Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1974, Vol. 30, No.

6, 807-811

COGNITIVE STYLE, PROPRIOCEPTIVE SKILLS, TASK SET, STRESS, AND THE ROD-AND-FRAME TEST OF FIELD ORIENTATION
RICHARD REINKING 1 Washington State University GERALD GOLDSTEIN Veterans Administration Hospital, Topeka, Kansas B. KENT HOUSTON University of Kansas The results of the present study indicated that (a) performance on the rodand-frame test (RFT) in a condition in which subjects took the test in a tilted position was more adversely affected for field-dependent than fieldindependent subjects; (6) inducing a set in subjects to focus on internal cues while performing the RFT led to better performance than inducing a set to focus on external cues; and (c) under stress, performance on the RFT for field-dependent subjects appeared more extremely field dependent than in the absence of stress, and under stress, performance on the RFT for field-independent subjects appeared more extremely field independent than in the absence of stress.

The construct of field dependence-inde- factors. One purpose of the present investipendence as developed by Witkin and his col- gation was to examine some of the various leagues (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, interpretations of what is measured by the & Karp, 1962; Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman, RFT, including the explanation proffered by Machover, Meissner, & Wapner, 1954) con- the Witkin group and those advanced by tinues to be a prominent variable in person- other investigators who have taken issue with ality research. However, numerous criticisms Witkin and his colleagues. One of the most sophisticated alternatives have been raised concerning the relationship between the theoretical formulations of the to the Witkin group's theory is presented by Witkin group and the instruments used to Taylor (1962) who employs a perceptual evaluate them. Much of this criticism has learning orientation. The RFT, particularly been centered around the rod-and-frame test in the tilted chair conditions poses the prob(RFT), a measure on which the subject must lem to the subject of having to make a visual rely on either internal proprioceptive stimuli judgment while in an unfamiliar postural or on what is contained in the visual field in orientation. Taylor proposes that RFT perjudging verticality. The Witkin group has formance is related to the extent to which consistently maintained that performance on proprioceptive stimuli have been conditioned this test reflects a stable cognitive style that to responses to gravity during the course of is adopted relatively early in life. This style psychological development. If gravity skills has to do with whether one adopts an active are poorly learned or impaired, the necessary analytic or passive global approach in percep- interaction between visual and proprioceptive tion and thinking. Other investigators, how- stimuli suffers, and the subject may have ever, have attempted to show that RFT per- difficulty in making accurate judgments on formance is not necessarily stable and may the RFT when he takes the test in a tilted be associated with a number of situational position. Since field-dependent individuals are authors wish to thank David S. Holmes described by Taylor as having poorly develand Thomas G. Burish for their constructive com- oped gravity skills, it was expected in the ments on the manuscript. present study that the performance of fieldRequests for reprints should be sent to R. H. Retaking, Department of Psychology, Washington dependent subjects on the RFT would be more adversely affected by taking the test in State University, Pullman, Washington 99163.
807

