Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

ISSN 2201-4624
Volume 3, Number 2, 2013, 138-150

Cognitive Styles and Fluid Intelligence: Are They Related?

Ebrahim Khodadady, Atefeh Tafaghodi

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Khodadady, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract. This study was designed to find out whether there was any significant relationship
between cognitive styles and fluid intelligence. To this end, the Group Em bedded Figures T est
(GEFT ) and Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) were administered to three hundred fifty five
undergraduate and graduate university students as m easures of cognitive styles and fluid
intelligence, respectively. The students were first divided into two distinct groups, i.e., field
dependent (FD) and field independent (F I), on the basis of their scores on the GEFT. The
perform ance of these two groups on the SPM was then analyzed and com pared with the GEFT. The
T-Test analysis showed that the FI students‟ scores on the SP M were significantly higher than those
of the FD. The findings are discussed and suggestions are made for future research.
Key words: Fluid intelligence, cognitive styles, field dependent, field independent

1. Introduction
As early as 7-9 months old human infants look for the objects observed being hidden
by adults (Baird et al, 2002). The very act of looking for the hidden objects not only
shows that the infants have created mental images or schemata of the objects
hidden but also reveals their purposeful interaction with and exploration of their
environments to reach their objective. In other words, the human infants possess
general intelligence defined as “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to
act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment”
(Wechsler, 1944, p. 3, as cited in Fancher, 1985).
Horn and Cattell (1966) believed that general intelligence (G) is a
composition of up to 100 different mental abilities which can be divided into two
broad categories: fluid (Gf) and crystallized (Gc). While the former involves problem-

© Copyright 2013 the authors. 138

 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 139

solving, flexibility of thought, abstract reasoning, and encoding of short-term

memories (Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004), the latter accrues as a result of education
and cultural influences.
Similar to Horn and Cattell (1966), Hebb (1942) divided general intelligence
into two categories, i.e., Intelligence A and intelligence B. The former has a
biological basis whereas the latter results from the interaction of intelligence A with
the environment (Hebb, 1942, as cited in Vernon, 1979). While intelligence A
corresponds to Gf, intelligence B is not necessarily the same as Gc and there is,
therefore, no specific test to measure intelligence B. Gc is, however, assessed by
utilizing tests of general knowledge, vocabulary, or other acquired skills.
Tests measuring Gf are constructed with figures, diagrams, and drawings in
order to “reduce the acculturational influences of Gc in measuring the reasoning”
(Kaufman & Horn, 1996, p. 100). Advance Progressive Matrices (APM) and
Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) have been widely used in literature as two
widely accepted measures of the Gf. Raven (1977) developed the latter based on
Spearman‟s (1923) principle of neogenesis to “provide a test suitable for comparing
people with respect to their immediate capacities for observation and clear
thinking” (p. SPM2).
As two most relevant capacities, observing and thinking clearly play
significant roles in achieving educational objectives in general and success at
secondary and tertiary education in particular. Akbari and Aghayousefi (2010), for
example administered the Raven's Progressive Matrices (intermediate forms) as a
measure of Gf to 37 grade 2, 44 grade 3 and 31 preuinversity high school students
aged between 16 and 19 (mean 17.6, SD = 1.12) and correlated it with the
participants GPA as reported in their last year‟s report card. They found a
significant correlation (r = .52, p <.01) showing that 27 percent of variance in
participants‟ school achievement is explained by their fluid intelligence.
Along with school achievement, the relationship between Gf and a number of
other variables have been explored. Di Fabio and Busoni (2007), for example,
investigated whether Gf was related to personality traits while Di Fabio and
140 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Palazzeschi (2009) extended it to emotional intelligence. Djapo et al. (2011) included

crystallized intelligence in their research to find out how it bears on both
personality and fluid intelligence.
Little attention, if any, has, however, been paid to investigate whether there
is any significant relationship between fluid intelligence and other psychological
traits measured non-verbally. The cognitive styles of field-dependence (FD) and
field-independence (FI) are, for example, measured non-verbally by the Group
Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) designed by Witkin et al. (1971). It measures the
degree to which humans employ “an analytical as opposed to a global way of
experiencing the environment” (Keefe, 1979, p.9). The present study is, therefore,
designed to fill the gap and find out whether there is any significant relationship
between fluid intelligence and cognitive styles of university students in Mashhad,
Iran.

