期刊文献+

认知操作、认知方式与严谨性人格特质的关系 被引量:1

Relationships among Cognitive Performance, Cognitive Styles and Consciousness
下载PDF
导出
摘要 采用实验性认知测试法考察严谨性人格特质与认知操作速度、认知操作准确性及其相对优势即慎思性—冲动性认知方式的关系。结果表明:(1)高严谨性被试的认知操作准确性显著高于低严谨性被试;低严谨性被试的认知操作速度显著高于高严谨性被试。(2)高低严谨性被试在慎思性—冲动性认知方式的评价指标分数上存在显著差异,高严谨性被试更多地倾向于慎思型认知方式,低严谨性被试更多地倾向于冲动型认知方式。(3)不同认知操作任务中,被试的认知方式评价指标分数之间有显著相关。 Experimental cognitive test was designed to explore the relationships among cognitive performance, cognitive styles and consciousness. Results suggests: (1) Highly conscientious individuals are higher than lowly conscientious individuals in cognitive accuracy, but lowly conscientious individuals are higher than highly conscientious individuals in cognitive speed. (2)There are significant differences in index scores that assess reflectivity-impulsivity cognitive style between highly conscientious individuals and lowly conscientious individuals. Highly conscientious individuals tend to be impulsive style, but lowly conscientious individuals tend to be reflective style. (3) In different tasks, individual's index scores are significantly correlated, which demonstrates reflectivity-impulsivity cognitive style is stable across tasks.
作者 张利燕 郑雪
出处 《湖南师范大学教育科学学报》 2005年第4期95-98,共4页 Journal of Educational Science of Hunan Normal University
关键词 认知操作 准确性 速度 慎思性—冲动性认知方式 严谨性 cognitive performance accuracy speed reflectivity-impulsivity cognitive style consciousness
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

  • 1N.Kagan. Cognitive Styles in Infancy and Early Children[M].Hillside,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum, 1976.
  • 2H.J.Eysenck.The Biological Basis of Personaliy[M]. Springfield, IL: C.C.Thomas, 1967.
  • 3A.R.Jensen. Reaction Time and Psychometric[A]. In H.J.Eysenck (Ed.). A Model for Intellingence [ C ]. New York:Springer Verlag, 1982.
  • 4L. Phillips, P. Rabbitt. Impulsivity and Speed-Accuracy Styategies in Intelligence Test Performance[J]. Intelligence, 1995,(21): 13-29.
  • 5J. M. Digman. Personality Structure:The Emergence of the Five-factor Model [J]. Annual Review of Psychology,1990,(41): 417-440.
  • 6M.R.Barrick, M.K. Mount. The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1991, (44): 1-26.
  • 7J.Salgado.The Five-factor Model of Personality and Job Performance in the European Community [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, (82): 30-43.
  • 8M.R.Barrick, M.K.Mount, R. Gupta. Meta-Ananlysis of Relationship between the Five-factor Model of Personality and Holland' s Occupational Types[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2003,(56): 45-73.
  • 9R.E.Snow, L.Corno, D.Jackson. Individual Differences in Conative and Affective Functions [A]. In Berliner and Calfee (Eds.). Handbook of Educational Psychology[C]. New York:Macmillan, 1996.

同被引文献12

引证文献1

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部