808

R. REINKING, G. GOLDSTEIN, AND B. K. HOUSTON subjects would be less accurate, that is, appear more extremely field dependent, than in the absence of stress; and that under stress, performance on the RFT for field-independent subjects would be more accurate, that is, appear more extremely field independent, than in the absence of stress. Four factors that may influence RFT performance have been defined. They are cognitive style, proprioceptive abilities, cognitive set, and stress. The aim of this study was to manipulate these variables in order to evaluate their individual as well as combined influence on RFT performance. METHOD General Approach
The experiment involved a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design in which two levels of each of three variables (proprioceptive, set, and stress) were experimentally manipulated and subjects were selected for two levels of a fourth variable (analytic). Mean RFT error scores (mean degrees of absolute error from the true vertical across eight trials) served as the main dependent variable. The analytic variable was operationalized in terms of subjects' scores on Form V of the Embedded Figures Test (EFT) for field dependence-independence (Jackson, Messick, & Myers, 1964). Subjects with high scores on the EFT (viz., 9-16) were assigned to the high-analytic group; subjects with low scores (viz., 0-8) were assigned to the lowanalytic group. The proprioceptive variable was operationalized in terms of the position of the subject's body while performing the RFT. In RFT performance, the discrepancies between the proprioceptive and visual stimuli that were important in Taylor's (1962) formulation should be more pronounced when the person performs the RFT in a tilted position. Therefore, half of the subjects took the RFT with the chair in which they sat tilted 28 degrees to the right; half took the test sitting upright. The set variable was operationally defined in terms of one of two types of orienting instructions given prior to beginning the RFT. These instructions, developed by Reinking (1971), direct the subject either to focus on internal (i.e., bodily) sensations as a source of cues for performing the RFT or to focus on the external physical environment as a source of cues. Stress was manipulated by telling half of the subjects that they would be attached to an "electric shock apparatus" which would deliver a strong shock on a random basis during performance of the RFT. Shock was not mentioned to the other half of the subjects. To check on the effectiveness of the stress manipulation, subjects were given Zucker-

a tilted position than would the performance of field-independent individuals. In addition to the cognitive style and proprioceptive determinants of RFT performance mentioned above, the subject's cognitive set toward the task may also be a determining influence. The effect on RFT performance of set manipulated by means of situational or instructional variables has been studied by several investigators (Gross, 1959; Lester, 1969; Mann & Boring, 19S3). Individual differences in the cognitive set may also influence the subject's performance. There is evidence, for example, to suggest that Rotter's (1966) internal-external locus of control factor influences RFT performance (Johnson, 1970; Willoughby, 1967). Considering the aforementioned studies, it was hypothesized in the present study that inducing a set in subjects to focus on internal cues while performing the RFT would lead to better performance than inducing a set to focus on external cues. The second purpose of the present investigation was to examine the relation of stress to field dependence-independence. Witkin et al. (1954) reported that individuals characterized by psychopathology tend to occupy extreme positions on the field dependence-independence dimension; that is, they tend to be extremely field dependent or extremely field independent. A possible explanation for this finding is that while other factors may determine an individual's field orientation, the stress associated with psychopathology may account for the extremeness of that orientation. For example, the paranoid's well-differentiated cognitive structure may reflect his basic premorbid field-independent orientation (cf. Witkin, 1965), but the stress associated with his psychopathology may exacerbate his tendency toward field independence. In other words, the stress of his condition may exaggerate the paranoid's field orientation. The approach of the present study was to obtain an independent measure of field orientation and evaluate the effect of stress on RFT performance in relation to whether a subject was generally field dependent or independent. It was predicted that under stress, performance on. the RFT for field-dependent

ROD-AND-FRAME TEST OF FIELD ORIENTATION

man's (1960) Affect Adjective Check List (AACL), a self-report measure of apprehension.

809

- Procedure
The subjects, 181 female volunteers from introductory psychology classes, were run in individual sessions. In the initial phase of the session, the subject was administered the EFT in a room adjoining the laboratory in which the RFT was located. The subject was then randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions created by the combinations and permutations of the three experimentally manipulated variables (proprioceptive, set, and stress). After completing the EFT, the subject was blindfolded and led into the laboratory containing the rod-and-frame apparatus (manufactured by Biometric Laboratories Company, Model B710). She was seated in a chair that could be tilted 28 degrees to the right, and general instructions modeled after Witkin et al.'s (1954) original orienting instructions for the RFT were given. Instructions pertaining to the proprioceptive variable manipulation were given next. Half of the subjects were told that they would take the RFT with the chair upright, while the other half were told they would take the test with the chair tilted. Then instructions pertaining to the set variable manipulation were given. Half of the subjects were given a set to attend to internal cues for performing the RFT, and half were given a set to attend to external cues. Specifically, subjects given an internal set were told the following (variations in the instructions for the external set are contained in parentheses): We have found that when you attack this problem [the RFT], it is quite important that you pay close attention to stimuli arising from inside (outside) your body. The cues necessary for successful solution of this problem [the RFT] lie inside in your body (out there in your environment). These cues may take many forms; some are more difficult to note than others. However, all are crucial if you want maximum accuracy. All the information you need is contained in the perceptions you get from your physical body (physical environment). So remember, pay close attention to your body (environment) and use the data you find there in making your decision. Following this, for half of the subjects, "shock" electrodes were attached to the subject's wrist, and she was told she would receive a strong shock on a random basis sometime while performing the RFT. In reality, however, the "shock apparatus" was a metronome with false electrical wires running between it and the electrodes on the subject's wrist. Shock was not mentioned to the other half of the subjects. Once the instructions were completed, subjects in the tilt condition had their chair rotated 28 degrees to the right. For all subjects the room was then