2. Methodology
2.1 Participants
Three hundred fifty five university students, 97 (27.3%) male and 258 (72.7%)
female, took part in the study voluntarily. (Thirty one participants did not, however,
complete all the tests for reasons beyond the researchers‟ control or did not answer
most of the items on the tests. These participants were excluded from the study. (To
be more specific, therefore, the number of participants who took the SPM and GEFT
and answered all of their items is given in relevant tables.) Two hundred and eighty
three (79.9%) and 72 (20.3%) were undergraduate and graduate students,
respectively, majoring in agriculture (n = 55, 15.5%), English language and
literature (n = 197, 55.5%) and psychology (n = 103, 29%) at Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad. Their age ranged between 18 and 50 (mean = 23.15, SD = 5.12) and spoke
Persian as their mother language. They had all registered in the courses offered by
the first author and another colleague at the faculty of education and psychology in
the two academic semesters offered in 2011.
 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 141

2.4 Instruments
A bio data questionnaire, Standard Progressive Matrices, and Group Embedded
Figures Test were administered for the present study.
2.4.1 Bio data questionnaire
Five short-answer questions dealing with the participants‟ age, field of study,
academic degree, gender and mother language formed the bio data questionnaire.
2.4.2 Standard Progressive Matrices
The Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) was designed by Raven, Court and
Raven (1977) to measure whether test takers can see relations between
meaningless figures. It contains 60 figures presented in five sets labeled A, B, C, D
and E. Each set consists of 12 figures having a specific system of relations. A small
part of each figure is cut off and presented along with six or seven choices which
compete with the missing part in terms of the system of relations presented in the
figure. Selecting the right choice thus requires developing a systematic method of
reasoning.
Every attempt has been made to keep the first problem as self-evident as
possible. However, as the test takers of all ages work through the SPM at their own
speed without having any time limit, they find the problems raised in the figures
progressively more difficult. According to Raven et al (1977)
The order to the items provides the standard training in the method of
working. The five sets provide the opportunities for grasping the method and
give progressive assessments of a person‟s capacity for intellectual activity.
To ensure sustained interest and freedom from fatigue, the figures in each
problem are boldly presented, accurately drawn and, as far as possible,
pleasing to look at (p. SPM2).
The reliability estimates reported for the SPM vary slightly due to the
number of variables investigated by various scholars, e.g., the method used in
reliability analysis and the age and number of participants. Sorokin (1954), for
example, found a split-half reliability coefficient (RC) of 0.96 with Yugoslavian
teenagers. In a more recent study, Abdel-Khalek and Raven (2005) reported
142 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Cornbach's alpha RCs ranging between 0.88 (age 14) and 0.93 (age 9) by
administering the SPM to a sample of 6529 Kuwaiti school students.
2.4.3 Group Embedded Figures Test
The Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT) was designed by Witkin et al. (1971). It
comprises eight simple forms numbered alphabetically from A to H. The test takers
are required to find these simple forms hidden within 28 complex patterns
presented in three sections. As shown in Figure 1, they have to find a simple form
such as x on the left, in a complex pattern given in the middle and trace it in pencil
in the complex pattern as shown on the right. The tracing must be in the same size,
in the same proportions and in the same direction within the complex figure.

Figure 1
An example GEFT item requiring tracing figure x

While section one of the GEFT includes seven patterns mainly designed to
warm up the test takers, sections two and three include nine patterns each. Each
pattern is considered the dominant visual field and the test takers‟ ability to
identify the labeled simple form within the pattern determines whether they are FD
or FI. The first seven patterns are given for practice purposes. The highest score on
the GEFT is, therefore, 18. The mean is taken to be 11 and the test takers whose
scores fall below and above the mean are labeled FD and FI, respectively (e.g., Luk,
1998).
 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 143

2.3 Procedures
Upon having all the tests copied and ready, the first author and his colleague
announced in their classes that they needed a number of students who would sit for
certain number of tests forming a part of their research project. (Some of them also
took the Test of English as a Foreign Language. The findings based on their
performance on this test and its relationship to Gf and cognitive styles will be
presented in a separate paper.) It was also announced that whoever took the tests
voluntarily, their participation will be considered as their class activity and they
would receive an extra score of two out of 20 which will be added to their final
scores. Whoever attended the testing sessions as scheduled and completed all the
tests received the extra two as announced.

