What are cognitive styles? cognitive style

Introduction

1. Stages of the formation of the meaning of the term "style" and the style approach in psychology

1.1 Theoretical sources of the stylistic approach in the study of intellectual activity

1.2 Individual ways of categorization (J. Kagan's theory of cognitive pace)

1.3 Distinctive features of cognitive styles

2.Psychological characteristics of the main cognitive styles

2.1 Field dependence/field independence

2.2 Narrow/wide range of equivalence

2.4 Rigid/flexible cognitive control

2.5 Tolerance for unrealistic experiences

2.6 Focus/scan control

2.7 Smoothing/sharpening

2.8 Impulsivity/Reflectivity

2.9 Concrete/abstract conceptualization

2.10 Cognitive simplicity/complexity

3. The problem of the relationship of cognitive styles. Contradictions of "multiple" and "unitary" positions in the study of cognitive styles

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

One of the most acute problems of psychology, of course, is the problem of individual mental differences between people. The psyche is, in essence, some abstract object that can be studied and described at the level of general patterns of organization and functioning. However, the phenomenon of an individual subject lies in the fact that the laws of individual behavior are not identical with the laws of behavior in general. Accordingly, the conceptual apparatus created within the framework of general psychology cannot be mechanically transferred to understanding the mechanisms of mental activity of a particular individual. Therefore, the concepts and approaches that made it possible to identify and describe the mechanisms of individual specificity of mental activity have always aroused particular interest in the scientific psychological community.

It is not surprising that the appearance of the concept of "style" in the system of psychological categories caused a kind of professional excitement associated with the growth of hopes for deepening our knowledge of the nature of human intelligence.

Much of what has happened and is happening in the field of style studies can be explained by the exceptionally strong enchanting influence of the word "style" itself. The stylistic approach is a vivid example of the situation in science, about which we can say that “in the beginning there was a word”: for many decades, the results of stylistic research were interpreted through the prism of some initial, a kind of romantic meaning that was invested in the concept of “style”.

After all, what is style? Style is evidence of some uniqueness, isolated from many other people, this is the charm, the presence of which unconditionally characterizes the owner of style (in clothes, demeanor, artistic skill or scientific creativity) as a person with a high level of mental organization. Indeed, finding your own style and being able to maintain it is evidence of talent and personal courage, it is always a sign of individuality.

It is said that the name given to the child subsequently influences his character. Of course, this is pure prejudice.

In the phrase "cognitive style" the substantive emphasis has always been shifted to the word "style". Therefore, at first it will be necessary to briefly dwell on the etymology and the main stages in the formation of this concept as a psychological category.

From the point of view of its original etymology, the word "style" (stylos- Greek) means a stick for writing on wax boards with sharp and blunt ends (the blunt end was erased incorrectly written). It is curious that already in its original metaphorical meaning, style is the possibility of simultaneous participation in the activity of two qualities that are opposite in meaning, equally necessary for its success.

In encyclopedic dictionaries, two - again opposed to each other - aspects of the meaning of this word are usually distinguished:

1) style as an individually-specific way (manner, techniques) of behavior, that is, a characteristic process activities;

2) style as a set of distinctive features of the work of a certain author, that is, a characteristic product activities.

Subsequently, the meaning of the word “style” was formed as an interdisciplinary concept, therefore, studies were carried out on the “style of the era”, “artistic style”, “style of scientific thinking”, etc.

Thus, the concept of style was originally ambiguous.

For psychology, whose categorical apparatus is characterized by insufficient content rigor, and the schemes for interpreting the results of psychological research often carry elements of subjectivism and arbitrariness, it was very risky to involve such a polysemantic term as "style" in its conceptual arsenal. Nevertheless, the deed was done: one of the many small compartments in Pandora's box was opened, and the concept of style began to actively gain its position in psychological science.

1. Stages of the formation of the meaning of the term "style" and style approach in psychology

Alfred Adler(1927). He spoke about the existence of individual behavioral strategies that are developed by a person to overcome an inferiority complex. To do this, a person unconsciously resorts to various forms of compensation for his physical and mental deficits in the form of the formation of an individual life style. Compensation can be adequate (in the form of successfully overcoming feelings of inferiority by implementing the desire for superiority in a socially acceptable and approved form) and inadequate (in the form of hypercompensation due to one-sided adaptation to life as a result of excessive development of any one personality trait or neurotic care in disease, the symptoms that a person uses to justify his shortcomings and failures).

Gordon Allport(1937) used the concept of style to describe the expressive aspect of behavior that characterizes the dispositions of the individual (its motives and goals). Style is a way of realizing motives and goals to which a person is predisposed due to their individual characteristics (therefore, “style” is any personality traits, from selectivity of perception to a measure of sociability). The formation of style, according to Allport, is evidence of the individual's ability to self-realization, which accordingly implies a high level of mental organization of the "I".

As can be seen, in these works, using the term "style", the very fact of the existence of individual differences was stated, which were no longer considered as annoying accidental costs of psychological research.

Further development of stylistic representations at this stage was associated with the "New Look" direction. (new looks) within which individual differences (primarily in the cognitive sphere) for the first time became the subject of special study. So, it was experimentally shown that individual "mistakes" of perception are not just individual differences, but rather a consequence of the action of some basic psychological factors, in particular, in the form of the phenomenon of "perceptual defense".

The individual-peculiar forms of perceptual defense testified to the presence "inside" the subject of special need-motivational states that influenced the individual-peculiar characteristics of the perception of objects and phenomena. For example, children from poor families (compared to children from wealthy families) when estimating the physical size of a coin, exaggerated its size, and to a greater extent, the higher its monetary value.

Thus, at this stage, the concept of style had rather a qualitative meaning; while the attention of researchers was focused on the importance of individualized aspects of behavior. It is characteristic that style, interpreted as a personal property, was considered as a manifestation of the highest levels of the mental development of individuality. The second stage of the stylistic approach falls on the 50-60s of the 20th century and is characterized by the use of the concept of style to study individual differences in the ways of knowing one's environment. In the works of a number of American psychologists, the study of individual characteristics of perception, analysis, structuring and categorization of information, denoted by the term "cognitive styles" comes to the fore (see: Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Lipton, Spence, 1959; Kagan, 1966; Witkin, ltman , Raskin and Karp, 1971; and others).

In the domestic psychological literature, the term "cognitive style" (cognitive style) passed from English literature in the form of a tracing-paper term, although the exact translation of the English word cognitive in Russian corresponds to the word informative.

However, the terms "cognitive" and "cognitive" are not synonymous in relation to the modern conceptual structure of Russian psychology. « Cognitive" - related to the process of reflecting reality in individual consciousness in the form of a cognitive image (sensory, perceptual, mnemonic, mental), i.e. this term is addressed to that what displayed in a cognitive way. "Cognitive" - related to the mental mechanisms of information processing in the process of constructing a cognitive image at different levels of cognitive reflection, i.e. this term is addressed to as a cognitive image is built. Strictly speaking, within the framework of the second stage of the stylistic approach, it was about individual differences in the ways of processing information about one's environment, or cognitive styles proper as a certain kind of cognitive styles, which - in a broader sense of the word - should be understood as individually peculiar ways of studying reality. .

The term "cognitive style" was used to specify a special kind of individual features of intellectual activity, which were fundamentally distinguished from individual differences in the success of intellectual activity, described by traditional theories of intelligence. In other words, the stylistic approach was formed as a kind of alternative to the testological approach as an attempt to find other forms of analysis of the intellectual capabilities of a person. In particular, it was argued that cognitive styles are a formal dynamic characteristic of intellectual activity that is not related to the content (productive) aspects of the work of the intellect. In addition, cognitive styles were considered as stable cognitive preferences characteristic of a given individual, manifested in the predominant use of certain methods of processing information - those methods that best corresponded to the psychological capabilities and inclinations of a given person.

A distinctive feature of this stage is the transition to operational definitions of cognitive styles, when one or another style property is determined through the procedure for measuring it (cognitive style is what is measured using a specific style technique). As a result, style studies turned out to be “instrumentally linked”. It was this circumstance that subsequently led to serious contradictions at the empirical level and, ultimately, to the destruction of the ideological foundations of the traditional stylistic approach. Finally, the third stage of the stylistic approach, the beginning of which can be dated to the 80s of the last century, is characterized by a tendency to overgeneralize the concept of style. In particular, the concept of cognitive style is expanding due to the emergence of new style concepts, such as “thinking style” (Grigorenko and Sternberg, 1996; 1997), “teaching style” (Kolb, 1984; Honey, Mumford, 1986; Liver, 1995), "epistemological styles" (Wardell, Royce, 1978), etc.

Moreover, the concept of style begins to apply to all spheres of mental activity (in accordance with the famous definition J. Buffon:"Style is a person"). Thus, in the last two decades, studies of “evaluative style” (Beznosov, 1982), “emotional style” (Dorfman, 1989), “style of pedagogical communication” (Korotaev, Tambovtseva, 1990), “style of mental activity of a preschooler” have appeared in Russian literature. (Stetsenko, 1983), "personal lifestyle" (Zlobina, 1982), "activity style" (Vyatkin, 1992), "style of coping with difficult life situations" Libina, 1996), "self-regulation style of activity" (Morosanova, 1998) etc.

Thus, within the framework of the third stage, there is an actual identification of style with individual differences in mental activity. However, if styles are always individual differences, then individual differences are by no means always styles. In other words, in modern style studies, the criteria for style specification have been lost. The trap slammed shut: the category of style, which fixes the fact of the individual originality of the ways of a person's behavior, having absorbed and dissolved in itself all other psychological categories, began to claim to replace the subject of modern psychology with style phenomenology.

So, the concept of cognitive style was born at the intersection of personality psychology and the psychology of cognition. This circumstance, apparently, determined the contradictory nature of the grounds on which the meaning of this phrase was built simultaneously “up” and “down”. Due to the word "style" it acquired a qualitative and metaphorical connotation, creating the illusion of the emergence of a universal explanatory principle, while the word "cognitive" returned it to the level of empirical facts, forcing it to seek explanations of the personality through particular cognitive dimensions. We add that if in personality psychology the idea of style as a manifestation of the highest levels of individuality prevailed, then in the psychology of cognition the formal nature of the style properties of intellectual activity, which are not related to high or low indicators of psychological development, was fundamentally emphasized.

Nevertheless, the formation of the stylistic approach was evidence of the transformation of the subject of the psychology of cognition: if earlier the psychology of cognition acted as a science about the general laws of cognitive mental activity, now it turned into a science about the mechanisms of individual differences between people in ways of knowing the world around.

Every scientific concept, like people, has its own destiny. To find the key to the fate of a person, it is necessary to analyze in detail his biography, all the nuances of his life path. In order to understand the content of the concept of cognitive style and assess all the complexities of the current state of style research, it is necessary to conduct a thorough retrospective analysis of the cognitive-style approach at the level of its theoretical and empirical primary sources, taking into account the nature of traditional studies of cognitive styles.

To do this, it is advisable to return to the second stage of the style approach, within which the concept of cognitive style was formulated and operationalized. An analysis of the phenomenology of cognitive-style studies will allow, firstly, to establish empirically the initial content of those individual differences in cognitive activity that have been given the status of stylistic ones, and, secondly, to trace the evolution of the concept of “cognitive style” from the point of view of changing the criteria for its specification.

1.1 Theoretical sources of the stylistic approach in the study of intellectual activity

Gestalt psychological tradition (G. Witkin's theory of psychological differentiation)

In works G. Witkina the concept of cognitive style was formed within the framework of Gestalt psychological ideas about the field and behavior in the field. In relation to different people, the factor of influence of the field (objective and social environment) reveals itself to a different extent. In particular, the behavior of some turns out to be more subject to the field (field-dependent type of behavior), while the behavior of others turns out to be more oriented towards internal activity (field-independent type of behavior) (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, Karp, 1974; Witkin, Goodenough , Oltman, 1979; Witkin and Goodenough, 1982).

A small child tends to perceive what is happening in a field-dependent way, but as he grows up, his perception takes on a more field-independent form. Since the phenomenon of field dependence/independence is associated with age, it follows that field independent perception represents a higher level of psychological development. The most important aspect of mental development is the degree of psychological differentiation of different forms of experience.

Degree differentiation is essential characteristic of any system (psychological, biological, social).

In the broad sense of the word, differentiation characterizes the complexity of the structure. A less differentiated system is in a relatively homogeneous state, a more differentiated structure is in a relatively heterogeneous state.

In turn, the description of the system as more or less differentiated allows us to draw conclusions about the features of its functioning.

In the process of development, the child accumulates and forms a specific experience (“internal system of relations”) in the direction of moving from an initially unstructured state with limited separation from the environment to a more structured state with a greater separation of the “I”. Achieving a higher level of psychological differentiation means having a more articulated experience. According to Witkin, there are two aspects to the growing articulation of experience: the ability to analyze experience and the ability to structure it. A person with articulate experience can easily perceive the details of a complex whole, transform the field based on his own rules, etc.

The term "articulated" (synonyms are the terms "analytical", "differentiated", "structured"), being opposed to the term "global", refers both to the assessment of the psychological state of the subject (the level of psychological differentiation), and to the assessment of the nature of psychological functioning (the method of individual activities). Accordingly, one can speak of two opposite approaches to one's environment: articulated and global.

The growth of psychological differentiation, expressed in the increasing articulation of experience, is manifested in the characteristics of the four main psychological spheres.

The qualitative characteristics of the four psychological spheres are as follows:

1. Articulated intellectual functioning(measure of articulation of cognitive reflection). Initially, the phenomenon of field dependence / field independence was described on the basis of perceptual activity and was defined as “selective ability in perception” in the form of the ability to find a simple relevant detail in a complex perceptual image. Thus the concept field dependent/field independent cognitive style characterized the degree of articulation of individual perceptual experience.

Subsequently, the analytical ability in perception (perceptual articulation) began to be considered in connection with the ability to analyze and structure in a wide range of other types of intellectual activity. People with a field-independent style easily overcome a complex context (quickly isolate a detail from a complex whole, easily transform a given situation, single out the main contradiction in a problem without much difficulty, etc.), i.e., demonstrate an articulated approach to the field. Field-dependent people, on the other hand, struggle to navigate complex contexts (they need time to see a detail in a complex whole, they have a tendency to accept a situation as it is, they are not always able to detect a relevant contradiction in a problem, etc.). ), i.e., they demonstrate a global approach to the field.

It is this more generalized dimension that characterizes the differences in the ways of cognitive activity that was designated by the term "cognitive style", in relation to which perceptual field dependence/field independence acts as its particular component.

2. Articulated representation of your physical body(a measure of the articulation of the image of one's physical "I"). The growth of psychological differentiation is manifested in the transition from a global subjective view of one's body to a clear awareness of its constituent parts and their relationships, as well as its external boundaries.

3. Sense of personal identity(measure of allocation of "I" from the social environment). According to Witkin, the degree of differentiation of the image of the "I" finds its expression primarily in the tendency to act more self-sufficiently and autonomously in situations of interpersonal interaction. In particular, field-dependent (as opposed to independent) people tend to be interpersonal, especially in the face of uncertainty; prefer situations of communication to situations of solitude; tend to keep a shorter physical distance in terms of interpersonal contact; predominantly use social sources of information; frank in expressing their feelings and thoughts; they are distinguished by a delicate and considerate manner of relating to others, etc. (Witkin, Goodenough, 1977; Witkin, Goodenough, Oltman, 1979).

4. Specialized protections and controls in relation to potentially traumatic experiences and inhibition of affective reactions.

Psychological defenses can be non-specialized (using experience in a global way) or specialized (experience is involved on the basis of its preliminary differentiation). Non-specialized defenses include negativism and crowding out, which are characterized by complete rejection of the traumatic situation or complete blocking of unwanted experience. Specialized defenses include isolation, intellectualization and projection, since each of them involves the allocation of individual components of experience (a clearer awareness of individual impressions in relation to the rest, the separation of affective and rational aspects of experience, etc.).

Evidence suggests that field-independent people are more likely to use specialized defenses of isolation, intellectualization, and projection, while field-dependent people use more global defenses of negativism and repression. According to available data, gender-dependent children and adolescents are more likely to exhibit impulsive behavior than gender-independent subjects. It is the hyperactive children, whose striking feature is impulsive behavior due to the low level of control over their own affective states, that turn out to be the most dependent on the field.

The study of the above psychological spheres at different stages of ontogenesis allowed Witkin and his co-authors to formulate the so-called the differential hypothesis the essence of which is as follows: for a given individual (child or adult), the level of psychological differentiation achieved by him will be manifested in the indicators of each of the four spheres, and these indicators themselves will be interconnected. Thus, the differential hypothesis involves the manifestation of greater or lesser differentiation simultaneously in different psychological dimensions: at the level of articulation of external experience (in the form of a field-dependent / field-independent cognitive style), articulation of internal experience (in the form of a body scheme and the image of the “I”), as well as mechanisms regulation of behavior (in the form of a system of protections and controls).

Psychoanalytic tradition (the theory of cognitive controls by J. Klein, R. Gardner, P. Holtzman, G. Schlesinger, etc.)

The concept of cognitive control was developed in the works of the Menninger Clinic J. Klein, P. Holzman, R. Gardner, G. Schlesinger and others (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, Spence, 1959; Gardner, Jackson, Messick, 1960). They tried to find some structural constants in the cognitive sphere of the individual, which acted as intermediaries between need-affective states and external influences. These mental formations are called "cognitive control principles" (or "cognitive controls").

Cognitive controls are, firstly, “structural restraints” in relation to affective urges (in particular, different people differ in how they organize their perception of the same situation, and it is these differences in perception that affect the regulation of needs and affects) and, secondly, the factors of coordination of the mental capabilities of the individual and the requirements of the situation, as a result of which individual behavior acquires an adaptive character. According to their phenomenology, cognitive controls are individual and unique ways of analyzing, understanding and evaluating what is happening.

Within this direction, six cognitive controls (cognitive styles - in modern terminology) were described: equivalence range, category breadth, rigid/flexible control, tolerance for unrealistic experience, focusing/scanning control, smoothing/sharpening.

According to the traditional psychoanalytic point of view, individual differences in cognitive activity are a “distorted” reflection of reality, since needs (drives) are directly projected onto the main cognitive processes, thereby generating psychological defense effects. From the point of view of representatives of the Menninger school, cognitive controls differ from psychological defense in their functions and sources of their development.

In particular, cognitive controls are conflict-free processes. They provide realistically adaptive forms of reflection and, accordingly, the most optimal type of behavior for a given individual in a certain class of life situations.

Consequently, it is impossible to talk about some universal standard of accuracy (adequacy) of reflection, since, being imposed on a person, it only worsens his activity. Cognitive controls are individual standards for the adequacy of cognitive reflection inside specific person.

There are individually peculiar adaptive strategies of intellectual behavior, i.e. a person himself chooses the most optimal way of processing information for himself among alternative ways of relating himself to the environment. Thus, cognitive differences between people "... reflect different adaptive approaches to reality, equally effective (if not quite accurate) ways of reflecting what is happening" (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, Spence, 1959, P. Gardner and his co-authors have consistently emphasized that personality cannot yet be judged by one specific cognitive control. One should take into account the complex of cognitive controls, which was designated by the term “cognitive style”, emphasizing two aspects of this concept: firstly, the cognitive style of a given person is a combination of cognitive control principles, therefore the style is more independent of specific situational requirements than that or another principle of control, and, secondly, the principles of control that form the cognitive style are independent of each other and can manifest themselves in a variety of individual-specific combinations. Thus, cognitive style provided a basis for predicting individual behavior that could not be made on the basis of characteristics of individual cognitive controls. Such a conclusion seems to be very significant, because, as we see, within the framework of this direction, the cognitive style was interpreted as a psychological quality that is multidimensional in nature. However, later this semantic connotation in the concept of cognitive style was lost, and in more modern works, individual cognitive variables (including the above-mentioned cognitive controls) began to be called cognitive styles.

1.2 Individual ways of categorization (J. Kagan's theory of cognitive pace)

Initially J. Kagan studied individual differences in the processes of categorization of objects using two methodological procedures. So, the children were presented with images of three well-known objects, from which it was necessary to select two that were similar to each other. In addition, the method of sorting images of people was used. The study of the bases of similarity when combining objects made it possible to identify three main ways of categorization:

Analytical and descriptive (includes groupings based on the similarity of specific features or individual details of objects, for example: “zebra and T-shirt - have stripes”, “people with red hair”);

Thematic (includes groupings based on situational or functional relationships of objects, for example: "pan and chair - kitchen", "man, woman, boy - family");

Categorically-concluding (includes groupings based on some generalizing judgment using selected objects as examples of a certain category, for example: “clothing”, “people of the same profession”) (Kagan, Moss, Sigel, 1963).

The frequency of analytical responses has been shown to increase with age. In addition, it turned out that 7-10-year-old children with a predominance of analytical answers were more attentive in terms of educational activities, preferred the choice of intellectual professions (scientist, writer). In the subgroup of analytic boys, a greater slowdown of heart rate was observed when required to observe an external stimulus, which indicated their ability for sustained and concentrated attention in relation to the visual impact. In turn, in the subgroup of female analysts, there was a tendency to abandon traditional female polo-role interests (Kagan, 1966).

As a result, it was suggested that children prone to the analytical method of categorization are more attentive to the individual details of what is happening and better control their intellectual behavior, i.e., act reflexively. On the contrary, children who tend to demonstrate a thematic way of categorization find manifestations of impulsiveness in their behavior (they are less attentive and hyperactive in their actions).

1.3 Distinctive features of cognitive styles

So, cognitive styles are individually unique ways of processing information about one's environment in the form of individual differences in perception, analysis, structuring, categorization, and evaluation of what is happening. In turn, these individual differences form some of the typical forms of cognitive response in which groups of people are similar and different from each other (Gauss, 1978). Thus, the concept of cognitive style is used to designate, on the one hand, individual differences in the processes of processing information and, on the other hand, types of people depending on the organization of their cognitive sphere.

From the very beginning, the status of the phenomenology of cognitive styles was determined taking into account a number of fundamental points:

Individual differences in intellectual activity, designated as cognitive styles, were distinguished from individual differences in the degree of success of intellectual activity, identified on the basis of psychometric tests of intelligence (in the form of IQ differences);

Cognitive styles, being a characteristic of the cognitive sphere, at the same time were considered as a manifestation of the personal organization as a whole, since individualized ways of processing information turned out to be closely related to needs, motives, affects, etc.;

Cognitive styles were evaluated, in comparison with the individual characteristics of traditionally described cognitive processes, as a form of intellectual activity of a higher order, since their main function was no longer so much in obtaining and processing information about external influences, but in coordinating and regulating basic cognitive processes;

Cognitive styles were interpreted as intermediaries between the subject and reality, having a direct impact on the characteristics of the course of individual adaptation processes.

In fact, in this area of psychological knowledge there has been a radical change in a number of positions in understanding the nature of individual intellectual differences. The criteria for assessing the intellectual capabilities of a person were revised. Those who received low marks in solving standard test problems were recognized as intellectually untenable in theories of intellectual abilities (intelligence).

In the theories of cognitive styles, on the contrary, it was argued that any indicator of the degree of manifestation of any cognitive style is a “good” result, since the degree of severity of one or another style pole characterizes the effectiveness of the intellectual adaptation of a given person to the requirements of objective reality. In other words, the pathos of the cognitive-style approach was an attempt to introduce a non-judgmental view of the intellectual capabilities of a person.

The special status of the stylistic characteristics of intellectual activity was associated with the recognition of their special role in the regulation of individual behavior, while the stylistic approach was considered as one of the variants of the explanatory theory of personality. In addition, in the theory of cognitive styles, the emphasis shifted to the problem of individuality (uniqueness) of the human mind in the form of recognizing the existence of each person's individually unique ways of organizing cognitive contact with the world. As part of the stylistic approach, in fact, one could say about any person: "Everyone is smart in his own way."

Finally, a fundamentally new methodological toolkit was developed in style studies. Previously, the study of individual differences in intellectual activity was carried out mainly on the basis of the method of solving problems (primarily test ones). In the style study, the subject did not solve problems in the usual sense of the word. He was offered a fairly simple situation without any rigidly set conditions, requirements and time limits with an open-type instruction, according to which the subject could choose his own, most convenient and natural answer situations, make decisions at your natural pace, etc.). In the style study, there were no standards for assessing individual results. The assignment of the subject to one of the two poles of a particular cognitive style was carried out on the basis of such a criterion as the median (on the horizontal axis of a certain style parameter, all indicators to the left of the median were identified as one pole of this cognitive style, to the right - as its other pole).

In other words, if in the traditional study of individual intellectual differences the subject obviously turned into a certain object that was quite harshly manipulated from the outside, then in the style study the subject acted as a subject who had the opportunity to demonstrate his inherent methods of perception, analysis and interpretation of the experimental situation. Along with the undoubted advantages, the methods for diagnosing cognitive styles had one very significant drawback.

Unlike traditional psychometric tests of intelligence, as already noted, there were no norms in style methods. The use of such a criterion as the median led to a serious methodological contradiction: the separation of the subjects of this sample on a horizontal scale along the poles of the corresponding cognitive style (field dependence / field independence, impulsiveness / reflectivity, tolerance / intolerance to unrealistic experience, etc.) to a large extent lost its meaning, since the subjects had such style properties only within their sample.

Given these methodological issues, G. Clause considered it possible to suggest that style methods are not intended for the purpose of making an individual diagnosis, but rather can be used to form experimental groups in the study of the psychological mechanisms of individual differences in intellectual activity (Clauss, 1978).

Nevertheless, it should be recognized that within the framework of cognitive styles, perhaps for the first time, the possibility of a transition from unipolar psychological measurements to bipolar ones was declared and, accordingly, from level criteria (low - high indicators) to typological ones (indicators of one type - indicators of another type) in the assessment of individual intellectual abilities. Finally, we can talk about changing the scheme of the diagnostic study itself. If in traditional psychodiagnostics an individual result was evaluated according to the principle “comparison with others” or according to the principle “comparison with the standard of performance”, then in the style study a new methodological position was proposed: “comparison of the subject with himself”.

Over time, however, the optimism of the representatives of the stylistic approach (both in foreign and domestic psychology) noticeably diminished, because as empirical data accumulated, they had to face a number of contradictions. To understand the nature of these contradictions, we will have to get acquainted in detail with the methods of diagnosing cognitive styles and specific facts from the field of style research. For, I repeat, it is possible to understand the nature of cognitive styles and evaluate the prospects of a stylistic approach only on the basis of a thorough and consistent retrospective analysis of scientific and literary primary sources and the main forms of style phenomenology.

2. Psychological characteristics of the main cognitive styles

In modern foreign and domestic literature, one can find descriptions of about two dozen different cognitive styles. First of all, let us dwell on the description of those cognitive styles that form the basis of the phenomenology of the style approach.

1. Field dependence / field independence.

2. Narrow/wide range of equivalence.

4. Rigid/flexible cognitive control.

5. Tolerance/intolerance to unrealistic experience.

6. Focusing/scanning control.

7. Smoothing / sharpening.

8. Impulsivity / reflectivity.

9. Concrete/abstract conceptualization.

10. Cognitive simplicity/complexity.

Our task is to reproduce the problematic of cognitive styles in its original theoretical and empirical foundations. At this stage of the analysis of the problem, we will try to refrain from interpretations and comments in order not to interfere with building an idea of the so-called "objective state of affairs" from the position of an outside observer.

2.1 Field dependence/field independence

Popularity of Ideas Henry Witkin over the past decades has been surprisingly large, with the number of field dependence/field independence (FI/FI) studies numbering in the many thousands. The more interesting is the analysis of the evolution of ideas about the nature of this cognitive style.

G. Witkina I was interested in the features of behavior in the field, in particular, such effects as "figure - background" and "part - whole". This style parameter was first described by Witkin in connection with the study of individual differences in spatial orientation, when the subject was required to perform some manipulations with the object under the influence of the spatial context (Witkin and Asch, 1948; Witkin, 1949). A little later, individual differences in perceptual activity were described when solving the problem of detecting a simple detail in a complex geometric image (Witkin, 1950).

During the experiments, it turned out that some subjects rely on an external visible field, they hardly overcome its influence, it takes them a long time to “see” the desired detail in a complex image (this phenomenon is called field dependence). Other subjects, on the contrary, tend to control the influence of visual impressions by relying on some internal criteria (in particular, their own proprioceptive experience), easily overcome the influence of the visible field, quickly find a detail in a complex image (this phenomenon is called field independence).

2.2 Narrow/wide range of equivalence

This cognitive style characterizes individual differences in the peculiarities of orientation to similarities or differences in objects (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, Spence, 1959; Gardner, Jackson, Messick, 1960). In particular, in experiments on the free classification of objects, it was found that some subjects divide objects into many groups with a small volume (narrow equivalence range), while other subjects form few groups with a large volume (wide equivalence range). According to R. Gardner, a narrow range of equivalence suggests a more detailed categorization of impressions, which suggests that these subjects use more precise standards in assessing object differences. Subsequently, Gardner proposed to interpret the range of equivalence characteristic of a given individual as a manifestation of conceptual differentiation: the more groups of objects are allocated in terms of their categorization, the higher the conceptual differentiation. Thus, the essence of this cognitive style is how many or few categories are represented in an individual's conceptual experience.

In the works of Russian authors, this stylistic parameter is interpreted as "analyticity" (the tendency to focus on identifying differences in a number of objects) and "synthetics" (the tendency to focus on identifying similarities in a number of objects) (Kolga, 1976; Shkuratova, 1994).

2.3 Narrowness/breadth of the category

This cognitive style is, to a certain extent, close in meaning to the cognitive style "narrow / wide range of equivalence", although these are far from identical style manifestations.

The equivalence range characterizes the degree of subjective differentiation of various objects on the basis of a set of conceptual categories (“large”, “irregularly shaped”, “red”, etc.). The breadth of the category reflects the degree of subjective differentiation of the content of a single category (different variations in the meaning of the category "large", the degree of differentiation of different shades of red, etc.). Thus, narrow categorizers tend to specify their impressions and limit the scope of a certain category, while broad categorizers, on the other hand, tend to subsume a large number of supporting examples under one category.

2.4 Rigid/flexible cognitive control

This cognitive style characterizes the degree of subjective difficulty in changing the ways of processing information in a situation of cognitive conflict. Rigid control indicates difficulties in the transition from verbal to sensory-perceptual functions due to their low degree of automation, while flexible control indicates the relative ease of such a transition due to their high degree of automation (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, Spence, 1959; Broverman , 1960).

2.5 Tolerance for unrealistic experiences

This cognitive style reveals itself in situations characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity. Tolerance for unrealistic experience implies the possibility of accepting impressions that do not correspond or even contradict the ideas that a person has, which he evaluates as correct and obvious (Klein, Gardner, Schlesinger, 1962).

Tolerant individuals evaluate experience according to actual characteristics and are less inclined to formulate it in terms of "usual", "expected", "known". Intolerant individuals resist cognitive experience in which the initial data contradict their existing knowledge.

2.6 Focus/scan control

This cognitive style characterizes the individual features of the distribution of attention, which manifest themselves in the degree of breadth of coverage of various aspects of the displayed situation, as well as in the degree to which its relevant and irrelevant features are taken into account (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, Spence, 1959). Initially, it was called "focusing control", since the subject's ability to concentrate attention on some objectively given characteristics of the stimulus came to the fore. However, later this term had to be abandoned, because the effects of concentration of attention were based on constant scanning (viewing) of the field. Accordingly, some subjects quickly distribute attention to many aspects of the situation, while highlighting its objective details (the pole of broad, or scanning, control). The attention of other subjects, on the contrary, turns out to be superficial and fragmentary, while it fixes obvious, conspicuous characteristics of the situation (the pole of narrow, or focusing, control).

According to Ch. Nosala, this cognitive style has the form of a procedure for viewing the perceived field, which is realized in two main forms: 1) viewing in accordance with some given criterion; 2) browsing under uncertain criteria (Nosal, 1990). It is these two forms of scanning that are reflected in the methods of diagnosing this cognitive style.

2.7 Smoothing/sharpening

Individual differences recorded in this cognitive style are related to the peculiarities of storage of memorized material in memory. The “smoothers” have the preservation of details, the loss of certain fragments. On the contrary, in the memory of the sharpeners there is an emphasis, an emphasis on the specific details of the material being memorized. Subsequently, it was specially emphasized that this style parameter reveals itself in the conditions of perception and memorization of a sequence of stimuli, thus characterizing the sensitivity of the subjects to gradually increasing differences in a number of perceived influences (Holzman and Gardner, 1960).

2.8 Impulsivity/Reflectivity

This cognitive style, in accordance with the initial assumption J. Kagan, characterizes individual differences in the propensity to make decisions quickly or slowly. This stylistic property manifests itself most clearly in conditions of uncertainty, when it is required to make the right choice from a certain set of alternatives. Impulsive subjects tend to react quickly in multiple choice situations, with hypotheses being put forward without analyzing all possible alternatives. Reflective subjects are characterized by a slow response rate in such a situation, hypotheses are tested and repeatedly refined, the decision is made on the basis of a thorough preliminary analysis of the features of alternative objects.

2.9 Concrete/abstract conceptualization

O. Harvey, D. Hait and G. Schroder analyzed the individual features of the conceptual sphere associated with differences in the degree of its concreteness/abstractness. Concreteness/abstractness is based on such psychological processes as differentiation and integration of concepts. The pole of "concrete conceptualization" is characterized by insignificant differentiation and insufficient integration of concepts. For “specific” individuals, the following psychological qualities are typical: a tendency to think in black and white, dependence on status and authority, intolerance of uncertainty, stereotyped decisions, situational behavior, less ability to think in terms of hypothetical situations, etc. On the contrary, the pole “ abstract conceptualization" involves both high differentiation and high integration of concepts. Accordingly, "abstract" individuals are characterized by freedom from the immediate properties of the situation, orientation to internal experience in explaining the physical and social world, risk-taking, independence, flexibility, creativity, etc. (Harvey, Hunt, Schroder, 1961).

In the course of ontogenetic development, an increase in the abstractness of an individual conceptual system occurs, which is due to an increase in the number of alternative schemes for the perception and analysis of the same object, moving away from standard assessments due to an increasing ability for internal transformations and combinations of concepts.).

2.10 Cognitive simplicity/complexity

A person understands, interprets, evaluates and predicts reality on the basis of a certain way organized subjective experience, presented as a system of personal constructs (Kelly, 1955).

A construct is a bipolar subjective scale that simultaneously implements two functions: generalization (establishing similarities) and opposition (establishing differences) in terms of evaluating certain objects (primarily other people and oneself). An example is the constructs "good-natured - evil", "smart - stupid", "dangerous - safe", etc.

When analyzing the features of the organization of the subjective system of constructs, Kelly paid special attention to such a quality as the consistency of constructs. Constructs are not isolated formations, they are interconnected and interdependent in a certain way. Thus, it seems fundamentally important that the degree of cognitive complexity of the subjective evaluative space should be judged both on the basis of the degree of differentiated constructive system (the number of existing independent constructs) and on the basis of the degree of its integration (the nature of the connections between the constructs).

3. The problem of the relationship of cognitive styles

So, what is the nature of cognitive styles, or (in a different formulation) are style properties fundamentally different from any other individual features of intellectual activity, including differences in the success of intellectual performance, strategies for finding a solution, the content of the process of conceptualizing what is happening, etc.?

As you know, it is impossible to get a direct answer to a direct question - both in science and in everyday life. And the point is not the helplessness or cunning of the one to whom the question is addressed. The answer to a direct question (that is, an urgent question addressed to the essence) lies not in the plane of the question asked, but in the plane of its context. Therefore, the answer to a direct question (alas!) is always lengthy. In the study of the nature of cognitive styles, we will also have to “detour” and analyze the context of style issues. First of all, it is necessary to find out whether there are any grounds for the traditional list of cognitive styles and the expansion of their list. In other words, we will talk about the problem of the relationship of individual style parameters. As part of the discussion about the nature of the relationship between cognitive styles, two opposing positions have developed.

According to the first, cognitive styles are independent mental properties, so there are no stable links between them.

According to the second, there is some single cognitive basis (“meta-dimension”), in relation to which specific styles act as its particular manifestations.

Proponents of the first, “multiple” position, denying the interdependence of style parameters, propose to consider individual cognitive styles as independent psychological dimensions (Gardner, Holzman, Klein, Linton, Spence, 1959; Clauss, 1978; Widiger, Knudson, Rorer, 1980). Thus, from the point of view of representatives of the Menninger school, cognitive styles (“cognitive controls”, in their terminology) are organized into certain complexes that have different configurations for different people precisely because there are no permanent connections between styles. Such an idea was associated with the interpretation of cognitive styles as mechanisms of individual intellectual adaptation. Each control participates in the organization of individual behavior to a different extent and in combination with different controls, depending on the goals of the activity and individual criteria for its effectiveness.

For example, in the context of searching for a new job, wide scanning in one person may be associated with field dependence, rigidity of cognitive control, in another - with field independence, flexibility of cognitive control, etc. Therefore, only knowledge of the entire complex of cognitive controls, taking into account the specifics of their combinations, can provide a reliable basis for explaining personality and predicting individual behavior.

So Over time, each person develops a relatively stable combination of cognitive controls, allowing him to coordinate his individual mental characteristics to the maximum extent possible with the objective requirements of the environment. Thus, if we talk about connections between different style parameters, then only in relation to the experience of the individual, and the nature of these connections will be different and unpredictable each time. A significant role in strengthening the "multiple" position was played by studies that demonstrated differences in the psychological sources of styles that seemed to be similar in their characteristics. So, M. Wallach tried to prove that Witkin's field dependence/field independence and Kagan's analytical/thematic styles of categorization are manifestations of the same psychological quality. In particular, it was assumed that one pole of these styles represents an analytical, active approach to the field (field independence and an analytical strategy for sorting objects based on highlighting their distinctive details), while the other is global, passive approach to the field(field dependence and thematic strategy for sorting objects based on situational context).

However, very unexpected results were obtained: firstly, these measurements themselves correlated extremely weakly with each other; secondly, the predominance of PNP correlated with non-verbal intelligence, while the predominance of the analytical style of categorization correlated with verbal intelligence.

As a result, Wallach concluded that it is impossible to have direct links between different styles due to the presence of “mediating variables” (for example, certain personality traits), under the influence of which the links between style indicators can take any form (Wallach, 1962).

Within the framework of the second, "unitary" position, attempts were made to prove that certain common mental mechanisms lie at the basis of different cognitive styles. According to V. A. Kolgi and I. P. Shkuratova, most of the parameters of cognitive styles are grouped around the measurement "analyticity - syntheticity", which characterizes the degree of fragmentation of the perception of the surrounding world (Kolga, 1976; Shkuratova, 1994). This assumption was based on the idea I. M. Paley about the existence of subjective evaluation measuring scales with different scales. Some people tend to build a fractional picture of the world, using subjective scales with a large number of gradations to assess what is happening (analyticity pole), others - a holistic picture of the world, assessing what is happening using subjective large-scale scales (syntheticity pole). According to B. A. Kolge, analyticity - synthesis should be considered as two "metastyles", in relation to which all other cognitive styles act as "substyles". I. P. Shkuratova also considers analyticity-syntheticity as a cross-cutting characteristic of most cognitive styles. At the level of empirical verification of this assumption, it was possible to obtain weak correlations between field independence (Gottschaldt and AKT-70 tests) and a narrow range of equivalence (r = 0.40 and 0.41 at P = 0.05), however, with cognitive simplicity/complexity, these the styles turned out to be unrelated (Shkuratova, 1983).

I would like to note some terminological incident, which, unfortunately, turned out to be duplicated in many domestic studies of cognitive styles. We are talking about the misuse of the term "syntheticity" ("synthetic approach") as a synonym for the term "global approach". In my time G. Witkin used the term "articulated" as opposed to the term "global" to characterize two opposing approaches to the environment. An articulated (analytical, structured, differentiated) approach presupposes the ability to isolate individual elements of a perceived situation and establish connections between them (“the tendency to single out parts of organized fields as differentiated and organize unstructured fields into coherent wholes”), i.e. in terms of the domestic psychology of thinking - it is the ability to carry out analysis through synthesis.

On the contrary, the global (non-analytical, unstructured, undifferentiated) approach characterizes a view of what is happening in “general terms” based on some general vague impression of the situation with the actual absence of transformation of incoming information in the form of its analysis and synthesis. Thus, firstly, "articulateness" as the highest level of psychological differentiation in the cognitive sphere is characterized by the unity of analysis and synthesis, and, secondly, "globality" in principle is not a synonym for "syntheticity" (and also, by the way, "integrity" ). In essence, two mistakes were made here at once: one cannot separate the operations of analysis and synthesis into different metapoles, and one cannot identify the poles of field dependence, a wide range of equivalence, cognitive simplicity with “syntheticity” (or “integrity”).

A striking example of a "unitary" position is the point of view R. Riding, who proposed to combine all the cognitive styles described so far into two "fundamental dimensions" (or basic cognitive styles): "integrity - analyticity" (the tendency to process information in terms of either the whole or parts) and "verbality - imagery" (the tendency to represent information in the process of its processing in the form of words or in the form of visual images).

Initially, five cognitive styles were assigned to the holistic - analytical metastyle:

1) field dependence / field independence;

2) impulsivity/reflexivity;

3) divergent/convergent thinking;

4) smoothing/sharpening;

5) holistic / serialistic (the holistic style corresponds

field dependence, impulsivity, divergence, smoothing, holisticity).

The verbal-figurative metastyle characterized various forms of verbal-figurative coding described in the works A. Paivio, A. Richardson and others (Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1977).

Naturally, the question arises: on what empirical basis were the currently known cognitive styles grouped according to these two criteria? As proof of the existence of two fundamental dimensions (integrity - analyticity and verbality - figurativeness), Riding and his followers usually refer to a work that presents the results of a factor analysis of the ratios of different cognitive styles (Riding, Cheema, 1991).

However, the empirical data presented in this paper can hardly be considered as a basis for such a hypergeneralization. Thus, we studied the correlation of such cognitive styles as field dependence / field independence (group version of the “Included figures” method), smoothing / sharpening (schematization method), impulsiveness / reflectivity (the “Comparison of similar drawings” method), the predominance of verbal / figurative ways of processing information ( method for verbal/figurative coding), while the Eysenck personality questionnaire was additionally used. The subjects were 12-year-old schoolchildren.

Based on the results of factorization of the indicators of the above methods, four factors were obtained, three of which contain the style indicators of interest to us (Riding, Cheema, 1991).

Factor I (“differentiation”): indicators of field independence and sharpening are included with a high weight; reflectivity indices enter this factor with an average weight.

Factor II (“representation”): indicators of figurative-verbal coding and extraversion-introversion are included with a high weight (that is, extroverts tend to be verbalizers, and introverts are visualizers).

Factor IV ("neuroticism"): high weight includes indicators of neuroticism and medium - reflectivity.

As can be seen, firstly, within the framework of this study, only four cognitive styles in early adolescence were the subject of study, and, secondly, factor analysis revealed only partial relationships between individual style indicators. Therefore, Riding's conclusion that all styles are a special case of two fundamental dimensions, is not justified from an empirical point of view. Subsequently, evidence was given that the impulsive/reflective cognitive style cannot be attributed to the integrity-analyticity metastyle, since it does not meet the style criteria (it is not stable, it has a value aspect, it is not bipolar, etc.) (Jones, 1997) .

However, in a later work S. Reiner and R. Riding ~ and again with reference to the above article - already 14 styles are considered as particular manifestations of the basic cognitive style "integrity-analyticity", including:

impulsivity/reflexivity;

Rigid/flexible cognitive control;

Analytical/thematic categorization;

Narrow/wide equivalence range;

Field dependence / field independence;

Sharpening/smoothing;

Cognitive simplicity/complexity;

convergence/divergence;

Globality/consistency;

adaptability/innovativeness;

Logic/intuitiveness;

Algorithmic / constructive;

Concrete/abstract approach to learning;

Analytical/methodological way of processing information.

Particular manifestations of the basic cognitive style "verbality - figurativeness" are 3 styles:

Concreteness/abstractness of conceptualization;

Tolerance for unrealistic experience;

Visual/Verbal Information Processing Strategies (Rayner and Riding, 1997).

VIEWS R. Riding have become very popular in recent years. He developed a method for assessing the severity of two basic styles, namely the Cognitive Styles Analysis test, which also exists in a computer version (Cognitive StylesAnalysisTest - CSA) (Riding, 1991).

Ways to organize information

Two-dimensional matrix of cognitive styles, according to C. Nosal (Nosal, 1990)

1 - field dependence/field independence;

2 - perceptual articulation;

4 - narrow/wide range of equivalence;

5 - cognitive simplicity/complexity; concreteness/abstractness;

6 - tolerance for unrealistic experience;

7 - sharpening/smoothing;

8 - focusing/scanning control;

9 - impulsiveness/reflexivity;

10 - rigid/flexible control;

11 - external/internal locus of control;

12 - slow / fast passage of time

The theoretical significance of this classification, according to Ch. Nosala, lies in the possibility of correlating the phenomenology of cognitive styles, firstly, with theories of information processing and, secondly, with theories of abilities (theories of psychometric intelligence). Its pragmatic meaning lies in the statement of "gaps" in the form of missing matrix nodes, which suggests the existence of cognitive styles not yet described in the scientific literature.

Undoubtedly, multidimensional classifications of cognitive styles are a significant advance in understanding the nature of relationships between individual style parameters. In them, firstly, the non-linear nature of the correlation of styles is stated, taking into account the multi-level, hierarchical form of their organization, and, secondly, an attempt is made to describe the mechanisms of stylistic behavior.

However, the validity of multidimensional classifications of cognitive styles remains in question for the reason indicated above: at the level of empirical research, it is not possible to prove or disprove these classifications. Due to the contradictory nature of the revealed correlations.

Conclusion

In this paper, the history, current state and prospects of the stylistic approach in the psychology of cognition associated with the study of stylistic characteristics of the cognitive sphere of personality (cognitive styles) were considered.

Thus, to cognitive styles- these are individually peculiar ways of processing information that characterize the specifics of the mindset of a particular person and the distinctive features of his intellectual behavior.

There are three stages in the formation of the meaning of the term "style" and, accordingly, the style approach in psychology.

The second stage of the stylistic approach is the 50s-60s of the XX century and is characterized by the use of the concept of style to study individual differences in the ways of knowing one's environment. In the works of a number of American psychologists, the study of individual characteristics of perception, analysis, structuring and categorization of information, designated by the term "cognitive styles", comes to the fore. A distinctive feature of this stage is the transition to operational definitions of cognitive styles, when one or another style property is determined through the procedure for measuring it (cognitive style is what is measured using a specific style technique).

The third stage of the stylistic approach, the beginning of which can be dated to the 80s of the last century, is characterized by a tendency towards hypergeneralization of the concept of style. In particular, the concept of cognitive style is expanding due to the emergence of new style concepts, such as “thinking style” (Grigorenko and Sternberg, 1996; 1997), “teaching style” (Kolb, 1984; Honey, Mumford, 1986; Liver, 1995), "epistemological styles" (Wardell, Royce, 1978), etc.

The emergence of stylistic metaconcepts (“metastyles”) is noted, replacing the entire set of specific cognitive styles described so far:

Articulation - globality (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, Karp, 1974);

Analyticity - syntheticity (Kolga, 1976; Shkuratova, 1994);

Imagery - verbality and integrity - detail (Riding, 1997), etc.

Moreover, the concept of style begins to apply to all areas of mental activity. Thus, within the framework of the third stage, there is an actual identification of style with individual differences in mental activity.

The original ambiguity of the term "cognitive style" revealed itself in the diversity of those phenomena that were brought under this concept. In particular, cognitive style was understood as:

Persistent differences in cognitive organization and cognitive functioning (Ausubel, 1968);

Individual features of cognitive processes that are consistently manifested in various situations when solving various problems (Soloviev, 1977);

Preferred way of analyzing and structuring one's environment (Witkin et al., 1974);

A set of cognitive control principles that provide the possibility of realistically adaptive forms of cognitive reflection based on the regulation of affective states (Gardner et al, 1959);

Intelligence profile (Broverman, 1960);

Stable traits of a higher order that predetermine the way in which cognitive abilities and affective properties are interconnected in acts of individual behavior (Wardell, Royce, 1978), etc.

Nevertheless, various definitions of cognitive style have a certain common denominator associated with the fixation of a number of distinctive features of this mental quality:

1) cognitive style is a structural characteristic of the cognitive sphere, indicating the features of its organization and not directly related to the features of its content;

2) cognitive style - these are individually peculiar ways of obtaining one or another cognitive product, i.e., an instrumental characteristic of intellectual activity, which can be opposed to its productive characteristic;

3) cognitive style, in contrast to traditional unipolar psychological measurements, is a bipolar dimension, within which each cognitive style is described by referring to two extreme forms of intellectual behavior (in the form of field dependence / field independence, impulsivity / reflectivity, etc.) ;

4) value judgments are not applicable to cognitive styles, since representatives of one or another pole of each cognitive style have certain advantages in those situations where their individual cognitive qualities contribute to effective individual adaptation;

5) cognitive style is a stable characteristic of the subject, stably manifested at different levels of intellectual functioning and in different situations;

6) cognitive style is a preference for a certain way of intellectual behavior (i.e., the subject, in principle, can choose any way of processing information, but he involuntarily or arbitrarily prefers any certain way of perceiving and analyzing what is happening, which is most appropriate to his psychological capabilities) .

Bibliography

1. Cold M. A. cognitive styles. On the nature of the individual mind. 2nd ed. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. - 384 s:. - (Series "Masters of Psychology")

N.V. Zhbankova, N.V. Lukyanchenko

FEATURES OF STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF COGNITIVE STYLES OF PERSONALITY

A retrospective analysis of the cognitive-style approach at the level of its theoretical and empirical sources made it possible to understand the content of the concept of "cognitive style"; evaluate all the complexities of the current state of style studies, taking into account the nature of traditional studies of cognitive styles. Meanwhile, the study of cognitive styles is an attempt to analyze the features of the structure and functioning of the individual mind. “Every person who can be said to be smart is smart in his own way. This statement is indisputable, because it is obvious” [Cit. by: 3: 12].

From the point of view of its original etymology, the word "style" ("stylos" - Greek) means a stick for writing on wax boards with sharp and blunt ends. Already in the original metaphorical meaning, style is the possibility of simultaneous participation in the activity of two qualities that are opposite in meaning, equally necessary for its success.

Despite the fact that cognitive styles are actively studied today, there is still no single definition of this definition in science. The ambiguity in understanding the category of "cognitive style" reveals itself in the diversity of those phenomena that are subsequently subsumed under this concept.

So, in one of the formulations, the concept of "cognitive style" is used to designate, on the one hand, interindividual differences in the processes of processing information and, on the other hand, types of people depending on the characteristics of their cognitive orientation.

In the formulation of another idea of the content of the concept of "cognitive style" lay the idea of the existence of stable differences in the ways of perception and thinking.

The analysis of literary sources will help to understand the content of ambiguity.

Following M.A. Kholodnaya, we single out three stages in the formation of a cognitive style in psychology.

The first mention of the concept of "cognitive style" in psychology goes back to the works of Western researchers. In the context of the differential-analytic approach, American psychologists described the mechanisms of individual differences in the ways of knowing their environment (H.A. Witkin, 1974; R.W. Gardner, 1959), studies of individual characteristics of perception (H. A. Witkin, 1950; J. Biery, S. Messerley, 1957), analysis, categorization and reproduction of information (Ph. K. Oltman, E. Raskin, S. Karp, 1971; Ph. Holz-man, G. S. Klein, Linton, Spence, 1959; Kagan, 1966, etc.).

Of particular interest to Western scientists during this period arose in the study of perceptual processes. It turned out that the perception of a person bears the imprints of his personality. One of the first to prove that the distortions of perception are not accidental and are associated with the personal characteristics of individuals were representatives of the direction, called "New Look" ("New Look"). Somewhat later, on the basis of research in this direction, descriptions of more than a dozen individual methods of operating information appeared, which were called cognitive styles. These include: polydependence / polyindependence (H. A. Witkin), narrow / wide range of equivalence (R. Gardner), flexible / rigid cognitive control (V. Cline), tolerance for unrealistic experience (D. Jacson), focusing / scanning control ( W. Croskett), smoothing/sharpening (S. Messik), impulsiveness/reflectivity (T. Globerson, E. Hant), concrete/abstract conceptualization (G. Goodenough), cognitive simplicity/complexity (R. Gardner), etc.

A distinctive feature of this stage is the understanding and explanation of the cognitive style from the position of defining individual operations. An atomistic position on the nature of cognitive styles in psychology comes to the surface. Cognitive styles are rigidly determined by innate properties. Therefore, the content is based on the characteristic of sustainability and stability.

At the second stage, the content of the concept of "cognitive style" is expanded. There is a tendency to hypergeneralization of the concept due to the emergence of new style definitions, the results of practical research, which were brought under the general basis of cognitive style. The specificity of the study of cognitive style at this stage is shifting towards the integration of its multiplicity of characteristics (Grigorenko, Stenberg, 1996; 1997; Kolb, 1984; Honey, Mumford, 1986; B. L. Liver, 1995).

The appearance of stylistic metaconcepts (metastyles) is noted, replacing the previous descriptions of the existing specific cognitive styles.

The whole set of descriptions of cognitive styles in psychology comes down to two basic polar characteristics: articulation - globality

(H. A. Witkin, Goodenough, P. Oltman, 1979); analyticity - syntheticity (V.A. Kolga, 1976; I.P. Shkuratova, 1994); figurativeness - verbality and integrity - detail (Riding, 1997), etc. In the listed series, the most widespread dichotomy is: analyticity - syntheticity. The trend of a unitary approach in interpreting the essence of cognitive styles is due to the emergence of empirical data. It turned out that the interpretation of the plurality of cognitive styles in the subject, in principle, is a particular manifestation of the two basic style parameters "analyticity / syntheticity". Practical results made it possible to put forward a hypothesis about the existence of a connection between different cognitive styles. This led to the discovery of basic (leading) styles responsible for the manifestation of an individual style index towards either “analyticity” or “syntheticity” and “peri-

pheric styles”, which reinforce the vector direction of the presenters. This hypothesis is the leading one in the context of our work.

The main theoretical and practical studies of the second stage were carried out in line with the activity approach and belong to representatives of domestic psychology. Empirical evidence is emerging in favor of the openness, instability, and variability of the nature of cognitive styles. On this basis, it can be assumed that the second stage is a transitional stage in understanding the content of cognitive styles from stability and fixation to variability and variability in ontogeny. The latter is confirmed by the provision on the determination of cognitive styles by leading activity. The style of the subject's activity has a great influence on the development and formation of cognitive styles. Characterization of variability in ontogenesis is possible through the mechanism of adaptation, adaptation of personality formations, to which we include cognitive styles, to the requirements of the leading activity. So, M.A. makes a preliminary conclusion. Kholodnaya (2002), since cognitive styles are sensitive to subjective and situational factors, they can vary, adapting the cognitive capabilities of a person to the requirements of his current environment, and are related to the mechanisms underlying productive intellectual functioning [Cit. according to: 5].

The third stage in the development of cognitive styles accumulated research carried out in line with the systemic-personal, humanistic paradigm, where the results of both domestic and foreign scientists found their application. A distinctive feature of the research is the consideration of the concept of "cognitive style" from the standpoint of meta-dimension and universality (polymodality) in refraction to all areas of the mental activity of the individual. In this context, we agree with the famous definition of J. Buffon: “Style is a person” [Cit. according to: 11].

So, in recent years, new studies and a new look at understanding the nature of cognitive styles have appeared in the domestic literature. Cognitive style as a “personal lifestyle” (I.P. Zlobina, 1982), as an “activity style” (B.A. Vyatkin, 1992), as a style of coping with difficult life situations” (A.V. Libin, 1996) as "the style of self-regulation of activity" (V.I. Morosanova, 1998), etc.

The apotheosis, in our opinion, is the concept of "human style", in which the cognitive style is considered as a meta-dimension in relation to all the properties of individuality at all levels of its organization, from temperament to the semantic sphere (A.V. Libin, 1998), as “individual cognitive style” (M.A. Kholodnaya, 2002), as “a style of understanding embodied in strategies for relating to the world around us” (G.A. Berulava, 1994).

The main pathos of the third stage is the change of priorities: from the style of activity to the style of individuality as a single integral system, from style as the prerogative of consciousness in the aspect of the activity approach to style as

characterization of the types of activity of the psyche, including the sphere of the unconscious. In fact, the cognitive style is identified with various unconscious forms of compensation and manifests itself in the form of an individual life style (A. Adler, 1927). G.A. Berulava (1994) considers individual style manifestations within the framework of various types of activity, where this psychological phenomenon is fixed through the use of the concept of "individual style of activity". However, under the individual style of activity, she understands individual behavior. A distinctive feature of behavior in comparison with activity is that human behavior is not subject to a pre-set goal and is personal in nature. In this regard, the fundamental difference between the style of activity and styles of individuality lies in the fact that styles of activity are formed purposefully and predominantly consciously. Styles of individuality lie in the sphere of the unconscious and, accordingly, manifest themselves in human behavior.

In the context of the third stage, the concept of "cognitive style" acts as a through integral characteristic of a holistic individuality, the genesis of which depends both on individual characteristics and on the mechanisms of personal regulation formed in certain social conditions of the environment. Moreover, this integral characteristic is expressed in the form of stylistic “strategies-means” in the psychological arsenal of the individual. The greater the repertoire of stylistic “strategies-means” a person as a subject has, the more arbitrarily it varies with these stylistic strategies, the higher the stability of the individual in constantly changing life situations, which leads to the peak of the socio-psychological maturity of the individual (A.G. Asmolov, 1983) .

The identification of three stages in the history of the development of cognitive styles through a review of literary sources shows that in terms of content, the concept of "cognitive style" has evolved from an atomistic interpretation of the nature of styles into a systemic style organization in the structure of personality. This fact testifies to the continuing ambiguity of the concept.

The problem of cognitive personality styles is now experiencing a new birth and is being developed very intensively. But, perhaps, the main "blank spots" in this area are issues related to the problem of structural components in the organization of personality cognitive styles. An analysis of the psychological literature showed that throughout all the stages of the formation of the concept of "cognitive style" in psychology, scientists to some extent turned to the study of the structural organization of personality cognitive styles. The result of the work done fit into the framework of the paradigm adopted at a certain stage of development. So, in the analytic-differentiated approach, thanks to the study of structural components, the main parameters, characteristics of cognitive styles appear, which later become the names of the styles themselves (more than 20 of them are considered in the literature) (A. Adler, Allport, Stadner, Gardner, Witkin, Klein) . According to the researchers,

The fugitive cognitive-style approach emphasizes the procedural, formal-dynamic nature of the systems of operations that form the cognitive style, determining it mainly by individual properties. In line with the activity paradigm, the structural analysis of cognitive styles depended on the activity of the subject. In the context of the system-activity approach to understanding the personality, cognitive styles turned out to be rigidly tied to the characteristics of a certain type of activity (A.G. Asmolov, 1984; D.A. Leontiev, 1984;

N.M. Lebedeva, 1986; H. Kuynarpuu, 1985; A.N. Meshkov, S.F. Sergeev, 1984; I.G. Skotnikova, 1986; E. Mastvilisker, 1984 and others).

It is known that the cognitive style is a structural formation with operational components of various levels, hierarchically organized according to the principle of a functional system. The structural-level organization of cognitive styles was studied by B.M. Velichkovsky, M.A. Kholodnaya and others. They singled out different levels and blocks of meaningful, operational, procedural components in the structure of cognitive styles. But the models of cognitive styles of these authors were the result of the achievements of the informational and cognitive approaches to the consideration of the phenomenon of cognitive styles. In our opinion, the presented style models do not fully reflect the features of the personal characteristics of individuality. Within the framework of a personality-oriented approach, cognitive styles are harmoniously built-in formations in the personality system. At the same time, the personality also has its own structure (B.G. Ananiev, A.G. Asmolov, V.S. Merlin). In the context of our work, the term "personality" is considered in the unity of its organic, psychological, sociocultural manifestations, where the emphasis is placed on stylistic originality and is used in a broad sense as a synonym for the term "individuality". In other words, the concepts of "personality" and "individuality" overlap in the semantic field, and all the characterological features of the concept of "personality" can also be attributed to "individuality". Accordingly, cognitive styles are considered as personal formations within the integral system of personality. Since cognitive styles are an integrative and personal formation, they should first be considered from the standpoint of the concept of "personality". Cognitive styles are considered in our work from the standpoint of systemic and personal approaches developed and developed in studies of system integration (B.G. Ananiev, B.F. Lomov, V.S. Merlin, B.M. Velichkovsky, M.A. Kholodnaya) and person-oriented (subjective) (G.A. Berulava, A.G. Asmolov) approaches.

The initial theoretical and methodological foundations were the principles of consistency, activity, integrity, unity of inter-level connections in a holistic individuality, a structure-forming factor, the provisions of modern cognitive psychology about styles as a hierarchically organized system of a person's mental space, etc.

These approaches make it possible to single out three levels in the structure of cognitive styles: Level I - sensory-perceptual - is represented by cognitive styles.

first-order lami, it is expressed by the characteristics of perception that define the features of information processing in the form of spatial discreteness (visual perception), temporal discreteness (auditory perception) and subjectivity (kinesthetic perception); Level II - mental - is represented by cognitive styles of the second order, it is expressed by the style characteristics of thinking (analyticity / syntheticity); Level III - meta-cognitive (reflexive) - is represented by cognitive styles of a higher order, it is expressed by ten groups of meta-reflection characteristics: 1) the external form of information receipt; 2) quality of thinking; 3) time (duration); 4) motivation; 5) pace (speed); 6) social factor; 7) emotional factor; 8) sensory-associative factor; 9) resource; 10) frequency, or repeatability. At the same time, out of the total number of presented groups, we singled out six as a universal set. Each individual level of the structural organization of styles, by means of “filling in” with certain components, introduces specific features and properties into the information processing process.

The structure-forming factor in the proposed level organization of personality cognitive styles is cognitive flexibility. Its functional load is to provide mutual translation of the properties of cognitive styles of different levels. This process gives rise to the formation of intra-level and inter-level connections and determines the breadth of the range of combinations of cognitive-stylistic properties within the cognitive system. The degree of manifestation of the activity of cognitive flexibility "sets" the breadth of style properties involved in various combinations of cognitive styles. As a result, the personality demonstrates a multivariate repertoire of individual strategies of cognitive activity. By the method of comparative analysis, it was possible to identify the degrees of manifestation of the activity of cognitive flexibility: 1st degree - low, 2nd degree - medium and 3rd degree - high.

Interlevel connections in the structural-level organization of cognitive styles of a person, arising as a result of the manifestation of the degree of activity of cognitive flexibility within the cognitive system, are in the nature of a complex projection: when certain characteristics of cognitive styles of a higher level correspond to combinations of characteristics of cognitive styles of lower levels.

Hence, cognitive flexibility is a dynamic meta-property of the cognitive system, which provides inter-level and intra-level connections of cognitive styles of different levels through the manifestation of the degree of activity within the stylistic organization. In the process of manifesting its activity, it provides a wide range of combinations of the properties of cognitive styles of various levels, which affects the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the information processing process and thus determines the simple and complex individual cognitive profiles of the personality. A simple style profile is characterized by a narrow range of combinations of properties of cognitive styles, most often on one

nom cognitive style. A complex style profile is a wide range of combinations of the properties of cognitive (most often several) styles.

To illustrate the above, we present a model of the structural-level organization of personality cognitive styles.

As a result, we propose a formulation of cognitive style in the context of our work. By cognitive style, we mean integrative education in a holistic system of personality. The cognitive styles of a personality have a structural-level organization and are set by level invariants of the properties of cognitive styles. The properties of cognitive styles are represented by different levels in the form of modalities of perception, styles of thinking, and groups of characteristics of metacognition (reflection). The degree of manifestation of the activity of cognitive flexibility as a structure-forming factor within a given system provides intra-level and inter-level connections between the properties of cognitive styles. This is reflected in the breadth of the range of combinations of properties of cognitive styles in the process of information processing and affects its qualitative and quantitative characteristics. The breadth of the range of combinations of properties of cognitive styles is represented by simple and complex individual-cognitive personality profiles.

Rice. Model of structural-level organization of personality cognitive styles

Bibliographic list

1. Ananiev, B.G. Sensory-perceptual organization of a person // Cognitive processes: sensations, perceptions / B.G. Ananiev. - M.: Pedagogy, 1982. - S. 7-31.

2. Bloom, F. Brain, mind and behavior / F. Bloom, A. Leyzerson, L. Hofstadter. - M.: Mir, 1988. - S. 174-196.

3. Cognitive styles: theses of the scientific and practical seminar / ed. A. Kolgi. - Tallinn, 1986.

4. Leontiev, D.A. Individual style and individual styles - a look from the 90s / D.A. Leontiev // Human style: psychological analysis / ed. A.V. Libin. - M.: Meaning, 1998. - S. 109-124.

5. Kholodnaya, M.A. Cognitive styles: on the nature of the individual mind: textbook / M.A. Cold. - M.: PERSE, 2002. - S. 232-233.

6. Velichkovsky, B.M. Modern cognitive psychology / B.M. Velichkovsky. - Moscow State University, 1982. - 336 p.

7. Merlin, V.S. Formation of an individual style of activity in the learning process / V.S. Merlin, E.A. Klimov // Soviet Pedagogy. - M.: Enlightenment, 1967. - No. 4. - S. 39-41.

8. Klaus, G. Introduction to the differential psychology of learning / G. Klaus. - M.: Pedagogy, 1987. - S. 101-113, 96-98.

9. Leaver, B.L. Teaching the whole class / B.L. Leaver. - M.: New School, 1995. - 48 p.

10. Berulava, G.A. Psychological features of the integrative cognitive style "differentiality-syntheticity" / G.A. Berulava // Modern problems of the psychology of thinking. - M.: Yearbook, 1994. Issue. 1. - S. 54-64.

11. Merlin, V.S. Formation of an individual style of activity in the learning process / V.S. Merlin, E.A. Klimov // Soviet Pedagogy. - 1967. - No. 4.

12. Alekseev, A.A. Understand me correctly, or a book about how to find your style of thinking, effectively use intellectual resources and gain mutual understanding with people / A.A. Alekseev, L.A. Gromov. - St. Petersburg: Ekon. school, 1993. -352 p.

13. Grinder, M. NLP in Pedagogy / M. Grinder, L. Loyd. - M.: Institute for General Humanitarian Research, 2001. - 320 p.

Introduction

1. Stages of the formation of the meaning of the term "style" and the style approach in psychology

1.1 Theoretical sources of the stylistic approach in the study of intellectual activity

1.2 Individual ways of categorization (J. Kagan's theory of cognitive pace)

1.3 Distinctive features of cognitive styles

2.Psychological characteristics of the main cognitive styles

2.1 Field dependence/field independence

2.2 Narrow/wide range of equivalence

2.4 Rigid/flexible cognitive control

2.5 Tolerance for unrealistic experiences

2.6 Focus/scan control

2.7 Smoothing/sharpening

2.8 Impulsivity/Reflectivity

2.9 Concrete/abstract conceptualization

2.10 Cognitive simplicity/complexity

3. The problem of the relationship of cognitive styles. Contradictions of "multiple" and "unitary" positions in the study of cognitive styles

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

This paper discusses the history, current state and prospects of the stylistic approach in the psychology of cognition, associated with the study of stylistic characteristics of the cognitive sphere of personality (cognitive styles). cognitive styles- these are individually peculiar ways of processing information that characterize the specifics of the mindset of a particular person and the distinctive features of his intellectual behavior.

It is said that the name given to the child subsequently influences his character. Of course, this is pure prejudice.

In encyclopedic dictionaries, two - again opposed to each other - aspects of the meaning of this word are usually distinguished:

1) style as an individually-specific way (manner, techniques) of behavior, that is, a characteristic process activities;

2) style as a set of distinctive features of the work of a certain author, that is, a characteristic product activities.

Thus, the concept of style was originally ambiguous.

1. Stages of the formation of the meaning of the term "style" and style approach in psychology

There are three stages in the formation of the meaning of the term "style" and, accordingly, the style approach in psychology.

At the first stage, the style was considered in the context of personality psychology to describe the individual-peculiar ways of a person's interaction with his social environment. For the first time the term "style" appeared in psychoanalytic works Alfred Adler(1927). He spoke about the existence of individual behavioral strategies that are developed by a person to overcome an inferiority complex. To do this, a person unconsciously resorts to various forms of compensation for his physical and mental deficits in the form of the formation of an individual life style. Compensation can be adequate (in the form of successfully overcoming feelings of inferiority by implementing the desire for superiority in a socially acceptable and approved form) and inadequate (in the form of hypercompensation due to one-sided adaptation to life as a result of excessive development of any one personality trait or neurotic care in disease, the symptoms that a person uses to justify his shortcomings and failures).

A significant place in domestic and foreign psychology is given to the consideration of cognitive, or cognitive, styles of activity, the intensive study of which began by Western psychologists in the 1960s. (G. Witkin et al. [N. WitKin et all., 1967)) and somewhat later - domestic (V. A. Kolga, 1976; E. T. Sokolova, 1976; M. A. Kholodnaya, 1998, 2002, and etc.). True, the concept of cognitive styles did not appear suddenly. Already in separate works of the 1920-1930s. close phenomena were identified, for example, “lifestyle” by A. Adler, “rigidity” by R. Cattell and “rigidity of control” by J. Stroop, ideas about the relationship between the first and second signaling systems by I.P. Pavlov.

cognitive style- this is a collective concept for relatively stable methods of cognitive activity, cognitive strategies, consisting in peculiar methods of obtaining and processing information, as well as methods of its reproduction and methods of control.

cognitive styles- also, in some way, styles of activity, since they characterize the typical features of intellectual activity (learning), including perception, thinking and actions associated with solving cognitive problems, mainly in a situation of uncertainty (G. Klaus, 1987).

The American psychologist D. Ozbel (D. Ausubel, 1968) singled out 20 features of intelligence, among which are the tendency to acquire new knowledge or detail existing ones, rigidity or flexibility of thinking when solving problems, preferential memorization of certain information, etc.

In foreign and domestic literature, one can find mention of about a dozen different cognitive styles, including:
- by type of perception: field dependence field independence;
- by type of response: impulsiveness - reflexivity;
- according to the features of cognitive control: rigidity - flexibility;
- by equivalence range: narrowness - breadth;
- by complexity: cognitive simplicity - cognitive complexity, tolerance for unrealistic experience;
- by type of thinking: analytical - synthetic;
- according to the dominant way of processing information: figurative - verbal, according to the locus of control: external - internal.

Field dependence - field independence. For the first time these terms were introduced into scientific use by American scientists under the leadership of G. Witkin (N. A. Wit-Kin, D. R. Goodenough, 1982; N. A. WinKin et al., 1967, 1974) in connection with the study of the ratio in perceptual activity visual and proprioceptive cues.

Thus, the cognitive styles of field dependence - field independence began to be perceived as reflecting the features of solving perceptual problems. Field dependence is characterized by the fact that a person focuses on external sources of information, tends to ignore the less noticeable features of the analyzed object, which creates great difficulties for him in solving perceptual problems. Field independence is associated with a person's orientation to internal sources of information (knowledge and experience), therefore, he is less influenced by external landmarks, more inclined to highlight its essential, rather than more noticeable features in a situation.

Field independence is associated with a high rate of non-verbal intelligence (imaginative thinking), higher learning ability, success in solving tasks for quick wit, ease of changing attitudes, with autonomy, stability of the image of the “I”, more objective approaches to problems, resistance to suggestion, criticality, higher morality . However, those who are independent get along worse with people, tend to manipulate them, evaluate them and themselves less positively, and resolve conflicts more difficult. A group of independents rarely comes to an agreement on controversial issues.

Reflexivity - impulsiveness. These styles were singled out by D. Kagan (J. Kagan, 1965, 1966) when studying intellectual activity, when in conditions of uncertainty it was necessary to make a decision and it was necessary to make the right choice from a certain set of alternatives.

Impulsive people want to achieve quick success, which is why they tend to quickly respond to a problem situation. However, hypotheses are put forward and accepted by them without careful thought, so they often turn out to be wrong. Reflexive people, on the contrary, are characterized by a slow reaction in such a situation, the decision is made on the basis of a careful weighing of all the pros and cons. They try not to make mistakes, for which they collect more information about the stimulus before responding, use more productive ways of solving problems, more successfully apply the strategies acquired in the learning process in new conditions (D. Kagan et al.; R. Olt; D. McKinney ; V. Neisle ; D. Denny ).

Impulsive students are worse than reflexive ones in coping with tasks for solving problems, where alternative answers are not indicated.

The reflexive ones are more field independent than the impulsive ones. They have higher attention span. Impulsive people have less self-control, low concentration of attention, but a large amount of it (M. A. Gulina).

Rigidity - flexibility (flexibility) of cognitive control. This style is associated with the ease or difficulty of changing the mode of activity or switching from one informational alphabet to another. The difficulty of changing the switch leads to the narrowness and inflexibility of cognitive control.

The term "rigidity" was introduced by R. Cattell to refer to the phenomena of perseveration (from Latin perseveratio - "stubbornness"), i.e. obsessive repetition of the same thoughts, images, movements when switching from one type of activity to another.

These styles are diagnosed using the word-color test by J. Stroop. A conflict situation is created by an interference situation, when one process is suppressed by another. The subject must name the color in which the words denoting colors are written, while the color of the spelling of the word and the one that is indicated by the word do not correspond to each other.

Narrow-wide range of equivalence. These cognitive styles show individual differences on a scale that a person uses to evaluate the similarity and difference of an object.

The basis of such a discrepancy is not so much the ability to see the difference, but the degree of "sensitivity" to the identified differences, as well as the focus on fixing different types of them.

The relationship of these cognitive styles with personal characteristics has been revealed. "Analyticism" is accompanied by increased anxiety, it is positively associated with the self-control factor, according to R. Cattell, and negatively with the self-sufficiency factor. "Analysts" try to fulfill social requirements well and are oriented towards social approval.

The analytical style is effective in the following training program: low rate of presentation of educational information, a large number of repetitions, low variability of educational tasks, emphasis on voluntary memorization and self-regulation of the functional state (1986; Klaus, 1984).

Tolerance for unrealistic experience. Tolerance (from Latin tolerantia - “patience”) means tolerance, indulgence towards something. As a characteristic, it suggests the possibility of accepting impressions that are inconsistent or even opposite to those that a person has (for example, when quickly changing pictures with a horse, there is a feeling of its movement). Intolerant people resist the visible, as it contradicts their knowledge that the pictures show a motionless horse (M.A. Kholodnaya, 1998). The main indicator of tolerance is the duration of the period in which the subject sees a moving horse. In fact, we are talking about the ability to accept information that does not correspond to existing settings and perceive external influences as they really are.

Cognitive simplicity is cognitive complexity. The theoretical basis of these cognitive styles is the theory of personality constructs by J. Kelly (2000). The severity of this or that style is determined by the measure of simplicity or complexity of the system of personal constructions in interpreting, predicting and evaluating reality on the basis of a certain way organized subjective experience. A construct is a two-pole subjective-measuring scale that performs the functions of generalization (establishing similarities) and opposition (establishing differences).

To diagnose these styles, the method of repertory grids developed by J. Kelly is used.

Cognitive complexity, according to some data, is associated with anxiety, dogmatism and rigidity, less social adaptation. J. Adams-Weber (J. Adams-Weber, 1979) found that cognitively complex subjects more accurately find a correspondence between the identified constructs and specific people and more successfully draw conclusions about a person's system of ideas after a brief conversation with him.

Attribution styles. Attribution styles, or explanations, are a characteristic way of interpreting events. With a negative style, a person tends to attribute negative events to stable internal causes (for example, a lack of ability). If an individual believes that he is not capable enough and is doomed to failure, then he will make less effort to achieve the result he needs. With a positive attribution style, successes are explained by one's abilities, and failures are explained by chance (M. Ross, G. Fletcher, 1985). Emotionally unstable women and extrovert women attribute adverse events to internal causes more often than women with opposite temperaments. However, this pattern was not found in the sample of men (W. Rim, 1991).

Externality - internality, or locus of control (from Latin locus - "location"). Some people tend to believe that they are able to manage events (internal locus of control, internality), others believe that little depends on them, since everything that happens to them is explained by external uncontrollable factors (external locus of control, externality). The concept of locus of control was proposed by D. Rotter (D. Rotter, 1966) as a stable characteristic of a person, which is formed in the process of his socialization.

People with an internal locus of control are more self-confident, consistent and persistent in achieving goals, prone to introspection, sociable, calmer and more benevolent, more popular and independent. They find meaning in life to a greater extent, their readiness to provide assistance is more clearly expressed. Since internals blame themselves first of all for their failures, they experience more shame and guilt than externals (Faires [V. Phares, 1976).

Adolescents with an internal locus of control have a more positive attitude towards teachers and law enforcement officials (P. Haeven, 1993). The propensity for an external locus of control is combined with uncertainty in one's abilities and the desire to postpone the implementation of intentions for an indefinite period, anxiety, suspicion, and aggressiveness. Such people have great difficulty in making a decision if it has serious consequences for them. For them, tension is more of a threat, so they are more vulnerable and prone to “burnout” (V. I. Kovalchuk, 2000).

There is a greater stress resistance of individuals with an internal locus of control (S. V. Subbotin, 1992; J. Rotter).

Locus of control influences motivation to learn. People with an internal locus are convinced that the successful development of the program depends only on themselves and that they have enough abilities for this. Therefore, it is very likely that they will do well in school and university. They are more receptive to feedback in the learning process and tend to correct their own shortcomings. They are more interested in their career and work than people with an external locus of control.

In general, people with an internal locus of control are more organized: they can quit smoking, use seat belts in transport, use contraceptives, solve family problems themselves, earn a lot of money and refuse momentary pleasures in order to achieve strategic goals (M. Findley, H. Cooper, 1983 ; H. Lefcourt, 1982; P. Miller et al., 1986).

At the same time, L. I. Antsiferova (1994) expresses the opinion that although internality is associated with the feeling of being a subject who controls his life, controls its events and is prone to an active, transformative style of behavior, by its nature it leads to a limitation of spontaneity ( free expression of feelings, emotions, manifestations of impulsive behavior).

It was found that, with age, internality increases in boys, while externality increases in girls (IT. Kulas, 1988). In adults, according to A.K. Kanatov (2000), in all age periods the level of subjective control is somewhat higher than in women of the same age. In addition, according to this author, it follows that with age, the level of subjective control (internality) decreases. And this is not surprising. With experience, people are increasingly beginning to understand that not everything in their life depends only on them.

An internal locus of control is a socially approved value. He always enters into the ideal I-image. Therefore, internality is more important for men than for women (K. Muzdybaev, 1983; A. V. Vizgina and S. R. Panteleev, 2001).

L.A. Golovei found that externality-internality affects the professional self-determination of schoolchildren. Students with a predominance of external control in the situation of choosing a profession are guided by its emotional attractiveness. They do not correlate their inclinations with this choice and prefer such professional areas as "man - man", "man - artistic image". Among externals, more often than among internals, there are persons with a low level of control. According to R. Cattell's questionnaire, they show high excitability (factor D), sensitivity (factor G), tension (factor QIV) and immediacy (factor N).

Based on these data, L. A. Golovey concludes that the process of self-determination in externals is passive, immature, which is associated with emotional characteristics, with the immaturity of such structures of self-consciousness as reflection, self-control and self-regulation, with the immaturity of the motivational sphere.

Professional self-determination of internals is distinguished by greater independence, awareness and adequacy. The range of their choice of profession is much wider than that of externals and is more differentiated. Motives and emotions are more stable. Internals are active in achieving the goal. According to the Cattell questionnaire, they are characterized by low neuroticism (factor C), self-control (factor QIIT), sociability (factor A), selective contact with others (factor L) and a tendency to normative behavior (factor G).

Thus, adolescents with internal control are more emotionally balanced, independent, active in achieving goals, have definite and stable attitudes for the future, and a higher level of self-control.

In a variety of occupations, people with an internal locus of control are more successful than those with an external locus of control. For example, insurance agents who believe that failure can be controlled sell more insurance policies. They are almost twice as likely to quit this job during the first year (M. Seligman, P. Schulman, 1986). People who have an internal locus of control are more likely to enjoy and enjoy their work and be committed to their organization.

Managers with an internal locus of control are less stressed than their counterparts with an external locus of control doing the same job. The same data are obtained for accountants (Daniels, Guppy, 1994).

D. Miller (D. Miller, 1982) found that leaders have higher internal locus of control than non-managers. Managers, who have a high level of internal locus of control, tend to introduce many innovations into production, take significant risks and make decisions themselves, without inviting experts.

A significant place in domestic and foreign psychology is given to the consideration of cognitive, or cognitive, styles of activity, the intensive study of which began by Western psychologists in the 1960s. (G. Witkin et al. [N. WitKin et all, 1967]) and somewhat later domestic (V. A. Kolga, 1976; E. T. Sokolova, 1976; M. A. Kholodnaya, 1998, 2002, and etc.). True, the concept of cognitive styles did not appear suddenly. Already in separate works of the 1920-1930s. close phenomena were identified, for example, “lifestyle” by A. Adler, “rigidity” by R. Cattell and “rigidity of control” by J. Stroop, ideas about the relationship between the first and second signaling systems by I.P. Pavlov.

cognitive style - this is a collective concept for relatively stable methods of cognitive activity, cognitive strategies, consisting in peculiar methods of obtaining and processing information, as well as methods of its reproduction and methods of control.

Thus, cognitive styles are also in some way styles of activity, since they characterize the typical features of intellectual activity (learning), including perception, thinking and actions associated with solving cognitive problems, mainly in a situation of uncertainty (G. Klaus, 1987; M. Petzold [M. Petzold, 1985]). As G. Klaus (1987) writes, the severity of cognitive styles changes throughout ontogenetic development, but remains surprisingly constant for each individual, if we compare his performance with the level of the age group to which he belongs.

The American psychologist D. Ozbel (D. Ausubel, 1968) singled out 20 features of the intellect, among which are the tendency to acquire new knowledge or detail existing ones, rigidity or flexibility of thinking when solving problems, preferential memorization of certain information, etc.

Along with the widespread understanding of style as an operational characteristic of the ways an individual realizes his motives and the source of expression of behavior in cognitive psychology, an explanation of the style phenomenon arises in the context of studying the characteristics of information processing by a person. The idea of the existence of stable differences in the ways of perception and thinking was formulated in 1951 by J. Klein, and the term "cognitive style" was proposed by the American psychologist R. Gardner (Gardner, 1959). A new stage of style research begins with the work of G. Witkin (WitKin, 1949), whose main merit is considered to be the enrichment of Gestalt ideas about the field and field behavior with the idea of individual differences. Cognitive style, associated with various aspects of the functioning of the cognitive sphere, is considered to be a stable individual characteristic of the ways in which a person interacts with the information field (WitKin et al., 1974a, b). The closest attention is paid to the study of such parameters as dependence - independence from the field (WitKin, 1949), impulsiveness - reflexivity (Kagan, 1966), analyticity - syntheticity, or conceptual differentiation (Gardner, 1959), narrowness - breadth of categorization (Pettigrew, 1939 ), cognitive complexity - simplicity (Bieri, 1955). However, even the first results clearly showed that researchers are dealing with a psychological reality, the analysis of the nature of which cannot be limited to understanding style as a cognitive variable only.

The extension of cognitive interpretation to the whole variety of stylistic characteristics is as unjustified as the identification “style = man” (Libin A. V. Style is a man? // Human style: psychological analysis. M .: Smysl, 1998. P. 7) .

In foreign and domestic literature, one can find mention of about a dozen different cognitive styles, including:

By type of perception: field dependence - field independence;

By type of response: impulsiveness - reflexivity;

According to the features of cognitive control: rigidity - flexibility;

According to the range of equivalence: narrowness - breadth;

By complexity: cognitive simplicity - cognitive complexity, tolerance for unrealistic experience;

By type of thinking: analytical - synthetic;

According to the dominant way of processing information: figurative - verbal, according to the locus of control: external - internal.

Field dependence - field independence. For the first time, these styles were introduced into scientific use by American scientists under the leadership of G. Witkin (H. A. Wit-Kin, D. R. Goodenough, 1982; H. A. Wimcin et al, 1967.1974) in connection with the study of the relationship in the perceptual activity of visual and proprioceptive landmarks.

The essence of the experiment was that the subject, placed in a darkened room and sitting on a chair that changed its position, had to bring a luminous rod inside a luminous frame, which also changed its position, to a vertical position.

It was found that some subjects use visual impressions (orientation to the position of the frame) to assess the vertical position of the rod, while others use proprioceptive sensations (orientation to the position of their body). The tendency to rely on an external visible field is called field dependence, and the tendency to control visual impressions through proprioception is called field independence. For the former, the perception of the presented figures against a certain background was distorted due to insufficient isolation and differentiation of parts in the image of perception, for the latter it was adequate due to the ability to isolate stimuli from the context.

Thus, the method of spatial orientation is associated with the ability to isolate a separate detail or figure from a holistic spatial context (a complex figure). Therefore, field independence began to be regarded as the ability to overcome the visible field and structure it, to single out individual elements in it. Field dependence means the opposite quality of cognitive activity, when all elements of the visible field are rigidly connected, and the details are difficult to separate from the spatial background.

As a result, methods for diagnosing field dependence - field independence, for example, a test of included (embedded) figures in various modifications, also appeared. Fast and correct detection of a figure characterizes field independence, while slow and erroneous detection characterizes field independence.

Subsequently, the ability to successfully extract any detail from a complex image turned out to be associated with a number of intellectual, and above all, non-verbal abilities. Based on this, it was concluded that there is a more general feature of cognitive style, called "the ability to overcome the organized context." Depending on its severity, they began to talk about analytical, active and global, passive approaches to the field. In the first case, a person manifests a desire to reorganize it, to divide it into separate elements.

Thus, the cognitive styles of field dependence - field independence began to be perceived as reflecting the features of solving perceptual problems. Field dependence is characterized by the fact that a person focuses on external sources of information, he tends to ignore the less noticeable features of the analyzed object, which creates great difficulties for him in solving perceptual problems. Field independence is associated with a person's orientation to internal sources of information (knowledge and experience), therefore, he is less influenced by external landmarks, more inclined to highlight its essential, rather than more noticeable features in a situation.

But the transformation of G. Witkin's ideas about these styles did not end there either. His last interpretation boils down to the following: it is a global dominant tendency of a person to focus on solving a problem either on other people (field dependence) or on himself (field independence). He considered these styles as a manifestation of individuality in the motivational and semantic sphere.

Field independents are prone to active learning; they like to structure material and use mnemonic strategies to effectively memorize and recall information; they prefer to study general principles, assimilating them quite easily (A. Furnham). Field-dependent students are prone to passive learning, using the organization of the material proposed by them.

Field independence is associated with a high rate of non-verbal intelligence (figurative thinking), higher learning ability, success in solving problems for quick wits, ease of changing attitudes, with autonomy, stability of the self-image, more objective approaches to problems, resistance to suggestion, criticality, higher morality. However, field-independent people get along worse with people, tend to manipulate them, evaluate them and themselves less positively, and it is more difficult to resolve conflicts. A group consisting of only field independents rarely comes to an agreement on controversial issues. Working in pairs, the field independents take over the leadership of the work, even if, according to the instructions, they are assigned a subordinate role.

According to G. Witkin (WitKin et al., 1977), field students are more successful in the arts and humanities than in the exact sciences. They also prefer the more informal teaching methods of independent teachers. Field-independent teachers impose their own structure of the organization of the taught material, preferring more formal models of its presentation. Therefore, they may have incompatibility with field-dependent students.

G. Witkin et al. (WitKin et al., 1974b) found that field-dependent people are more conformal, and field-independent people are more actively looking for information and are more aware.

Field dependent people are more disposed to psychogenic disorders, less moral (among those who have committed criminal acts, field dependent people predominate), more suggestible, sensitive to social influences, more in need of support from others, better assimilate conflicting information, more “comfortable” in communication, since they are characterized by warmth and cordiality (V. Crozier).

According to M. A. Gulina (1987), field dependence is associated with low anxiety.

In a study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, it was found that the field dependence - field independence is affected by the genotype (S. D. Biryukov, 1988; M. S. Egorova, 1981; N. F. Shlyakhta, 1991). At the same time, W. Larsen (W. Larsen, 1982) revealed that field independence increases with age and with an increase in the level of education of a person and takes shape as a style feature by the age of 17. Then its level stabilizes, and even decreases in old age (N. WitKin, D. Goodenough, 1982).

It is essential, however, that in this case the place of each person on the scale of field-dependence - field-independence remained constant (G. Witkin and others). This was revealed as a result of a longitudinal (over 14 years) study conducted with the involvement of 30 male subjects.

Reflexivity is impulsivity. These styles were singled out by D. Kagan (J. Kagan, 1965, 1966) when studying intellectual activity, when in conditions of uncertainty it was necessary to make a decision and it was necessary to make the right choice from a certain set of alternatives.

Impulsive people want quick success, which is why they tend to quickly respond to a problem situation. However, hypotheses are put forward and accepted by them without careful thought, so they often turn out to be wrong. Reflexive people, on the contrary, are characterized by a slow reaction in such a situation, the decision is made on the basis of a careful weighing of all the pros and cons. They try not to make mistakes, for which they collect more information about the stimulus before responding, use more productive ways of solving problems, more successfully apply the strategies acquired in the learning process in new conditions (D. Kagan et al., 1966]; P Olt, D. McKinney, V. Neisle, D. Denny).

Impulsive ones are worse than reflexive ones in coping with tasks for solving problems, where alternative answers are not indicated (Kagan. Kagan, 1965]). In stimulus recognition tasks, reflexive ones use more conservative strategies than impulsive ones, and therefore turn out to be more accurate. But when solving problems of increased complexity, impulsive ones also begin to use conservative strategies (M. Fridrich [M. Fridrich, 1986]). Reflexive, as a rule, are less sensitive to reward (encouragement for correct answers). Encouragement of the impulsive leads to a delay in the response. Consequently, the degree of impulsiveness with encouragement decreases (Maldonado. Maldonado, 1984]). When studying the exact sciences, reflexive students cope better with tasks under conditions of low control, as opposed to impulsive ones, which are more effective with high control (E. Tumann [E. Thumann, 1982]).

The reflexive ones are more field independent than the impulsive ones. They have higher stability of attention (and according to M. A. Gulina, - and its concentration), they use feedback more efficiently, have better visual and auditory short-term memory. According to M. A. Gulina, such people are more dominant. But they are also more anxious, especially with regard to the quality of their activities, they are afraid of mistakes.

Impulsive people have less self-control, low concentration of attention, but a large amount of it (M. A. Gulina). Many authors believe that reflexivity is preferable to impulsiveness. So, academic performance, as a rule, is higher among reflective students (R. Alt, McKinney, Neisle).

According to V. N. Azarov (1982, 1988), impulsive ones are characterized by reliance on perceptual-relief features (color, size of elements) and greater severity (compared to reflexive ones) of non-verbal intelligence, while reflexive ones rely on the number of elements (features ), i.e., analyticity at the level of perception, and a greater severity of verbal intelligence. This gives grounds to identify or, at least, bring impulsive people closer to people in whom the first signal system predominates, and reflexive ones to those in whom the second signal system predominates (according to I.P. Pavlov). Impulsivity is associated with high activation and a weak nervous system, i.e., it has not only a life, but also a natural condition.

V. N. Azarov’s instructions about the orientation of impulsive to color coincided with the data obtained in the study by D. Katz (J. Katz, 1971), conducted with the involvement of children as test subjects, and in the work of E. T. Sokolova (1980), where adults were examined.

T. N. Brusentsova (1984) notes that the style of reflexivity - impulsiveness is manifested only in cases where learning is quite difficult, and, as S. Messer emphasizes, it is found only in a situation of uncertainty.

In the study of twins, evidence was obtained that this style is formed under the influence of the environment (N. F. Shlyakhta, 1991). It was revealed that reflexivity increases with age (D. Kagan, ), and impulsivity decreases as the subject masters scanning strategies (S. Messer). It is also shown that one or another strategy depends on the type of tasks being solved, and this flexibility increases with age. Therefore, the opinion is expressed that it is more necessary to talk about intra-individual differences in each age range than about the stability of the manifestation of this style throughout life.

Rigidity is the flexibility (flexibility) of cognitive control. This style is associated with the ease or difficulty of changing the mode of activity or switching from one informational alphabet to another. The difficulty of changing or switching leads to narrowness and inflexibility of cognitive control.

The term rigidity was introduced by R. Cattell to refer to the phenomena of perseveration (from Latin perseveratio - “perseverance”), i.e., the obsessive repetition of the same thoughts, images, movements when switching from one type of activity to another. The researcher revealed significant individual differences in the manifestation of this phenomenon.

L.P. Urvantsev and A.P. Konin (1991) revealed greater flexibility in boys compared to girls, as well as in boarding school students compared to regular school students.

Narrow - wide range of equivalence. These cognitive styles show individual differences on a scale that a person uses to evaluate the similarity and difference of objects. Some people, when freely classifying objects, divide them into many groups with a small volume (narrow equivalence range), while others into a small number of groups, but with a large number of objects (wide equivalence range).

The basis of such a discrepancy is not so much the ability to see the difference as the degree of "sensitivity" to the identified differences, as well as the focus on fixing those of different types. Thus, a narrow range of equivalence is characterized by reliance on the explicit physical features of objects, and a wide range - on their hidden additional features.

A number of domestic authors call the first style "analytical", and the second - "synthetic" (VA Kolga, 1976). Those who demonstrate the first, using smaller units of the scale, give more accurate assessments of objects or situations. Those who are characterized by a synthetic style, using a coarser scale, make more general assessments of these objects and situations. Analysts are more inherent in field independence, reflexivity, they have more flexible control. Synthetic means a predominant orientation to the general moments in objects, and not to their specificity. In mental activity, this leads to the promotion of various options for solving the problem. At the same time, a number of authors believe that the greatest success of intellectual activity is achieved by combining analyticity and syntheticity.

Experimental studies and everyday teaching practice (at school and university) clearly show that students are sharply differentiated in terms of the ability to create spatial images and operate with them. This differentiation is stable, which is manifested in the specifics of mastering a number of academic subjects, in the professional orientation of people, their interests, inclinations. Significant experimental material has been accumulated in psychology, which indicates that people have persistent individual differences associated with their peculiarities of orientation in space, the establishment of spatial relationships and operating with them in the process of solving problems.

In the works of E. N. Kabanova-Meller (1934.1956), B. G. Ananiev and his collaborators (1960, 1970, 1972), B. F. Lomov (1959), F. N. Shemyakin (1940.1959) and others, it is shown that when creating and operating with spatial images, students use various techniques. Some, upon presentation of a visual image (in order to create an image based on it), fix in detail all its specific features, gradually recreate the image from individual details, combining them into a single whole. Others first grasp the general contour of the object in the representation and only then mentally fill it with the appropriate details, giving the image structural certainty, completeness, and a clear configuration.

These features are manifested in the same student when working with different types of visualization (drawing, drawing, geographical map), when performing different educational tasks, which indicates their stability, individual originality.

The noted features in the creation of spatial images were revealed not only among schoolchildren, but also among designers, designers, and artists.

Interesting data were obtained in the studies of V. A. Molyako (1972), B. M. Rebus (1965), M. Olivkova and others. They found that designers differ not only in the manner of creating spatial images (more “analytical” or “synthetic”), but also in the choice of supporting elements.

Some authors explain the noted features by the predominant predominance of the first and second signal systems (M. N. Borisova, 1954; B. B. Kossov, 1956, etc.), others - by the formation of individual mechanisms for spatial discrimination, recognition (M. O. Shekhter, 1969), others - by the features of the structure and functioning of the visual system that provides the construction of the image (V.P. Zinchenko and others) (I.S. Yakimanskaya, 1976, pp. 70, 71. 73).

In communication, the analyst seeks to emphasize the difference between himself and other people, which leads to the limitation of his circle, selectivity, and difficulties in mutual understanding. Those who are characterized by a synthetic style identify themselves better with others, which contributes to the creation of a wide range of communication.

The relationship of these cognitive styles with personal characteristics has been revealed. "Analyticism" is accompanied by increased anxiety, it is positively associated with the self-control factor according to R. Cattell and negatively with the self-sufficiency factor. "Analysts" try to fulfill social requirements well and are oriented towards social approval.

The analytical style turns out to be effective in the following training program - a low rate of presentation of educational information, a large number of repetitions, a small variability of educational tasks, an emphasis on voluntary memorization and self-regulation of the functional state (see: Kolga [ed.], 1986; Klaus, 1984).

AI Paley (1982,1983) revealed a relationship between the qualitative features of emotionality, its modal structure and cognitive style of activity (analyticity - syntheticity). Two trends were found in emotional-cognitive connections. The first is a combination of analyticity with negative emotionality of a passive-defensive kind. This means that the higher a person's assessment of fear and sadness (distress), the more inclined he is to operations of isolation, differentiation, emphasizing the specific features of objects. The second trend is a combination of syntheticity with negative emotionality of an active-external kind. In other words, the higher the rating of anger, the more a person is oriented towards the operations of unification, establishment of commonality, similarity.

Tolerance for unrealistic experience. Tolerance (from Latin tolerantia - “patience”) means tolerance, indulgence towards something. As a stylistic characteristic, it implies the possibility of accepting impressions that are inconsistent or even opposite to those that a person has (for example, when a picture of a horse changes quickly, a feeling of its movement arises). Intolerant people resist the visible, as it contradicts their knowledge that the pictures show a motionless horse (M.A. Kholodnaya, 1998). The main indicator of tolerance is the duration of the period in which the subject sees a moving horse. In fact, we are talking about the ability to accept information that does not correspond to existing settings and perceive external influences as they really are.

Cognitive simplicity is cognitive complexity. The theoretical basis of these cognitive styles is the theory of personality constructs by J. Kelly (2000). The severity of this or that style is determined by the measure of simplicity or complexity of the system of personal constructions in interpreting, predicting and evaluating reality on the basis of a certain way organized subjective experience. A construct is a bipolar subjective-measuring scale that performs the functions of generalization (establishing similarities) and opposition (establishing differences).

To diagnose these styles, the method of repertory grids developed by J. Kelly is used.

Cognitive complexity, according to some data, is associated with anxiety, dogmatism and rigidity, less social adaptability. J. Adams-Weber (J. Adams-Weber, 1979) found that cognitively complex subjects more accurately find a correspondence between the identified constructs and specific people and more successfully draw conclusions about a person's system of ideas after a brief conversation with him.

Attribution styles. Attribution styles, or explanations, are a characteristic way of interpreting events. With a negative style, a person tends to attribute negative events to stable internal causes (for example, a lack of ability). If an individual believes that he is not capable enough and is doomed to failure, then he will make less effort to achieve the result he needs. With a positive attribution style, successes are explained by one's abilities, and failures are explained by chance (M. Ross, G. Fletcher, 1985). Emotionally unstable women and extrovert women attribute adverse events to internal causes more often than women with opposite temperaments. However, this pattern was not found in the sample of men (W. Rim, 1991).

Externality - internality, or locus of control.(From Latin locus - "location"). Some people tend to believe that they are able to control events (internal locus of control, internality), others believe that little depends on them, since everything that happens to them is explained by external uncontrollable factors (external locus of control, externality). The concept of locus of control was proposed by D. Rotter (D. Rotter, 1966) as a stable characteristic of a person, which is formed in the process of his socialization.

People with an internal locus of control are more self-confident, consistent and persistent in achieving goals, prone to introspection, sociable, calmer and friendlier, more popular and independent. They find meaning in life to a greater extent, their readiness to provide assistance is more clearly expressed (K. Muzdybaev, 1983; L. Lipp et al.; S. Schwartz, G. Clausen). Since internals blame themselves primarily for their failures, they experience more shame and guilt than externals (W. Feires [E. Phares, 1976]).

Adolescents with an internal locus of control have a more positive attitude towards teachers and representatives of law enforcement agencies (P. Haven. The propensity for an external locus of control is combined with uncertainty in their abilities and the desire to postpone the implementation of intentions for an indefinite period, anxiety, suspicion, aggressiveness. Such people experience great difficulties in making a decision if it has serious consequences for them.For them, tension is more of a threat, therefore they are more vulnerable and prone to "burnout" (V. I. Kovalchuk, 2000).

There is a greater stress resistance of individuals with an internal locus of control (S. V. Subbotin, 1992; J. Rotter).

At the same time, L. I. Antsiferova (1994) expresses the opinion that although internality is associated with the feeling of being a subject who controls his life, controls its events and is prone to an active, transformative style of behavior, by its nature it leads to a limitation spontaneity (free expression of feelings, emotions, manifestations of impulsive behavior).

It was found that with age, boys become more internal, while girls become more external (N. Kulas, 1988). In adults, according to A.K. Kanatov (2000), in all age periods the level of subjective control is slightly higher than in women of the same age. In addition, according to this author, it follows that with age, the level of subjective control (internality) decreases. And this is not surprising. With experience, people are increasingly beginning to understand that not everything in their life depends only on them.

According to L.A. Golovey (1999), externality - internality affects the professional self-determination of schoolchildren. Students with a predominance of external control in the situation of choosing a profession are guided by its emotional attractiveness. They do not correlate their inclinations with this choice and prefer such professional spheres as a person - a person, a person - an artistic image. Among externals, more often than among internals, there are persons with a low level of control. According to the Cattell questionnaire, they show high excitability (factor D), sensitivity (factor /), tension (factor QIV) and spontaneity (factor N).

Professional self-determination of internals is distinguished by greater independence, awareness and adequacy. The range of their choice of profession is much wider than that of externals and is more differentiated. Motives and emotions are more stable. Internals are active in achieving the goal. According to the Cattell questionnaire, they are characterized by low neuroticism (factor C), self-control (factor QUI), sociability (factor L), selective contact with others (factor L) and a tendency to normative behavior (factor G).

Thus, adolescents with internal control are more emotionally balanced, independent, active in achieving goals, have definite and stable attitudes for the future, and a higher level of self-control.

D. Miller (D. Miller, 1982) found that leaders have higher internal locus of control than non-managers. Managers who have a high level of internal locus of control tend to introduce many innovations into production, take significant risks and make decisions themselves, without inviting experts.

Comparison of individuals with different types of cognitive style gives a complex picture of the differences between them also in the results of performing certain types of activities. Thus, people with an analytical style perform better on tests for the identification of concepts, and people with a non-analytic style perform better on other verbal tests (Coop and Brown, 1970). Significant associations were found between cognitive style and differences in memorization and recognition of randomly presented words, as well as with the success of solving some problems (Davis, Klausmeier, 1970).

A number of researchers believe that student achievement depends on cognitive style, since it affects what kind of content is better, what students learn more preferably and what content is discarded, ignored (Coop, Brown). It also depends on the cognitive style which teaching methods facilitate the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and which ones make it difficult.

Nevertheless, the data of different researchers on the issue of the relationship between cognitive style and success in different types of activity do not coincide. This may partly depend on the inadequacy of the concepts used.

It should be noted that in none of the studies of cognitive style (meaning foreign studies. - E.I.) the reasons for the adoption of a certain cognitive style by a person are not clarified. It is not clear what underlies individual differences between people in terms of the studied dynamic characteristic - social experience or some natural properties. Moreover, the discrepancy between the results of different researchers on the issue of the relationship of cognitive style with the personal and intellectual qualities of people creates the impression of random variations in cognitive style between people and the inconstancy of its manifestations in the same person (ShoiiKsmith, 1969) (Akimova M. K. Study of individual differences in intelligence // Questions of Psychology, 1977, No. 2, pp. 178, 179).

There are also styles: verbal-logical (abstract style of information processing, due to the leading role of the left hemisphere) and figurative-effective (a specific style of information processing, which is due to the predominance (leading role) of the right hemisphere).

According to D. M. Wardell and J. Royce (D. M. Wardell, J. R. Royce, 1978), cognitive styles are associated with the emotional sphere, so it is advisable to divide them into cognitive, affective and cognitive-affective. This differentiation is based on three factors:

Rationalism: reliance on a logically consistent view of the external world;

Empiricism: taking into account external experience;

Metaphorism: the transformation of experience with knowledge that has a symbolic nature and includes the mechanisms of insight.

A number of authors (M. Petzold [M. Petzold, 1985]; G. Nickel [N. Noske et al, 1985]) make attempts to integrate different cognitive styles using cluster analysis. At the same time, their name is also changed. Thus, these authors combined cognitive styles into three groups - formal, thematic and mixed - and gave them the name conceptual.

Portal for the student. Self-training

RELATED ARTICLES