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

2 Part 1 – word association6 sets of words 1 target word, and 4 other words Which of the 4 other words do you most associate with the target word? Example: House number, street, flat, room Write your answer on the data sheet Try to be as quick and honest as possible

3

4 letter, library, paper, couchBook letter, library, paper, couch

5

6 Tree leaf, forest, roots, fire

7

8 Computer software, office, monitor, hard-disk

9

10 Spoon metal, soup, fork, dinner

11

12 Bird garden, feather, song, eagle

13

14 Music orchestra, note, dance, violin

15

16 Part 2 – number association6 sets of numbers 1 target number, and 4 other numbers Which of the 4 other numbers do you most associate with the numbers? Example: 33 30, 66, 3, 35 Write your answer on the data sheet Try to be as quick and honest as possible

17

18 1 0, 11, 2, -1

19

20 , 31, 299, 602

21

22 54 55, 27, 50, 108

23

24 16 32, 4, 256, 8

25

26 , 1001, 999, 2000

27

28 98 99, 100, 97, 49

29

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

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

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

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

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

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

36

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

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

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

40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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