LINKING INFORMATION PROCESSING STYLE PREFERENCE, STATISTICAL REASONING, AND STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE IN PSYCHOLOGY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25159/1812-6371/1808Keywords:
Cognitive experiential self-theory, information processing style, psychological statistics, statistical performance, statistical reasoning ability, teachingAbstract
This study sought to examine the nature of the relationships between information processing style preference, statistical reasoning ability (statistical skills and misconceptions), and performance on a psychology-based statistics course (RDA IIA). A non-experimental, correlational research design was used. The sample consisted of 133 University of the Witwatersrand students who had completed the RDA IIA module. Participants completed a brief demographic questionnaire as well as the Rational-Experiential Inventory (Pacini & Epstein, 1999), assessing processing style preference, and the Statistical Reasoning Assessment (Garfield, 2003), assessing statistical reasoning ability. Results indicated statistically significant, positive relationships between preference for a rational information processing style and statistical reasoning ability; as well as between performance on RDA IIA and statistical reasoning ability. There were, however, no significant relationships between performance on RDA IIA Â and processing style preference. These findings yielded useful implications for the teaching of statistical courses and thus contribute to limited knowledge available regarding the links between processing style preference and statistical reasoning and performance, particularly in the South African context.
References
Bjorklund, F., & Backstrom, M. (2008). Individual differences in processing styles: Validity of the Rational-Experiential Inventory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(5), 439-446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00652.x
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709-724. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.709
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M.J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 5): Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 159-184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0507
Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding the dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential theory. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 462-482). New York: Guilford.
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytic-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390-405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
Evans, J.B.T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 454-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012
Evans, J.B.T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Evans, J.B.T., & Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
Foroozandeh, E., & Foroozandeh, J. (2011). Rational and Intuitive thinking in accounting and psychology students. International Journal of Sports Studies, 1(4), 157-160.
Garfield, J.B. (1998). The Statistical Reasoning Assessment: Development and validation of a research tool. In L. Pereira-Mendoza (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (pp. 781-786). Voorburg, Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.
Garfield, J.B. (2002). The challenge of developing statistical reasoning. Journal of Statistics Education, 10(3), 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2002.11910676
Garfield, J.B. (2003). Assessing statistical reasoning. Statistics Education Research Journal, 2(1), 22-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v2i1.557
Garfield, J.B., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Difficulties in learning basic concepts in statistics: Implications for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19(1), 44-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.19.1.0044
Ge, X., & Land, S.M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515
Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085-1109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199912)36:10<1085::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-D
Howell, D.C. (2011). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (7th Ed.). Canada: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and thinking slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.
Laher, S., Israel, N., & Pitman, M. (2007). Teaching research and statistics at undergraduate level: The RDA tutorial programme. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 368-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700213
Loo, R. (2004). Kolb’s learning styles and learning preferences: Is there a linkage? Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 24(1), 99- 108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000146476
Lutsky, N. (2006). Teaching quantitative reasoning: How to make psychology statistically significant. Association for Psychological Science Observer. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2006/ march-06/teaching-quantitative-reasoning.html.
Mathews, A. (2012). Personality and information processing: We are what we encode. European Journal of Personality, 26(2), 158-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1852
Marks, A.D.G., O’Neill, G., & Hine, D.W. (2008). Role of affect, expectancies and dual processes of cognition in predicting adult cigarette smoking. Australian Journal of Psychology 60(3), 160-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530701656273
McLoughlin, C. (1999). The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 222-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1859
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00053.2006
Naito, M., Suzuki, K., & Sakamoto, A. (2004). Development of rational and intuitive information-processing style inventory. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 13(1), 67-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2132/personality.13.67
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality: Basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 972-987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972
Schutte, N.S., Thorsteinsson, E.B., Hine, D.W., Foster, R., Cauchi, A., & Binns, C. (2010). Experiential and rational processing styles, emotional intelligence, and wellbeing. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(1), 14-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530903312865
Sladek, R.M., Bond, M.J., & Phillips, P.A. (2008). Why don’t doctors wash their hands? A correlational study of thinking styles and hand hygiene. American Journal of Infection Control, 36(6), 399-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2007.11.002
Stangor, C. (2011). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4th Ed.). Belmont, USA: Wadsworth.
Stanovich, K.E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahweh, N.J.: Erlbaum. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603432
Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2000). Individual difference in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-726. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435
Tempelaar, D.T. (2004). Statistical reasoning assessment: An analysis of the SRA instrument. Paper presented at the ARTIST Roundtable Conference on Assessment in Statistics. Wisconsin, USA: Lawrence University.
Tempelaar, D.T., Gijselaers, W.H., & Van Der Loeff, S.S. (2006). Puzzles in statistical reasoning. Journal of Statistics in Education, 14(1), 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2006.11910576
Thomas, R.L., & Millar, M.G. (2008). The impact of failing to give an apology and the need-for-cognition on anger. Current Psychology, 27(2), 126-134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-008-9025-y
Wagner, C., Kawulich, B., & Garner, M. (2012). Doing social research: A global context. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Yoder, J.D., & Hochevar, C.M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2
Zimmerman, I., Redker, C., & Gibson, B. (2011). The role of faith in intuition, need for cognition, and method of attitude formation in implicit-explicit brand attitude relationship strength. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(3), 290-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.04.001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
