 Before we begin our discussion on Billington et al.’s case study Cognitive style predicts, complete the following warm up below: › The title of our case study is, “Cognitive Style Predicts Entry into Physical Sciences and Humanities: Questionnaire and Performance Tests of Empathy an Systemizing.”  Looking at the bolded words, try to define or provide a brief example to help determine the meaning of the word. › What differences are there between men’s and women’s behavior?  And why?! › What are men generally better at than women and what are women generally better at than men?  Determine these characteristics first!  Map reading, physics, judging character, emotional responses, social nuances, mathematics, building, empathy  Now, add more!

 Case Study: Cognitive Style Predicts Entry into Physical Sciences and Humanities: Questionnaire and Performance Tests of Empathy and Systemizing (2007)  Authors: Jac Billington, Simon Baron – Cohen, Sally Wheelwright  Field of Psychology: Individual Differences › Determining/studying the differences, or abnormalities among people (certain population).  What makes us different!?

 Men vs. Women in math and sciences › Men outnumber women in careers requiring scientific style of thinking. › Women are more prevalent in careers requiring social skills. › In the United Kingdom, and possibly worldwide, more men take science related classes at the university level.

 Empathizing focuses on interacting in the real world. › Includes the drive and ability to identify another’s state and respond to these with a range of appropriate emotions. › Thus it incudes both a cognitive and emotional component › The cognitive component has often been referred to as a Theory of Mind (TOM).  The ability for somebody to understand what people are thinking and feeling.

 Systemizing is defined as the drive and ability to analyze the rules underlying a system in order to predict its behavior. › All systems include the same tripartite (3 part) system – input, operation, output › Logical methodology. › Attempt to solve problems in a logical pattern  Find and determine a solution.  The researchers hypothesize that females have a stronger drive to empathize, while males a stronger drive to systemize.

 Four main research questions: › Do males take science subjects and females humanities subjects? › Are males systemizers and females empathizers? › Are science students systemizers and humanities students empathizers? › Does cognitive style (systemizer or empathizer) predict choice of degree subject?  Two additional research questions: › Are males better at forced – choice embedded figures task (FC – EFT) test than females? Are females better at the eyes test than males? › Are science students better at the FC – EFT test than humanities students? Are humanities students better at the eyes test than science students?

 Cognitive Style – the way in which people perceive, learn, think about and recall information.  Systemizing  Empathizing  Physical Sciences  Humanities  Questionnaire  Forced – choice embedded figures task (FC – EFT)  SQ – R (revised version of the systemizing questionnaire)  EQ (empathy questionnaire)  Revised Eyes Test

 Cognitive Style › Definition: the way in which people learn, perceive, think about, and recall information. › Application: Based upon the results of the study, cognitive style is the strongest predictor in career choice.  Empathizing › Definition: drive and ability to identify another’s mental states and to respond to these with one of a range of appropriate emotions. › Application: Empathy was judged by the EG self – report questionnaire and the eyes test.  Systemizing › Definition: the drive and ability to analyze the rules underlying a system in order to predict its behavior. › Application: Systemizing was judged by the SQ – R and the FC – EFT.

 Natural Experiment › Definition: conditions of the independent variable are naturally occurring, or happen, by themselves and are not manipulated or controlled by an experimenter. › Application: People completed the questionnaire and performance test in their natural environment (at home, computer) not in a laboratory.  Self – Report Questionnaire › Definition: participants read questions for themselves and fill in their answers on their own based on their own experiences. › Application: People answered the questionnaire at home away from the influence of the experimenters.  Self – Selecting Sample › Definition: people volunteer themselves for research, sometimes by responding to an add, etc. › Application: The participants in this study responded to an add or an to participate.

 Psychometric Testing › Definition: the scientific study of psychological assessment; tests that measure the mind, mostly intelligence and personality. › Application: Self – report questionnaires (EQ, SQ – R) are psychometric tests.  Individual Differences › Definition: concerned with the differences among people (rather than the things people have in common), particularly in terms of personality and abnormality; not all people are the same and that there are differences in life experiences, intelligence, etc. › Application: This case study looks at how individuals’ cognitive style will predict their entry into certain subject areas.

