Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:20:33.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Impulsivity-Reflexivity when Testing Dynamic Spatial Ability: Sex and g Differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Mª Ángeles Quiroga ,
José Manuel Hernández ,
Victor Rubio ,
Pei Chun Shih  and
José Santacreu
Mª Ángeles Quiroga
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
José Manuel Hernández
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Victor Rubio
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Pei Chun Shih
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
José Santacreu*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to José Santacreu Mas, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/ Pavlov, 6, 28049 Madrid (Spain). E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This work analyzes the possibility that the differences in the performance of men and women in dynamic spatial tasks such as the Spatial Orientation Dynamic Test-Revised (SODT-R; Santacreu & Rubio, 1998), obtained in previous works, are due to cognitive style (Reflexivity-Impulsivity) or to the speed-accuracy tradeoff (SATO) that the participants implement. If these differences are due to cognitive style, they would be independent of intelligence, whereas if they are due to SATO, they may be associated with intelligence. In this work, 1652 participants, 984 men and 668 women, ages between 18 and 55 years, were assessed. In addition to the SODT-R, the “Test de Razonamiento Analítico, Secuencial e Inductivo” (TRASI [Analytical, Sequential, and Inductive Reasoning Test]; Rubio & Santacreu, 2003) was administered as a measure of general intelligence. Impulsivity scores (Zi) of Salkind and Wright (1977) were used to analyze reflexivity-impulsivity and SATO. The results obtained indicate that (a) four performance groups can be identified: Fast-accurate, Slow-inaccurate, Impulsive, and Reflexive. The first two groups solve the task as a function of a competence variable and the last two as a function of a personality variable; (b) performance differences should be attributed to SATO; (c) SATO differs depending on sex and intelligence level.

El trabajo analiza la posibilidad de que las diferencias en la ejecución de varones y mujeres en tareas espaciales dinámicas como el Spatial Orientation Dynamic Test-Revised (SODT-R Santacreu y Rubio, 1998), obtenidas en trabajos previos, se deban al estilo cognitivo (Reflexividad-Impulsividad) o al balance velocidad-exactitud; (Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off, SATO) que los participantes pongan en marcha. De deberse al estilo cognitivo serían independientes de la inteligencia mientras que si se deben al balance Velocidad-Exactitud pueden estar asociadas a la inteligencia. Se evaluó a 1652 participantes, 984 varones y 668 mujeres, de edades comprendidas entre 18 y 55 años. Además del SODT-R se administró el Test de Razonamiento Analítico, Secuencial e Inductivo (TRASI; Rubio y Santacreu, 2003) como medida de inteligencia general. Para el análisis de la Reflexividad-Impulsividad (R-I) y el balance velocidad-exactitud se utilizaron las puntuaciones de impulsividad (Zi) de Salkind y Wright (1977). Los resultados obtenidos indican que: a/ se pueden identificar cuatro grupos de ejecución: Rápidos-exactos, Lentos inexactos, Impulsivos y Reflexivos. Los dos primeros resuelven la tarea en función de una variable competencial y los dos últimos en función de una variable de personalidad; b/ las diferencias en la ejecución deben atribuirse al balance VE; c/ este balance es diferente según el sexo y el nivel de inteligencia.