2.4 Data analysis

The descriptive statistics of the SPM and GEFT were calculated to determine how
they functioned statistically. The reliability of both measures was estimated by
employing the Cronbach‟s alpha. The T-Test analysis was employed to find out
whether FD and FI test takers differed from each other significantly in terms of
their mean scores on the SPM. All the statistical tests were run via IBM SPSS
Statistics 19 to test the hypothesis that there will be no significant difference in the
mean scores of the FD and FI test takers on the SPM.

3. Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the SPM and the GEFT as well as their
alpha RCs. As can be seen, the alpha obtained on the SPM is .80, which is according
to Pallant (2007) “acceptable” (p. 292). Since the authors could not find any research
projects in which the SPM had been administered as a measure of Gf in Iran, the
result could not be compared with others within in an Iranian context.
144 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates of the SPM and GEFT

Tests N No of items Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Alpha

SPM 314 60 52.59 4.543 -1.464 3.503 .80
GEFT 286 18 8.30 4.231 .024 -.884 .84

Compared to the SPM, the GEFT enjoys a higher level of reliability, i.e., 0.84.
This level of RC falls between the RCs obtained by Khodadady, Fatemi Hosseini
and Etminan (2012), i.e., 0.87 and Khodadady and Zeynali (2012), i.e., .79. They
administered the GEFT to 253 and 200 undergraduate and graduate students
majoring in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, English Language and
Literature, and English Translation, respectively.
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of 249 participants who took both
the SPM and GEFT. As can be seen, while the majority are FD (N = 180, 72%),
slightly more than one quarter of participants are FI (N = 69, 28%). As it can also be
seen, the mean score of the FD participants (51.82) on the SPM is lower than that of
FI (54.68). If the GEFT is accepted as a measure of cognitive styles, these results
will then be alarming because the majority of students who will assume various
educational positions in Mashhad, Iran, will be FD.

Table 2
Group Statistics of the SPM

Mea Std. Std. Error

Cognitive Style N
n Deviation Mean
Field Dependent 180 51.82 4.342 .324
Field
69 54.68 3.954 .476
Independent
 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 145

Table 3 presents the T-Test analysis of the mean scores the FD and FI
participants have obtained on the SPM. As can be seen, under both equal and
unequal variance assumptions, the analysis shows that the FD participants‟ scores
on the SPM is significantly lower than those of the FI. These results disconfirm the
hypothesis that there will be no significant difference in the mean scores of the FD
and FI test takers on the SPM.
Table 3
Independent Samples Test

Levene's
t-test for Equality of Means
Test

Std. 95% Confidence

Sig. Mean
Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df (2- Differen
Differen Difference
tailed) ce
ce Lower Upper
Equal
variances 1.546 .215 -4.773 247 .000 -2.864 .600 -4.047 -1.682
assumed
Equal
variances not -4.977 134.49 .000 -2.864 .576 -4.003 -1.726
assumed

4. Discussions
Encountering incoming information FD individuals normally pay attention to its
global aspects (Clark & Roof, 1988; Marendaz, 1985) and thus face difficulty in
understanding its structure when it is presented orally (Bennink, 1982; Bennink &
Spoelstra, 1979; Cochran and Davis, 1987; Robinson and Bennink, 1978). The
tendency interferes with the performance of intellectual tasks requiring recognizing,
analyzing and synthesizing the components constituting a whole (Goodenough &
Karp, 1961; Witkin et al., 1962) and render these individuals passive and expectant
146 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

