissertation,
Leigh Universtiy.
Greenfield, A. (1971). Perceptual style, attitudes toward
problem solving, and problem-solving performance.
(Doctoral dissertation. New York Universtiy).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 7571B-7572B.
Heath, R. W. (1964). Curriculum, cognition, and
educational measurement. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 24, 239-253.
Johnson, D. W. (1974). Communication and the inducement
of cooperative behavior in conflicts: A critical
review. Speech Monographs, 41, 64-78.
Johnson, D. W. (1980). Constructive peer relationships,
social development, and cooperative learning
experiences: Implications for the prevention of drug
abuse. Journal of Drug Education, 10, 7-24. (a)
Johnson, D. W. (1980). Group processes: Influences of
student-student interaction on school outcomes. In J.
H. McMillan, (Ed.) The Social Psychology of School
Learning. New York: Academic Press, (b)
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1974). Instructional goal
structure: Cooperative, competitive and
individualistic. Review of Educational Research, 44 ,
213-240.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning Together
and Alone: Cooperation, Competition, and
Individualization. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1978). Social
interdependence within instruction. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 12 , (1).
Johnson, D. W. , Johnson, R. , Johnson, J. , & Anderson, D.
(1976). The effects of cooperative versus
individualized instruction on student prosocial
behavior, attitudes toward learning, and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 446-452.
103
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Scott, L. (1978). The
effects of cooperative and individualized instruction
on student attitudes and achievement. Journal of
Social Psychology, 10 4, 207-216.
Johnson, D. W. , Marayama, G. , Johnson, R. , Nelson, D. , &
Skon, L. (1980). The effects of cooperative,
competitive and individualistic goal structures on
achievement: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota,
Psychological Bulletin.
Johnson, R. , Johnson, D. W. , & Tauer, M. ( 197 9 ). Effects
of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal
structures on students’ achievement and attitudes.
Journal of Psychology, 10 2, 191-198.
Johnson, R. , Rynders, J. , Johnson, D. W. , Schmidt, B. , &
Haider, S. (1979). Producing positive interaction
between handicapped and non-handicapped teenagers
through cooperative goal structure. Journal of
Psychology, 102, 191-198.
Kagan, J., Moss, H. A., & Siegel, I. E. (1960).
Conceptual style and the use of affect labels.
Merri11-Palmer Quarterly, 2» 261-278.
Kagan, J. , Rosman, B. , Day, D. , Albert, J. , & Phillips, W.
(1964). Information processing in the child:
Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes.
Psychological Monographs, 7 8, (1, whole No. 587 ).
Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. C. (1971). Cooperation and
competition of Mexican, Mexican-American children of
two ages under four instructional sets. Developmental
Psychology, 32-39.
Kagan, S., & Madsen, M. C. (1972). Rivalry in Anglo-
American and Mexican children of two ages. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 214-220.
Konstadt, N., & Forman, E. (1965). Field dependence and
external directedness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 490-493.
Lau, R. R., & Russel, D. (1978). Attributions in sports
pages: A field test of some current hypotheses in
attribution research. Unpublished manuscript.
University of California, Los Angeles.
104
Lefcourt; H. M. (1970). Recent developments in the study
of locus of control. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in
Experimental Personality Research. New York: Academic
Press.
Levy, S. (1969). Field independence-field dependence and
Occupational interests. Unpublished master’s thesis,
Cornell University.
MacNeil, R. D. (1980). The relationship of cognitive
style and instructional style to the learning
performance of undergraduate students. Journal of
Educational Research, 7 3 , ( 6), 354-359.
Madsen, M. C. (1971). Developmental and cross-cultural
differences in cooperative and competitive behavior of
young children. Journal of Cross-cultural
Psychology, 2 , 365-37 1 .
Madsen, M. C., & Conner, C., (1973). Cooperative and
competitive behavior of retarded and non-retarded
children at two ages. Child Development, 44 , 175-178.
Madsen, M. C., & Shapiro, S. (1970). Cooperative and
competitive behavior of urban Afro-American, Anglo-
American, Mexican-American and Mexican village
children. Developmental Psychology, 16-20.
Maehr, M. L. (1978). Sociocultural origins of achievement
motivation. In D. Bar-Tal and L. Saxe (Eds.), Social
Psychology of Education: Theory and Research. New York:
Hemi sphere.
Mahlios, M. C. (1978). Implications of cognitive style
for teachers and learners. ERIC Document ED152704.
Mahlios, M. C. (1981). Field-dependence theory:
Perspectives on learning, teaching, and the preparation
of teachers. ERIC Document ED198116. (a)
Mahlios, M. C. (1981). Effects of teacher-student
cognitive style on patterns of dyadic classroom
interaction. Journal of Experimental Education, 49 ,
147-157. (b)
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. New
York: Free Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1971). Motivational Trends in Society.
New Jersey: Silver Burdett.
105
McLeod, D. B., & Adams, V. M. (1979). Individual
differences in cognitive style and discovery approaches
to learning mathematics. Journal of Educational
Research, 72, (6), 317-320.
McLeod, Ü. B., & Adams, V. M. (1979-80). The interaction
of field independence with small-group instruction in
mathematics. Journal of Experimental Education, 48,
(2), 118-124.
McMahan, I. D. (1973). Relationship between causal
attributions and expectancy of success. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28 , 108-1 14.
