Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byTracy Williamson Modified over 8 years ago
2
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!
3
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!?
4
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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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?
8
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
9
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.
10
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 email to participate.
11
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.
12
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.
13
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.
14
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 http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/arc_tests http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/arc_tests
15
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.
19
415 students › 212 female, 203 male all from the University of Cambridge › Self – selecting sample – responded to an email 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
20
No ethical guidelines were crossed.
21
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.
22
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.
25
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.
28
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
29
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.
30
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?
31
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
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.