with regard to learning (Carter, 1988; Ennis, 1991; Goodenough, 1976). These
distinct characteristics seem to have their roots in FD individuals‟ significantly
lower fluid intelligence.
The findings of this study also seem to question those scholars who approach
cognition as a two-dimensional construct (e.g., Bertini, 1986; Davis, 1991; Moallem,
2003, Saracho, 2003). Brown (2000), for example, stated that „perhaps an
“intelligent” and “successful” person is one who is “bicognitive” - one who can
manipulate both ends of a style continuum‟ (p. 114). If fluid intelligence is
approached as a construct measured by the SPM, then FI learners are significantly
more intelligent than their FD counterparts. In other words, FD style is nothing but
the lower degree of FI otherwise there would be no significant difference in the
scores of the FI and FD learners on the SPM.
Not only are FI individuals superior to their FD counterparts in fluid
intelligence but also they are more proficient in English as a foreign language (EFL)
when it is measured by International English Language Testing System (IELTS).
Khodadady and Zeynali (2012), for example, showed that “field-independent
individuals are superior to field-dependent ones in the IELTS listening
comprehension” (p. 629). Similarly, Khodadady, Fatemi and Etminan (2012)
examined the relationship between cognitive styles and S-Tests, i.e., multiple choice
item tests whose keyed responses have syntactic, semantic and discoursal
relationship with the item alternatives and schemata comprising the reading texts.
Their results showed that the FI test takers outperformed the FD not only on the S-
Tests as a whole but also on their adjective, adverb, noun and verb subtests as well.
The findings of the present study are unique because the measures through
which intelligence and cognitive styles were measured, i.e., the SPM and GEFT,
were both non-verbal. Although the GEFT is much shorter than the SPM in length,
it has the ability to differentiate more intelligent university students from the less
intelligent. In other words, the GEFT is more of an intelligence measure than of a
cognitive style. Future research must show whether the other established measures
of cognitive styles, i.e., converger and diverger (Hudson, 1966), serialist and wholist
 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 147

(Pask, 1976, 1988), active and reflective (Gregorc, 1982; Allinson & Hayes, 1966) as
well as verbaliser and visualiser (Paivio, 1971, 1986), reveal similar patterns of
relationship.

5. Conclusions
As a unique ability, Gf enables humans embark on abstract reasoning and solve
their intellectual problems. These features make fluidly intelligent learners
successful in their academic activities. The Gf seems to be very similar, if not the
same as, FI cognitive style whose possessors are more achievement-oriented and
competitive (Wooldridge & Haimes-Bartolf, 2006) than their FD counterparts. To
compensate for their less Gf, FD students become “interpersonally oriented and rely
heavily on external stimuli. This motivates them to look toward others for
reinforcement of opinions and attitudes” (Wooldridge, 1995, p. 51) within
educational settings.
Literature is largely mute as regards the hereditary nature of cognitive styles.
If knowledge is considered as a psychological construct which is acquired through
analytical analyses and abstract reasoning common to both fluid intelligence and FI,
then it will be beyond FD individuals, at least at an academic level. While FI
learners do have the ability to motivate themselves internally and thus do not need
interpersonal intelligence, the FD learners establish and employ interpersonal
relationships with their teachers and thus compensate for their lower intelligence
and achievement.
In a recent study, Khodadady, Ghallasi -Fakhrabadi and Kanan-Azar (2013)
extracted eight factors from a 102-item English Language Teachers‟ Attribute Scale
(ELTAS) by administering it to 1328 female grade three high school students in
Mashhad, Iran, i.e., i.e., Qualified, Social, Stimulating, Organized, Proficient,
Humanistic, Self-Confident, and Lenient. Their results showed that the Lenient
factor correlates the highest with Humanistic as a trait on the one hand and EFL
achievement as a learned ability on the other, indicating that EFL teachers
evaluate their learners‟ achievement more on humanistic grounds than on academic
148 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

standards. It remains to be explored whether a similar pattern appears if the

achievement and proficiency level of FD university students are studied in terms of
Lenient and Humanistic factors.

Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank Mr. Nader Bagheri from the Faculty of
Education and Psychology at FUM for his cooperation in encouraging and securing
his students' participation in the present research project.

References
Abdel-Khalek, A., & Raven, J. (2005, September 2). Normative data from the standardization of
Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices in Kuwait in an international context.
WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved September 2, 2005, from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html
Akbari, M., & Aghayousefi, A. R. (2010). Correlation between fluid intelligence, dim ensions of
personality (extroversion, neurosis and psychosis) and em otional intelli gence with academic
success in high school students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(2), 44-57.
Allinson, C., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119-
35.
Bennink, C. D. (1982). Individual di¤erences in cognitive style, working mem ory, and semantic
integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 267-280.
Bennink, C. D., & Spoelstra, T. (1979). Individual di¤erences in Þeld articulation as a factor in
language comprehension. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 480Ð489.
Bertini, M. (1986). Som e implications of field dependence for education. In M. Bertini, L. Pizzamiglio,
S. Wapner (Eds.), Field dependence in psychological theory, research and application. Two
symposia in memory of Herman A. Witkin. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4rd ed.). NY: Pearson Education.
Carter, E. F. (1988). The relationship of field dependent/independent cognitive style to Spanish
language achievem ent and proficiency: A preliminary report. Modern language Journal, 72, 21-
30.
Clark, H. T., & Roof, K. D. (1988). Field dependence and strategy use. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
66, 303-307.
 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences 149

Davis, J. K. (1991). Educational implications of field dependence -independence. In S. Wapner & J.