Messick, S., & Associates. (1976). Individuality in
Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, S. R., & Mednick, M. T. S. (1975). Perceiving the
causes of success and failure in achievement: Sex, race
and motivational comparisons. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 43, 881-885.
Nelson, B. A. (1972). Effects of the analytic-global and
reflectivity-impulsivity cognitive styles on the
acquisition of geometry concepts presented through
emphasis or no emphasis and discovery or expository
lessons. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Wi scons in-Madi son.
Nelson, L. L., & Kagan, S. (1972). Competition: The star-
spangled scramble. Psychology Today, 2» 53-56, 90-101.
Nevill, D. D. (1972). Experimental manipulation of
dependency motivation and its effects on eye contact
measure of field dependency. (Doctoral dissertation.
University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts
Inte rnational, 32 , 7 295B.
Nicholls, J. G. (1975). Causal attributions and other
achievement-related cognitions: Effects of task outcome
attainment value, and sex. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 31, 379-389.
Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Witkin, H. A., Freedman,
N. , & Friedman, F. ( 1975). Psychological
differentiation as a factor in conflict resolution.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 , 730-
736.
106
Pemberton, C. L. (1952). The closure factors related to
temperment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 2 1 , 1 59-175.
Pierson, J. S. (1965). Cognitive styles and measured
vocational interests of college men. (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Texas, Austin).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 26 , 87 5-876.
Pohl, R. L. (1967). An investigation of cognitive styles
and their relationship to choice of major and academic
performance. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Princeton
University.
Provost, G. L. (1981). Teaching strategies, modes of
evaluation, and field-dependence factor. Pe rceptual
and Motor Skills, 52 , ( 1 ), 163-1 73.
Randolph, L. C. (1971). A study of the effects of praise,
criticism and failure on the problem-solving
performance of field-dependent and field-independent
individuals. Dissertation Abstracts International,
32B, 3014-3015.
Reimer, B. S. (1975). The influence of causal beliefs on
affect and expectancy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 31, 1163-1167.
Ritchey, P. A., & LaShier, W. S. (1981). The relationship
between cognitive style, intelligence, and
instructional mode to achievement of college science
students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18,
(1), 41-45.
Ruble, D. N., & Nakamura, C. Y. (1972). Task orientation
versus social orientation in young children and their
attention to relevant social cues. Child Development,
43 , 47 1-480.
Ruble, D. N., Parsons, J. E., & Ross, J. (1976). Self-
evaluative responses of children in an achievement
setting. Child Development, 47, 990-997.
Saracho, 0. N., & Dayton, C. M. (1980). Relationship of
teachers’ cognitive styles to pupils’ academic
achievement gains. Journal of Educational Psychology,
72, (4), 544-549.
107
Shaw, M. E., & Iwawaki, S. (1972). Attributions of
responsibility by Japanese and Americans as a function
of age. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2» 7 1-
81.
Shrauger, J. S., & Terbovic, M. L. (1976). Self-
evaluation and assessments of performance by self and
others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
44, 564-572.
Shymansky, J. A., & Yore, L. D. (1980). A study of
teaching strategies, student cognitive development, and
cognitive style as they relate to student achievement
in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
22, (5), 369-382.
Sljavin, R. ( 1978 ). Student teams and achievement
„x' divisions. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 12.
Staub, E. (1971). Helping a person in distress: The
influence of implicit and explicit "rules" of conduct
on children and adults. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 17, 137-144.
Stidham, A. B. (1967). A comparative study of factually
set and conceptually set college learners. (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Tennessee). Dissertât ion
Abstracts International, 2 7 , 2899.
Thornell, J. G. (1974). A study of the relationship
between cognitive style and selected instructional
methods for children at the elementary school level.
Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas-Austin.
Threadgill, J. A. (1979). The relationship of field-
independent /dependent cognitive style and two methods
of instruction in mathematics learning. Journal of
Research in Mathematics Education, 10, (3), 219-222.
Tjosvold, D. , Marino, P., & Johnson, D. W. ( 1977 ).
Cooperation and competition and student acceptance of
inquiry and didactic teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 14, 281-288.
Valle, V. A., & Frieze, I. H. (1976). The stability of
causal attributions as a mediator in changing
expectations for success. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 3 3 , 57 9-587 .
108
Watson, B. , & Johnson, D. W. ( 1972 ). Social Psychology:
Issues and Insights, (2nd éd.). Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: Lippincott.
Weiner, B. (19 7 4). Achievement motivation as
conceptualized by an attribution theorist. In B.
Weiner (Ed.), Achievement Motivation and Attribution
Theory. New Jersey: General Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some
classroom experiences. Journal of Educational
Psychology , 71, 3-25.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., &
Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the Causes of
Success and Failure. New Jersey: General Learning
Press.
Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Affective
consequences of causal ascriptions. In J. H. Harvery,