completely darkened, and the subject was allowed to remove her blindfold. For subjects in the stress condition, the shock apparatus was then turned on, and finally, all subjects were given eight trials on the RFT. Illumination of the apparatus was maintained at a low level of intensity. The eight trials consisted of two judgments for each of four combinations of RFT positions: (a) frame 28 degrees left, rod 28 degrees left; (6) frame 28 degrees left, rod 28 degrees right; (c) frame 28 degrees right, rod 28 degrees right; and (d) frame 28 degrees right, rod 28 degrees left. The degrees of error from true vertical were recorded for each of the eight trials, the mean of which constituted the RFT error score for the study. After completing the RFT, the lights were turned back on, the chair straightened for those subjects for whom it had been tilted, the shock apparatus was turned off for subjects in the stress condition, and the subject was given the AACL and asked to fill it out according to how she felt while performing the RFT. Following this, the subject was thoroughly debriefed and the experiment ended. Data were collected until there was a minimum of 10 subjects in each of the 16 cells of the factorial design. On the EFT, more subjects obtained high scores (i.e., 9-16) than low scores (i.e., 0-8), but subjects were not discarded in an attempt to achieve equal numbers in the cells of the design.

RESULTS RFT Error Scores

The means and standard deviations for RFT error scores for each condition in the study are presented in Table 1. A 2 (Analytic Groups) X (Proprioceptive Conditions: Tilt-Nontilt) X 2 (Sets) X 2 (Stress Conditions) least squares analysis of variance revealed that the main effects for the analytic, proprioceptive, and set factors were significant (Fa = 215.24, 150.46, and 57.67, respectively, df = 1/165, all ps < .0001). Thus, low-analytic subjects snowed more deviation from vertical, that is, performed in more of a fielddependent fashion, than high-analytic subjects; the tilted condition led to more deviation than the upright condition; and the external set was associated with more deviation, that is, more field-dependent performance, than the internal set. Several of the interactions also reached significance. As expected, there was a significant interaction between analytic ability and the proprioceptive (tilt-nontilt) factor (F = 5.87, d f = 1/165, p < .02). Congruent with Taylor's formulation, relative to the nontilt

810

R. REINKING, G. GOLDSTEIN, AND B. K. HOUSTON

TABLE 1 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR RFT ERROR SCORES
High-analytic ability
Set

Low-analytic ability Threat

Threat

Nonthreat

Nonthreat

External Tilt

SD Nontilt

9.31 4.51 5.50 1.44

12.58 2.96

23.20

18.00

3.52
14.36 4.70

3.19 9.20 2.09

in the nontilt condition performed disproportionately well. As expected, an interaction between stress and analytic ability was also found (F = 85.89, df = 1/165, p < .0001). Inspection of the means indicates that stress caused highanalytic subjects to perform in a more extreme field-independent fashion and low-analytic subjects to perform in a more extreme field-dependent fashion than comparable nonstress subjects (s = 4.72 and 8.11, respectively, both ps < .0001). A ACL Scores A 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 least squares analysis of variance for unequal ns was performed on the AACL scores. The analysis revealed a significant main effect for the stress variable (F = 145.40, df= 1/165, #<.0001) indicating that the stress manipulation was effective; that is, subjects who were threatened with shock reported more apprehension while performing the RFT than nonstressed subjects. Unexpectedly, the analysis also revealed a significant interaction between the analytic and set variables (F = 4.00, df = 1/165, p < .05). More negative affect was reported when the set instructions were in conflict with the subjects' analytic orientation (e.g., internally oriented set for low-analytic, i.e., field-dependent, subjects) than when the set instructions were congruent with the subjects' analytic orientation (e.g., internally oriented set for high-analytic subjects; difference between high- and low-analytic subjects for internal set condition, t 2.38, p < .02, and external set condition, t = .50, ns). DISCUSSION The results of the study indicate that RFT performance is modifiable by situational variables and that these variables interact with the subject's level of analytic ability. Thus, taking the RFT in a tilted position generally caused subjects to make more errors, though high-analytic subjects were less affected by being tilted than were low-analytic subjects. Also, subjects who were set to focus on external visual cues performed in a more field-dependent manner than did those who were asked to pay attention to internal body cues, and this effect was greatest for low-

X SD
Internal Tilt

7.83 1.67

Nontilt

X SD

5.73 1.48 2.25 1.23

10.00 2.24

17.55 3.06 12.50 5.26

12.00 3.28

X SD

4.67 1.11

6.09 1.93

Note. RFT = rod-and-frame test.

condition, the tilt condition led to a significantly greater increase in deviation from vertical for the low-analytic subjects (t = 10.41, p< .0001) than for the high-analytic subjects (t = 6.95, p<.0001). In addition, the three-way interaction between analytic groups, tilt-nontilt conditions, and sets was also significant (F - 4.43, df = 1/165, p < .05). This interaction indicates that the combined effect of these three factors is not additive but possibly multiplicative. Applying the Tukey "honestly significant difference" procedure (Winer, 1971) to the eight means involved in this interaction revealed that the mean error score for the low-analytic external set tilt group was significantly greater than that for any other group; and that the mean error score for the high-analytic internal set nontilt group was significantly lower than that for any other group. Further, the mean error scores for the other six groups formed an ordered set in which no mean was significantly different from the mean adjacent to it in value. Thus, the low-analytic subjects given the external set in the tilt condition performed disproportionately poorly, while high-analytic subjects given the internal set

ROD-AND-FEAME TEST OF FIELD ORIENTATION analytic subjects who took the RFT in a tilted position. The introduction of stress had the effect of producing more extreme fielddependent and field-independent performance than was observed in the absence of stress. These findings suggest that RFT performance is partially determined by a stable cognitive style, but it is also influenced by a number of transitory situational factors which appear to have been neglected by the Witkin group.
REFERENCES Gross, F. S. The role of set in perception of the upright. Journal 0} Personality, 1959, 27, 95-103. Jackson, D. N., Messick, S., & Myers, C. T. Evaluation of group and individual forms of embeddedfigures measures of field-independence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24, 177-191. Johnson, F. A comparison of two personality systems: The PAS and Witkin's FD-FI dimension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1970. Lester, G. Comparison of five methods of presenting the rod-and-frame test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 147-151.

811

Mann, C. W., & Boring, R. O. The role of instruction in experimental space perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 45, 44-48. Reinking, R. Influence of cognitive set variables on RFT performance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, 1971. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609). Taylor, J. G. The behavioral basis of perception. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962. Willoughby, R. H. Field dependence and locus of control. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 24, 671-672. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Witkin, H. A. Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70, 317-336. Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley, 1962. Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K., Meissner, P. B., & Wapner, S. Personality through perception, New York: Harper, 1954. Zuckerman, M. The development of an affect adjective checklist for measuring anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 457-462. (Received April 20, 1973)