Demick (Eds.), Field dependence-independence cognitive style across the life span (pp. 149-175).
Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Di Fabio, A., & Busoni, L. (2007). Fluid intelligence, personality traits and scholastic success:
Empirical evidence in a sample of Italian high school students. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 2095–2104.
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L. (2009). An in-depth look at scholastic success: Fluid intelligence,
personality traits or em otional intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 581–
585.
Djapo, N., Kolenovic-Djapo, J., Djokic, R., & Fako, I. (2011). Relationship between Cattell‟s 16PF and
fluid and crystallized intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 63–67.
Ennis, C. D. (1991). Instructional strategies to facilitate the learning of field-dependent children.
Early Child Development and Care, 67, 95-109.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science
approach. New York: Plenum.
Goodenough, D. R. (1976). The role of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in
learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 675-694.
Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1961). Field dependence and intellectual functioning. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 241Ð246.
Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An adult’s guide to style. Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.
Hudson, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations. London, Penguin.
Kaufm an, A. S., & Horn, J. L. (1996). Age changes on tests of fluid and crystallized ability for women
and m en on the Kaufm an adolescent and adult intelligence test (KAIT ) at ages 1 7-94 years.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11 (2), 97-121.
Khodadady, E., & Zeynali, S. (2012). Field-dependence/independence cognitive style and perform ance
on the IELTS listening comprehension. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 622-635.
Khodadady, E., Fatemi Hosseini, A., & Etminan, S. (2012). Cognitive styles and performance on
schema-based cloze multiple choice item tests: A fairness issue. Journal of Language Teaching
and Research, 3(4), 806-813. doi:10.4304/jltr.3.4.806-813.
Khodadady, E., Ghallasi-Fakhrabadi, Z., & Kanan-Azar, H. (2013). Designing and validating a
comprehensive scale of English lnguage teachers‟ attributes and establishing its relationship
with achievement. American Journal of Scientific Research, 82, 113-125.
Luk, S. C. (1998). The relationship between cognitive style and academic achievem ent. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 137-147.
Marendaz, C. (1985). Global precedence and field dependence: Visual routines? Cahiers de
Psychologiei Cognitive, 5, 727Ð745.
150 Journal of Studies in Social Sciences

Moallem, M. (2003). Applying learning styles in an online course. Academic Exchange Quarterly,
7(4), 209-306.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representat ions: A dual coding appro ach. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
windows (3rd ed.). New York: Open University Press.
Pask, G. (1976). Conversat ion theory: Applications in education and epistemology . Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Pask, G. (1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style.” In R. R.
Schmeck (Ed. ), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles (Ch. 4, 83-100). New York: Plenum
Press.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1977). Manual for Raven’s progressive m atrices and
vocabulary scales. London: H. K. Lewis.
Robinson, J. A., & Bennink, C. D. (1978). Field articulation and working m emory. Journal of
Research in Personality, 12, 439-449.
Saracho, O. N. (2003). Matching teachers‟ and students‟ cognitive styles. Early Child Developm ent
and Care, 173(2-3), 161-73.
Sorokin, B. (1954). "Standardisation and analysis of Progressive Matrices Test by Penrose and
Raven." Unpublished Report from Zagred Yugoslavia
Witkin, H. A. Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological
differentiation. New York: Wiley.
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S.A. (1971). A Manual for the Group Embedded
Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wooldridge, B. (1995). Increasing the effectiveness of university/ College instruction: Integr ating the
results of learning style research into course design and delivery. In R. R. Simis & S. R. Sims
(eds.), The importance of learning styles: Understanding the implications for learning, course
design, and education (pp. 49-67). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Wooldridge, B., & Haimes-Bartolf, M. (2006). The field dependence/field independence learning
styles: Implications for adult student diversity, outcom es assessment and accountability. In R.
R. Simis & S. R. Sims (eds. ), Learning styles and learning (237-257). New York: Nova cience
Publishers.