Individual differences Today A study in how differences

Individual differences Today: • A study in how differences in thinking style affect problem solving – Evidence that differences in thinking style are linked to problem solving performance etc. • First: a test of thinking style!

Part 1 – word association • 6 sets of words – 1 target word, and 4 other words • Which of the 4 other words do you most associate with the target word? – Example: House • number, street, flat, room – Write your answer on the data sheet • Try to be as quick and honest as possible

Book letter, library, paper, couch

Tree leaf, forest, roots, fire

Computer software, office, monitor, hard-disk

Spoon metal, soup, fork, dinner

Bird garden, feather, song, eagle

Music orchestra, note, dance, violin

Part 2 – number association • 6 sets of numbers – 1 target number, and 4 other numbers • Which of the 4 other numbers do you most associate with the numbers? – Example: 33 • 30, 66, 3, 35 – Write your answer on the data sheet • Try to be as quick and honest as possible

1 0, 11, 2, -1

301 302, 31, 299, 602

54 55, 27, 50, 108

16 32, 4, 256, 8

1000 100, 1001, 999, 2000

98 99, 100, 97, 49

Individual differences • People vary in all sorts of ways • Study of individual differences – Along which dimensions do people differ? • Intelligence • Personality • Thinking style – What do these differences predict? • Problem solving? – Spatial reasoning? – Logical sequencing?

Thinking styles • Two groups in the population: – Inductive thinkers – Deductive thinkers • Not really about accuracy in judgement – Impossible on the association tasks! – Assesses default thinking style – how people approach problems, tasks, etc. • Roughly 50/50 split in population

Thinking styles • Inductive thinkers and deductive thinkers are not just different • Thinking style has been shown to predict: – Performance in problem solving tasks • Speed and accuracy in spatial reasoning; logical sequencing etc. • A robust difference – Observed in many contexts

Crozier, J. , & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 345 -373. 80 75 70 65 60 Average performance on spatial reasoning tasks (%) 55 50 45 40 35 Trial Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of repeated trials

Crozier, J. , & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 345 -373. 80 75 70 65 Average performance on logical sequencing tasks (%) 60 55 50 45 40 Trial Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of repeated trials

Thinking styles • Is the difference stable (hard to change)? – Yes! • The effect of thinking style is relatively ‘fixed’, and it is very difficult to close the gap in performance between the groups • Intervention and collaboration? • Rest of the lab: Problem solving tasks

Crozier, J. , & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 345 -373. 80 75 70 65 60 Average performance on spatial reasoning tasks (%) 55 50 Inductive thinkers 45 Deductive thinkers 40 35 Trial Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of repeated trials

Crozier, J. , & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 345 -373. 80 Inductive thinkers 75 Deductive thinkers 70 65 Average performance on logical sequencing tasks (%) 60 55 50 45 40 Trial Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of repeated trials

Thinking styles • Is the difference stable (hard to change)? – Yes! • The effect of thinking style is relatively ‘fixed’, and it is very difficult to close the gap in performance between the groups • Intervention and collaboration? • Rest of the lab: Problem solving tasks

Debrief 1. The inductive thinker/deductive thinker distinction is not real! – You were allocated to groups at random, regardless of your estimates 2. There is no link between ‘thinking styles’ and problem solving ability etc. ! – This information was intended to create a status difference between the groups (one better than the other)

Debrief 3. The ‘message’ from the other group was not real! – It was pre-prepared – Designed to see how group members react • Conflict, or no conflict? So what is the real purpose of the lab…? • To examine the effects of categorisation and group status on perceptions of conflict

Intergroup behaviour • Importance of categorisation – Psychological distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ • The ‘minimal group’ studies (e. g. , Tajfel et al. , 1971) – Participants categorised on apparently meaningless basis • Coin toss; perceptual style; painter preference – Asked to allocate points/money to anonymous members of their group and the outgroup – Typical finding: discrimination emerges in the allocations • People give more to the ‘ingroup’ member than the outgroup member

Intergroup behaviour • Implication: mere categorisation is enough for discrimination to emerge • BUT what about inequality between groups? – Intergroup status differences • This study: – Categorisation + intergroup status difference – Do high- and low-status groups perceive conflict to the same extent?

Intergroup behaviour • Why might group status affect perceptions of conflict with another group? • Two possibilities: – Some research shows that high-status groups show more ingroup bias, discrimination than lowstatus groups (e. g. , Bettencourt et al. , 2001) – Hypothesis: High-status groups will perceive more conflict than low-status groups

Intergroup behaviour • Why might group status affect perceptions of conflict with another group? • Two possibilities: – Low-status groups -> want to improve their group’s status by challenging the outgroup – High-status groups -> want to keep the status difference intact by reducing conflict – Hypothesis: High-status groups will perceive less conflict than low-status groups

Reflection… • Did you believe the division to be real? • How did the inductive thinkers (the high-status group) feel, and how did the deductive thinkers (the low-status group) feel – especially when you learned about the status difference, and when the deductive thinkers had to leave the room? • Did you care which group you were in? • Did you have any particular thoughts or feelings about the other group? • Did you have any particular feelings about the experimenter? • What did you think and feel when the message from the other group was read out?