Keywords

dynamic spatial tasksreflexivity-impulsivityspeed-accuracy tradeoffsex differencesintelligencetareas espaciales dinámicasreflexividad-impulsividadbalance velocidad-exactituddiferencias entre sexosinteligencia
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , November 2007 , pp. 294 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bettencourt, A.A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bizot, J.C., & Thiébot, M.H. (1996). Impulsivity as a confounding factor in certain animal tests of cognitive function. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buela-Casal, G., Carretero-Dios, H., De los Santos-Roig, M., & Bermúdez, M.P. (2003). Psychometric properties of a Spanish adaptation of the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT-20). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, A.R., & Poley, W. (1976). Individual differences: Traits and Factors. Garner Press. (Spanish translation: Diferencias individuales: rasgos y factores. México: El Manual Moderno, 1979).Google Scholar
Cairns, E.D., & Cammock, J. (1978). Development of a more reliable version of the Matching Familiar Figure Test. Developmental Psychology, 5, 555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R.B. (1971). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Colom, R., Contreras, M.J., Shih, P., & Santacreu, J. (2003). The assessment of spatial ability through a single computerized test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 2, 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, M.J., Colom, R., Shih, P., Álava, M.J., & Santacreu, J. (2001). Dynamic spatial performance: Sex and educational differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, M.J., Rubio, V.J., Peña, D., Colom, R., & Santacreu, J. (in press). Sex differences in dynamic spatial ability: The unsolved question of performance factors. Memory and Cognition. (Accepted June 2006). The manuscript can be seen at: http://www.psychonomic.org/MC/forthcoming.htmGoogle Scholar
Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2006). The wholist-analytic cognitive style: A matter of reflection. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 989–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, I., & Evans, J. (1996). The speed-error trade-off problem in psychometric testing. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunber, G., Hill, R., & Lewis, V. (2001). Children's attentional skills and road behaviour. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 227–234.Google Scholar
Eliot, J., & Donnelly, J. (1978). Eliot-Donnelly's B-F Test. University of Maryland: Institute for Child Study.Google Scholar
Enticott, P.G., Ogloff, J.R.P., & Bradshaw, J.L. (2006). Associations between laboratory measures of executive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, D., Haldane, D., & Mitchel, C. (1990). Sex difference in visual-spatial ability: The role of performance factors. Memory & Cognition, 18, 546–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoaken, P.N.S., Shaughnessy, V.K., & Pihl, R.O. (2003). Executive cognitive functioning and aggression: Is it an issue of impulsivity? Aggressive Behavior, 29, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, E.B., Pellegrino, J.W., Frick, R.W., Farr, S.A., & Alderton, D. (1988). The ability to reason about movement in the visual field. Intelligence, 12, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juan-Espinosa, M., Abad, F.J., Colom, R., & Fernández-Truchaud, M. (2000). Individual differences in large-space orientation: g and beyond? Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, R. (2005). Growing up digital: Implications for teaching and learning. The International Digital Media & Arts Association Journal, 2, 27–44.Google Scholar
Lane, S.D., Cherek, D.R., Rhodes, H.M., Pietras, C.J., & Tcheremissine, O.V. (2003). Relationships among laboratory and psychometric measures of impulsivity: Implications in substance abuse and dependence. Addictive Disorders & their Treatment, 2, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malle, B.F., & Neubaer, A.C. (1990). Impulsivity, reflection, and questionnaire response latencies: No evidence for a broad impulsivity trait. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 865–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M.J. (1998). Recreational use of “Ecstasy” (MDMA) is associated with elevated impulsivity. Neuropsychopharmacology, 19, 252–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overton, W., Byrnes, J.P., & O'Brien, D.P. (1985). Developmental and individual differences in conditional reasoning: The role of contradiction training and cognitive style. Developmental Psychology, 21, 692–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellegrino, J., & Hunt, E. (1989). Computer-controlled assessment of static and dynamic spatial reasoning. In Dillon, R. & Pellegrino, J. (Eds.), Testing theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 174–198). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Phillips, L.H., & Rabbitt, P.M.A. (1995). Impulsivity and speed-accuracy strategies in intelligence test performance. Intelligence, 21, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiroga, M.A. (1988). El estilo cognitivo DependenciaIndependencia de Campo: un estudio diferencial a través de los perfiles del Rorschach. Madrid: Editorial de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid.Google Scholar
Quiroga, M.A. (1999). Diferencias individuales en la interrelación cognición-emoción: los estilos cognitivos. In SánchezCánovas, J. & López, M.P. Sánchez (Eds.), Psicología de la diversidad humana. Madrid: Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces.Google Scholar
Quiroga, M.A., & Forteza, J. A. (1988). La reflexividadimpulsividad: estado de la cuestión y análisis de las características psicométricas del MFF-20. Investigaciones psicológicas, 5, 97–123.Google Scholar
Quiroga, M.A., & Rodríguez, J. (2001). El estilo cognitivo Reflexividad-Impulsividad: diferencias individuales en la gestión individual de la relación velocidad- exactitud. http://forteza.sis.ucm.es/profes/maquiroga/documentos/El%20estilo%20cognitivo%20Impulsividad.pdfGoogle Scholar
Raven, C.J. (1965). Advanced Progressive Matrices. Sets I and II. London: Lewis.Google Scholar
Rubio, V.J., & Santacreu, J. (2003). TRASI. Test adaptativo informatizado para la evaluación del razonamiento secuencial y la inducción como factores de la habilidad intelectual general. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.Google Scholar
Salkind, N.J., & Wright, J.C. (1977). Reflection-Impulsivity and cognitive efficiency: An integrate model. Human Development, 20, 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santacreu, J., & Rubio, V. (1998). SODT-R and SVDT: Dynamic computerized tests for the assessment of spatial ability. Technical Report. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Servera, M., & Llabrés, J. (2000). EMIC (Escala Magallanes de Impulsividad Computerizada). Bilbao: Albor-Cohs.Google Scholar
Smith, P., Waterman, M., & Ward, N. (2006). Driving aggression in forensic and non-forensic populations: Relationships to self-reported levels of aggression, anger and impulsivity. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 387–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thurstone, T., & Thurstone, L. (1949). Mechanical aptitude II: Description of group tests. (Report N° 54), Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago, Psychometric Laboratory.Google Scholar
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldeck, T.L., & Miller, L.S. (1997). Gender and impulsivity differences in licit substance use. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 269–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waring, D.A., Farthing, Ch.B., & Kidder-Ashley, P. (1999). Impulsive response style affects computer administered multiple-choice test performance. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26, 121–128.Google Scholar
Witkin, H.A. (1959). The perception of the upright. Scientific American, 200, 50–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yap, J.N.K., & Peters, R. De V. (1985). An evaluation of two hypotheses concerning the dynamics of cognitive impulsivity: Anxiety over errors or anxiety over competence? Developmental Psychology, 21, 1055–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar