FIELD-DEPENDENCE VS FIELD-INDEPENDENCE THEORY
THEORIST:
Herman A. Witkin
BIOGRAPHY:
Herman A. Witkin was born in New York City on August 2, 1916. He attended
New York University and received his Ph.D. in Psychology in 1939. From 1939 to 1940,
Witkin was a research fellow at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, where he worked with Gestalt psychologist Wolfgang Kohler. Witkin taught at Brooklyn College from
1940 to 1952. It was here that Witkin began his life long work on field-dependence.
Witkin’s interests were in the realms of cognitive and learning psychology. He helped pioneer cognitive style and learning style theory. Witkin authored the concept of fielddependency versus field independency.
Wilkin worked as a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the State
University of New York from 1952 to 1971. In 1971 Witkin took a position with the
Pennsylvania Educational Testing Service where he worked until his death in 1979. He died July 8, 1979 of a brain embolism (Robinson, 2001).
DESCRIPTION OF THE THEORY
Field dependence-independence theory is one of four cognitive style theories.
The others include hemispherical lateralization or left versus right brain, sequential or parallel processing, and spatial visualization theories (Hansen, 1995). Cognitive style refers to the manner in which individuals acquire and process information. Hansen

(1995) argued that “Cognitive style measures do not indicate the content of the information but simply how the brain perceives and processes the information” (p. 2).
“Extensive research (Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman, Machover, Meissner and Wapner,
1954; Witkin et al., 1962) has shown that a tendency toward more global or more articulated functioning is a consistent feature of a given individual’s manner of dealing with a wide array of perceptual and intellectual tasks. Because it represents the characteristic approach which the person brings to situations with him, we consider more global or more articulated functioning to be an individual’s cognitive style” (cited in
Witkin, 1967, p. 235).
“Among the cognitive styles identified to date, the field-dependenceindependence dimension has been the most extensively studied and has had the widest application to educational problems (Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp,
1962/1974; Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman, Machover, Meissner, & Wapner, 1954/1972;
Witkin, 1976)” (as cited in Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977, p. 1). Witkin et al., (1974) argued “individual differences in cognitive style are affected by child rearing practices, an interplay with ecology and social structure” (p. 14). Furthermore, Witkin et al., (1974) found “a field-dependent cognitive style is likely to be predominant in social settings characterized by insistence upon adherence to family and social authority and the use of severe or even harsh socialization practices to enforce this conformance” (p. 16).
Witkin et al., (1974) found “children from social settings showing less emphasis on conformity would tend to be more field-independent and show other signs of more developed differentiation than children from settings emphasizing conformity” (p. 25).
Witkin (1967) and Witkin et al., (1974) claimed individual differences in cognitive styles

are related to differences in family experiences while growing up. In essence, cognitive styles are the end-products of particular socialization processes. Witkin (1967) also believed “performance of relatively field-dependent or field-independent fashion was a highly stable feature of an individual’s cognitive functioning over time” (pp. 236-237).
Witkin (1967) noted the contrasting differences between field dependent (global) and field independent (articulated) cognitive styles. He stated “the field-dependenceindependence dimension is a continuous one, most persons falling between these two extremes” (p. 236). Witkin (1967) argued “In a field-dependent mode of perception, the organization of the field as a whole dominates perception of its parts; an item within a field is experienced as fused with organized ground. In a field-independent mode of perception, the person is able to perceive items as discrete from the organized field of which they are a part (p. 236).
Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox (1977) noted several characteristics between individuals with field dependent-independent cognitive styles. The field dependent individual’s perception was strongly dominated by the prevailing field. They tended to adhere to the organization of the field as given. They were likely to use the structure or organization of the provided field. Field dependent individuals were also more in tune with social components and the environment. They were sensitive to social cues and were interested in what others say and do. Field dependent individuals were drawn to people and liked to be with people. In contrast, field independent individuals perceived items as more or less separate from the surrounding field. They were more likely to overcome the organization of the field or restructure it, when presented with a field having a dominant organization. Field independent individuals were also more

likely to impose their own structure and organization. They were viewed as more analytical and interested in the abstract and theoretical. They were seen as more independent in that they were not influenced by their peers, teachers or authority figures.
They were seen to have a more impersonal orientation and not as sensitive to social undercurrents as field dependent individuals.
THEORY MEASUREMENT OR INSTRUMENTATION
Witkin et al., (1974) argued “Field-dependence-independence may be assessed by controlled, objective procedures” (p. 12). Witkin and his colleagues developed a number of tests to measure field dependence-independence cognitive style. The following provides a glimpse of this evolutionary process:
Rod-and-Frame test:
In this test participants were escorted into a dark room where they viewed a movable luminescent rod contained within a movable luminescent frame. The task was to position the rod to where it was vertical. Field Independent participants tended to see the rod and frame as separate objects and were able to manipulate the rod to a vertical position regardless of the position of the frame. Individuals who were more field dependent, tended to position the rod in relation to the frame (field). The participant’s score on the rod-and frame test was the mean number of degrees of deviation of the rod from the true upright position on eight trials (Witkin, 1967; Witkin et al., 1974; Witkin,
Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977). See figure 1 for an example of the rod-and frame diagram.

