1. 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!

2. 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

4. letter, library, paper, couch
Book
letter, library, paper, couch

6. Tree leaf, forest, roots, fire

8. Computer software, office, monitor, hard-disk

10. Spoon metal, soup, fork, dinner

12. Bird garden, feather, song, eagle

14. Music orchestra, note, dance, violin

16. 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

18. 1 0, 11, 2, -1

20. , 31, 299, 602

22. 54 55, 27, 50, 108

24. 16 32, 4, 256, 8

26. , 1001, 999, 2000

28. 98 99, 100, 97, 49

30. 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?

31. 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

32. 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

33. Crozier, J., & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106,

34. Crozier, J., & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106,

35. Thinking styles Is the difference stable (hard to change)? No!
The effect of thinking style is not ‘fixed’, and it is relatively easy to close the gap in performance between the groups
Intervention and collaboration?
Rest of the lab: Problem solving tasks

37. Crozier, J., & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106,

38. Crozier, J., & Johnson, P. (2008). A meta-analysis of thinking style and problem solving performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106,

39. Thinking styles Is the difference stable (hard to change)? No!
The effect of thinking style is not ‘fixed’, and it is relatively easy to close the gap in performance between the groups
Intervention and collaboration?
Rest of the lab: Problem solving tasks

41. Debrief
The inductive thinker/deductive thinker distinction is not real!
You were allocated to groups at random, regardless of your estimates
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)

42. Debrief 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

43. 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 that outgroup member

44. 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?

45. 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 low-status groups (e.g., Bettencourt et al., 2001)
Hypothesis: High-status groups will perceive more conflict than low-status groups

46. 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

47. 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?