 Self – Reporting Questionnaires (psychometric tests) › SQ – R  Revised version of the systemizing questionnaires  75 questions scored between 0 – 150.  4 point scale ranging from definitely agree to strongly agree › EQ  Empathy questionnaire  40 questions scored between 0 – 80  4 point scale ranging from definitely agree to strongly agree.  Performance Tests › Revised Eyes Test › Forced – Embedded Figures Task (FC – EFT)  12 pairs of diagrams each with a small shape embedded either in the left or right side.  Respond as fast as possible!  Score, 0 – 24, based on the number correct out of 12 plus a bonus point if the fastest.

 Questionnaires and performance tasks online (secure university website) using self – report › Respondents read the question and selected a response by themselves without researcher interference.  Provide basic information (sex, DOB, handedness, diagnoses of medical condition, educational level/degree)  Complete the tests in any order  Multiple sessions were allowed, complete each test only once.

 Questionnaires/Apparatus › SQ – R: used to determine the participants systemizing quotient (created by this study for the authors), which was a modified version that had better reliability/validity and gender neutral items.  Consists of 75 items  Score 0 – 150 › EQ: used to determine the empathizing quotient of the participant (also created for this study)  40 items  Score 0 – 80 

 The FC – EFT forced choice version of the Embedded Figures (done online) › Select one of two possible answers (thus forced choice) › 12 pairs of diagrams › Find the small black and white shape in one of the two larger, more complex, diagrams › Must answer each in 50 seconds › 1 point for each correct answer and an additional point if score was in the fastest 25%.  Scores range from 0 – 24  The Eyes Test – a four choice task were participants must look at a pair of eyes and choose which of the four words describes what the individual is thinking. › Must answer in 20 seconds.

 415 students › 212 female, 203 male all from the University of Cambridge › Self – selecting sample – responded to an or an advertisement  For participating there was a reward of entry into a prize draw (unsure of the prize) › Any members of the sample who had a previous history of mental illness were excluded from the sample.  Degree classification › Physical science – math, physics, and chemistry › Humanities – classics, languages, and drama

 No ethical guidelines were crossed.

 All data gathered in this case study was quantitative. › SQ – R, EQ, FC – EFT, and Revised Eyes Test › At no point were the participants allowed to ‘elaborate’ on their answers.  Snapshot study › Self – report questionnaires and performance tests completed on – line.

 59.1% of males chose science subjects and 70% of females chose humanities subjects. The difference is significant. › The answer to research question #1 is true!  66% of males were ES (extreme S) and S compared to 25.8% of females. 36.8% of females were EE (extreme E) and E compared to with 10.3% of males. › The answer to research question #2 is true!  56% of science students were ES/S and 41.5% of humanities students were EE/E. › The answer to question #3 is yes.

 The strongest predictor of career choice was cognitive style. › The answer to question #4 is yes. › Females performed significantly better than males on the eyes test with no significant difference on the FC – EFT test. › Science students performed slightly better than humanities students on the FC – EFT and humanities students performed significantly better science students on the eyes test.  CONCLUSION!! – Cognitive style is the best predictor of degree subject entry.

 Validity › The case study is valid as it measures developed questions and aims/hypothesis › Validity (Experimental)  The implementation of controls allows for greater validity  Reliability › Self – report questionnaires and the performance test will give this case strong reliability.  Large sample size  Standardized questions › However, if the participants lie, or understand demand characteristics, this will lower reliability

 Strengths › Validity (Experimental)  The implementation of controls allows for greater validity › Application  Results of the study can help understand the work place and how to better reach/teach college students (higher education) › Quantitative Data Collection  Self report questionnaires and performance tasks provide abundant data.  Data is objective and therefore is reliable (unless…) › Large sample size  415, approximately 50/50.

 Weaknesses › Alternative explanations for results  Cognitive style is investigated but there could be other explanations for entry into physical science and the humanities, such as psychomotor abilities, etc. › Individual vs. Situational  Billington et al.’s study fails to examine an individual’s need, drive, or motive.  Also, Billington et al. failed to examine situation factors such as peer pressure, parents’ expectation, educational options, and finance. › Self – report questionnaires could allow for a response bias  Reduction in validity and reliability (possibly).  Did the participants themselves actually take tests and self – reporting questionnaire? › Sample  The sample is self – selecting and not representative  Therefore, can data be generalized?

 Issues and Debates › Nature v. Nurture – are we more likely to be S/E from birth? › Reductionism vs Holism – is explaining degree choice by S/E style too reductionist?  Usefulness of Psychology in Everyday Life (useful) › Provides and explanation for gender differences in colleges › High S is equated with autism. This study paved the way for further studies and theories on the role of S on autism