Figure 1.
(Source: Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox (1977.)
In the early experiments, the mechanical device used was too large to be used outside the laboratory and required a darkroom. In 1968 Oltman developed a smaller portable desktop version of the rod-and-frame test (PRFT), which was more practical and made the darkroom unnecessary (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977, p. 8).
The Body-Adjustment Test:
Although structurally similar to the rod-and frame test, the second test was the body-adjustment test. In this test the “object of perception was the body rather than an external object, such as a rod, and the issue was how people determine the position of the body itself in space” (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977, p. 4). A participant was seated in a chair which was projected into a small room. Both the chair and room could be tilted either clockwise or counter clockwise independently of one another. After the participant was seated, the chair and the room were rotated to a prepared tilted setting.
The participant was then asked to adjust the chair to a position where he/she experienced it as upright. Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox (1977) found individual differences in performance of the body-adjustment test were very similar to those described for the rod-and-frame test. The more field dependent individuals tended to perceive their own bodies as upright when they are fully aligned with the surrounding tilted room, even though they were tilted as much as 35 degrees from vertical.

Embedded Figure Test (EFT):
In this test the participant is shown a simple geometric figure, then it is removed.
A complex figure is shown to the participant who is then asked to located the simple figure within it. Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox (1977) explained the “complex figure was composed by ‘using up’ the lines of the simple figure in various subwholes of the complex figure, so that perceptionally, the simple figure no longer appears to be there” (p. 6). Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox (1977) posited “What is at issue is the extent to which the surrounding visual framework dominates perception of the item within it” (p. 6). For field independent subjects the sought-after simple figure quickly emerged from the complex design. Conversely, the field dependent subjects were not able to identify the simple figure in the time allowed for the search. The score for the embedded figure test was the mean time taken to find the simple figure in the complex design in 12 trials of the test (Witkin, 1974). A sample of the embedded-figure test item is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
(Source: Witkin, Moore, Goodenough & Cox, 1977)
Several variations of the embedded figure test were developed for children and adults. The Children’s Embedded Figure Test (CEFT) is a simpler version designed for preschool children from three to five years old and another version for children age five

to nine years old (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough and Cox, 1977). Scoring on the CEFT was the number of correct identifications of the sought-after simple figure contained in the complex design out of a possible total of 25 (Witkin, 1974, p. 21).
The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT):
This test was designed for adults. It was visually oriented and required reading for the instructions only. The GEFT is an 18 item pen and paper instrument. Participants who correctly identified most of the simple figures were considered field independent while those who could not identify the simple figure contained in the complex figure were considered field dependent (Hansen, 1995, p.3).
In Witkin’s studies utilizing the rod-and frame, body adjustment and embedded figure tests, Witkin found “individuals show a high degree of consistency in performance across these three tests (Witkin et al., 1954/1962)” (as cited in Witkin, 1967, p. 236).
Furthermore, Witkin (1967) argued that the “performance of relatively field-dependent or field-independent fashion was a highly stable feature of an individual’s cognitive functioning over time” (pp. 236-237). Another test of field dependence-independence that should be mentioned in this evolution is the articulation of body concept test.
Articulation of Body Concept (ABC) test:
In this test, children are asked to make a drawing of a male and female. Drawings are analyzed and then scored using the Witkin articulation-of body-concept scale, which is a 5-point scale, with a single score assigned for both drawings. A higher score reflects a more articulated (field independent) representation of the human body in the figure drawings (Witkin et al., 1974, p. 21). Faterson & Witkin (1970) explained the articulation-of-body concept scale ranged from (5) the most articulated drawings, which

were more detailed, depicting waistlines, hips, shoulders, chest or breasts, proper shaped outlines, clothed limbs, jewelry, accessories etc. Moderately articulated drawings were scored as (4). Intermediate levels of articulation were assigned (3). Moderately primitive drawings were rated as (2) and the most primitive and infantile drawings consisting of ovals, rectangles or stick figures were scored as (1). In a longitudinal study of two groups of males and females (group 1- 10 to 24 year olds and group 2- 8 to 13 year olds),
Faterson and Witkin (1970) found a marked trend toward increasing articulation of body concept (field-independence) during the growth period for 8 to 14 year olds, with a relatively smaller increase thereafter (p. 431). Furthermore, field-dependent and fieldindependent subgroups as a whole showed progression toward greater articulation of body concept with increasing age (p.432).
REPORT PREPARED BY:
Paul Kroutter
References:
Faterson, H.F., & Witkin, H.A. (1970). Longitudinal study of development of the body concept. Developmental Psychology 2(3), 429-438.
Hansen, J.W. (Spring 1995). Student cognitive styles in postsecondary technology programs [Electronic version]. Journal of Technology Education 6(2), 1-12.
Retrieved September 29, 2008 from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v6n2/jhansen.jte-v6n2.html.

Robinson, K.E., (2001). Intellectual biography of Herman Witkin and his theory of psychological differentiation (Doctoral dissertation, Carlos Albizu University,
2001). DAI-B 63/06, p. 3022, Dec. 2002. Abstract summary retrieved October 3,
2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=727320641&Fmt=7&clientld=79356&RQT
=309&VName=PQD.
Witkin, H.A. (1967). A cognitive approach to cross-cultural research. International
Journal of Psychology 2(4), 233-250.
Witkin, H.A., Price-Williams, D., Bertini, M., Christiansen, B., Oltman, P.K., Ramirez,
M. & Van Meel, J. (1974). Social conformity and psychological differentiation.
International Journal of Psychology 9(1), 11-29.
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R. & Cox, P.W. (Winter 1977). Field- dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research 47(1), 1-64.