Influence of impulsivity-reflexivity when testing dynamic spatial ability: sex and g differences

Inhibition and individual differences in behavior and emotional regulation in adolescence

The Impulsivity/Reflexivity issue in inhibitory control ability has seldom been investigated in terms of individual differences in typically developing populations. Although there is evidence of changes in executive functioning (EF), including inhibition, in adolescence, very little is known about the role of individual differences. Using the data from 240 14-to-19-year-old high school students who completed a battery of EF tasks (Flanker, Go No-Go, Antisaccade, and Stop signal task), measures of emotion regulation strategies and behavioral difficulties, we performed a latent profile analysis to identify qualitatively distinct score profiles. The results showed the existence in adolescence of two inhibition profiles, Impulsive vs Reflexive, differing in performances at the inhibition tasks. The two profiles were not associated with socio-demographic characteristics, or to psychological variables, such as behavioral characteristics and emotional regulation strategies.

Reflection-Impulsivity Assessed Through Performance Differences in a Computerized Spatial Task

This study focuses on performance differences individuals show when solving a computerized spatial-orientation dynamic task, irrespective of their cognitive ability. The hypothesis tested was that differences in performance reflect individuals’ cognitive style: Reflection-Impulsivity. The Spatial Orientation Dynamic Task-Revised (SODT-R) and the Analytical, Sequential, and Inductive Reasoning Test (TRASI) were administered to 541 postgraduate participants, as part of the selection process they were following. Reflection-Impulsivity was measured through average response latency and average error score comprising three groups: impulsive, reflective, and medium. Performance was measured by mean response frequency, quality proportion of the first press, and mean invested time. Data were analyzed through discriminant analysis. Criterion variable was Reflection-Impulsivity groups and discriminant variables were performance ones, plus intelligence. Results show different performance patterns clearly associated with Reflection-Impulsivity (canonical correlation = .63). Intelligence played a small role in the differentiation between groups. Findings support the proposal to use spatial orientation tasks as vehicles to measure cognitive style Reflection-Impulsivity in adults. We finally discuss performance patterns as a pathway to ways of acquiring and processing spatial information for impulsives and reflexives, with similar cognitive resources.

Performance on Embedded Figures Tests

We examined individual performance on an embedded figures test, in two separate studies. Performance measures were both the number (m) of hits (H) and the number of false alarms (FA), and their respective reaction times (RT). Using these measures, we postulated four templates of performance, indicative of field dependence (mH = low, RTH = long, mFA = high), field independence (mH = high, RTH = short, mFA = low), impulsiveness (mH = low, RTH = short, mFA = high), and reflectiveness (mH = high, RTH = long, mFA = low). In the first study, individual profiles were correlated with these four templates, whose mean values were updated in a stepwise manner, under the constraint that the individual profile had to be substantially correlated with the emerging template (r > 0.9). This procedure resulted in the final placement of a total of 64 individuals (80%) into one of the four templates. In the second study, we could identify 87% of the participants in such a manner. These participants also provided us with performance data on the rod-and-frame test (RFT), and a line-bisection task (whose analysis here is innovative), as well as scores on the sensation-seeking scales. We emphasize the utility of adopting such a finely-tuned approach to the study of the disembedding aspect of the cognitive style, and to the profiling of individual differences in general.