W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New Directions in
Attribution Research. Vol. 2, Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Assoc.
Weissenberg, P., & Gruendeld, L. W. (1966). Relationships
among leadership dimensions and cognitive style.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 50 , 392-395.
White, B. W. (1954). Visual and auditory closure.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48 , 234-240.
Witkin, H. A. (1949). Perception of body position and of
the position of the visual field. Psychology
Monographs, 6 3.
Witkin, H. A. (1950). Perception of the upright when the
direction of the force acting on the body is changed.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 93-106.
Witkin, H. A., & Asch, S. E. (1948). Studies in space
orientation: Further experiments on perception of the
upright with displaced visual field. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 38, 762-782.
Witkin, H. A., Birnbaum, J., Lomonaco, S., & Lehr, S.
(1968). Cognitive patterning in congenitally blind
children. Child Development, 39 , 767-786*
109
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. D., Goodenough, D.
R., & Kays, S. A. (1962). Psychological
Differentiation. New York: Wiley.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field
dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological
Bulletin, 84 , (4), 661-6 89.
Witkin, H. A,, Moore, C. A., Goodenough* D. R., & Cox, P.
W. (1977). Field-dependence and field-independence
cognitive styles and their educational implications.
Review of Educational Research, 47, 1-64.
110
APPENDIX A
LIST OF PARTICIPATING COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES
Biola University
California State University, Fullerton
Cypress Community College
Whittier College
111
APPENDIX R
DEPENDENT MEASURE:
ATTITUDE/PREFERENCE AND ATTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIRE
112
Attitude/Preference and Attribution Questionnaire
(Reduced)
Date:__ Times____________Booklet #_
DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
NAME:-------------------------------------- Sex: Male Female
AGE: 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27 or older (age)________
YEAR IN COLLEGE: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate
MAJOR:________________________ Ethnicity;_________________
NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER: Yes No . • ;
TASK RESPONSE QUESTIONNAIRE (circle your response)
1. Did you work on the second task alone Alone In Group
.or in a group?
2. Did you succeed or fail at the task? Succeeded Failed
3. How smart do you think you were in solving the synonyms?
not very smart smart
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. How hard did you try to solve the synonyms?
not very hard tried very hard
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. How hard do you think the synonyms were to solve?
not very hard very hard
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. How lucky do you think you were in solving the synonyms?
not very lucky very lucky
.1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7
7. How did you like working as you did (either alone or in a group)?
didn’t like liked alot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Do you think your outcome (success or failure) would have been
different (opposite) if you had been in the other work
situation?
difinitely no definitely yes
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Which situation do you generally prefer most of the time?
Working alone working in a Group
113
Attitude/Preference and Attribution Questionnaire
(Reduced)
10. Answer this question if you were in the group work situation:
a. How well do you think the group worked together on the task?
Not. very wel 1
1 2
very wel1
6 7
b. How much do you think you contributed to the group while work
ing on the task?
contributed contributed
very little alot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .
11. Comments :
SYNONYM TASK OUTCOME:
INDIVIDUAL
SUCCESS FAILURE
GROUP
SUCCESS FAILURE
M: 1-11
FD
12-13
N
14-18
FI
FD-S-I
FD-F-I
FD-S-C
FD-F-C
N-S-I
N—F— I
N—S—C
N—F—C
FI-S-I
FT-F-I
FI-S-C
FI-F-C
114
APPENDIX C
SYNONYM TASK SHEET
115
Synonym Task Sheet (Reduced)
SYNONYM TASK Name:
Booklet #
The following sets of words include synonyms. . The word in the far
left-hand column (the capitalized word) has a word with the same or ,
nearly the same meaning in the group of four words immediately following
it. Your task is to identify as many of the synonyms as possible in the
allotted time. CIRCLE THE WUKU IN THE SET OF FUUK WÜRuS WHICH IS
CLOSEST IN DEFINITION SIMILARITY TO THE WORD IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN.
1. SLUGGISHNESS: Energetic Obsti nance Laziness T i red
2. VERBATIM: Opposi te Literal Decree Intact
3. SPACIOUS: Roomy Sunder Cohere Rancor
4. OINTMENT: Laxative Sunshi ne Refreshment Bal m
5. MUSCULAR: Gnaw Indulgent Robust Masticate
6. UNTRUSTWORTHY; Sunder Fai thless Strapping Maievolence
7. CONCUR: Disagree Cooperate Induce Confine
8. TENABLE: Cal1ow Amatory Incubate Unassailable
9. DIVIDUOUS: Sol ace Conf i ne Partible Depart
10. CAUTIOUS: Perf i dious Careful Sunder Malignity
11. AMIABLE: Fearful Pernici ous Kind Tenable
12. SPEAR: Sunder Gore Enjoin Ill-will
13. PACIFY: Suggest Scissi1e Travai1 Appease
14. COMPORT; Propound Assent Impale Rancor
15. ORDER: Ri ve Decree Indurate Sinewy
16. EPICURE: Eater ^ Ferment Vivacious Hoi 1ow
17. STIFF; Pliable Tentati ve Maii nger Hard
18. APPEAL:
Insolvent Announce Sol ici t Demand
19. COMMODIOUS: Restri cti ve Bath-1i ke Spaci ous Epi cure
20. INJURIOUS:
Harmful Dec eitful Helpful Useful
21. PAUPER: Di ssolve Mi ser Insert Beggar
22. ILL-WILL: Hostility Enjoin Deceitful Rend
23. SUGGEST: Conduce Benignant Exuberate Recommend
24. GNAW: Expert interact Chew Overeat
25. HOARDER: Crayf i sh Loafer Mi ser Insol vent
SCORE: RANKING: CODE:
116

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Optimum signal processing in the presence of spatial noise

PDF

Factors that effect the changes in degree aspirations of African American and Latino community college students

PDF

An investigation Piaget's theory of cognitive development as a basis for the assessment of reading disability of Afro-American junior high school students and for developing remedial curricula

PDF

A structural and psychoanalytic analysis of the symbolic ritual process in three sets of Russian folk tales

PDF

Psychologists' perceptions of older clients: The effect of age, gender, knowledge, and experience

PDF

Life goals of retirement home residents and applicants in selected organizational climates

PDF

The effects of the Educational Employment Relations Act and the impact of using alternative bargaining techniques

PDF

Proposition 140: A study of the impact of term limits on the California Assembly

PDF

The relationship of two methods of marking to the quality of compositions and to attitudes toward writing of selected fourth grade pupils

PDF

Aspects of the tension complex in the life and works of Jakob Wassermann

PDF

The sociolinguistics of tagging and Chicano gang graffiti

PDF

Fate in the novels of Zola and Couperus; a comparison with the Greek concept of fate

PDF

Effects of parenting style and ethnic identity on European American and Asian Indian adolescents' academic competence and self esteem

PDF

The reputation of Cicero among the English Deists (1696 - 1776)

PDF

An experimental study of the effect of aikido training on the self-concept of adolescents with behavioral problems

PDF

A study of idealism in the Nobel Prize literature

PDF

Family-based risk and protective mechanisms for youth at-risk of gang joining

PDF

Women's autobiography and national identity: Natalia Ginzburg, Anna Banti and Renata Vigano

PDF

The effects of intellectual functioning and mediation on conceptual learning for Black college students

PDF

William Lawes: His life and works

Asset Metadata

Creator Cowan, Rebecca Childers (author)

Core Title The effect of cooperative and individualistic goal structures on the preferences and attribution of field-dependent and field-independent students

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education,OAI-PMH Harvest,Social Sciences

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c37-41357

Unique identifier UC11632801

Identifier DP71318.pdf (filename),usctheses-c37-41357 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP71318.pdf

Dmrecord 41357

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cowan, Rebecca Childers

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA