Bipolar Dimension - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Bipolar Dimension

The Experts below are selected from a list of 156 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Maria Kozhevnikov – 1st expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • the new object spatial verbal cognitive style model theory and measurement
    Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009
    Co-Authors: Olesya Blazhenkova, Maria Kozhevnikov

    Abstract:

    SUMMARY The current study challenges traditional approaches to Visual–Verbal cognitive style as a unitary Bipolar Dimension, and instead suggests a new three-Dimensional cognitive style model developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories that distinguish between object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal Dimensions. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the overall fit to the data of the new three-Dimensional model of cognitive style was significantly better than that of a traditional model. Furthermore, based on the new theoretical model, we designed and validated a new self-report instrument assessing the individual differences in object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal cognitive styles, the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). Across a series of studies, the OSIVQ demonstrated acceptable internal reliability as well as construct, criterion and ecological validity. The current study supports the validity of an objectspatial-verbal cognitive style Dimension and related measures when developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Cognitive styles refer to psychological Dimensions representing consistencies in an individual’s manner of cognitive functioning, particularly with respect to acquiring and processing information (Ausburn & Ausburn, 1978; Messick, 1976; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). One of the most commonly acknowledged cognitive styles, which will be the focus of the present paper, is the Visual–Verbal cognitive style Dimension (e.g. Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1977) that describes consistencies and preferences in processing visual versus verbal information, and classifies individuals as either visualizers (also calledimagers), who rely primarily on imagery when attempting to perform cognitive tasks, or verbalizers, who rely primarily on verbal-analytical strategies. Although most of the previous studies on Visual–Verbal cognitive style were based on a general idea about the existence of two different visual and verbal processing systems, they were neither motivated by any cognitive theory that specifies how information is processed in the brain nor did they attempt to apply stringent theoretical principles in order to assess the Dimension accurately. As a consequence, a variety of ways to operationalize the Visual–Verbal cognitive style have been proposed (e.g. as self-reported experiences, learning preferences, problem-solving strategies, preference for verbal vs. visual cues for recall and accuracy or response times on verbal vs. visual aptitude tasks) that have resulted in the development of numerous instruments to assess this Dimension, ranging from

  • The new object‐spatial‐verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement
    Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009
    Co-Authors: Olesya Blazhenkova, Maria Kozhevnikov

    Abstract:

    SUMMARY The current study challenges traditional approaches to Visual–Verbal cognitive style as a unitary Bipolar Dimension, and instead suggests a new three-Dimensional cognitive style model developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories that distinguish between object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal Dimensions. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the overall fit to the data of the new three-Dimensional model of cognitive style was significantly better than that of a traditional model. Furthermore, based on the new theoretical model, we designed and validated a new self-report instrument assessing the individual differences in object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal cognitive styles, the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). Across a series of studies, the OSIVQ demonstrated acceptable internal reliability as well as construct, criterion and ecological validity. The current study supports the validity of an objectspatial-verbal cognitive style Dimension and related measures when developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Cognitive styles refer to psychological Dimensions representing consistencies in an individual’s manner of cognitive functioning, particularly with respect to acquiring and processing information (Ausburn & Ausburn, 1978; Messick, 1976; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). One of the most commonly acknowledged cognitive styles, which will be the focus of the present paper, is the Visual–Verbal cognitive style Dimension (e.g. Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1977) that describes consistencies and preferences in processing visual versus verbal information, and classifies individuals as either visualizers (also calledimagers), who rely primarily on imagery when attempting to perform cognitive tasks, or verbalizers, who rely primarily on verbal-analytical strategies. Although most of the previous studies on Visual–Verbal cognitive style were based on a general idea about the existence of two different visual and verbal processing systems, they were neither motivated by any cognitive theory that specifies how information is processed in the brain nor did they attempt to apply stringent theoretical principles in order to assess the Dimension accurately. As a consequence, a variety of ways to operationalize the Visual–Verbal cognitive style have been proposed (e.g. as self-reported experiences, learning preferences, problem-solving strategies, preference for verbal vs. visual cues for recall and accuracy or response times on verbal vs. visual aptitude tasks) that have resulted in the development of numerous instruments to assess this Dimension, ranging from

Olesya Blazhenkova – 2nd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • the new object spatial verbal cognitive style model theory and measurement
    Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009
    Co-Authors: Olesya Blazhenkova, Maria Kozhevnikov

    Abstract:

    SUMMARY The current study challenges traditional approaches to Visual–Verbal cognitive style as a unitary Bipolar Dimension, and instead suggests a new three-Dimensional cognitive style model developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories that distinguish between object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal Dimensions. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the overall fit to the data of the new three-Dimensional model of cognitive style was significantly better than that of a traditional model. Furthermore, based on the new theoretical model, we designed and validated a new self-report instrument assessing the individual differences in object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal cognitive styles, the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). Across a series of studies, the OSIVQ demonstrated acceptable internal reliability as well as construct, criterion and ecological validity. The current study supports the validity of an objectspatial-verbal cognitive style Dimension and related measures when developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Cognitive styles refer to psychological Dimensions representing consistencies in an individual’s manner of cognitive functioning, particularly with respect to acquiring and processing information (Ausburn & Ausburn, 1978; Messick, 1976; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). One of the most commonly acknowledged cognitive styles, which will be the focus of the present paper, is the Visual–Verbal cognitive style Dimension (e.g. Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1977) that describes consistencies and preferences in processing visual versus verbal information, and classifies individuals as either visualizers (also calledimagers), who rely primarily on imagery when attempting to perform cognitive tasks, or verbalizers, who rely primarily on verbal-analytical strategies. Although most of the previous studies on Visual–Verbal cognitive style were based on a general idea about the existence of two different visual and verbal processing systems, they were neither motivated by any cognitive theory that specifies how information is processed in the brain nor did they attempt to apply stringent theoretical principles in order to assess the Dimension accurately. As a consequence, a variety of ways to operationalize the Visual–Verbal cognitive style have been proposed (e.g. as self-reported experiences, learning preferences, problem-solving strategies, preference for verbal vs. visual cues for recall and accuracy or response times on verbal vs. visual aptitude tasks) that have resulted in the development of numerous instruments to assess this Dimension, ranging from

  • The new object‐spatial‐verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement
    Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009
    Co-Authors: Olesya Blazhenkova, Maria Kozhevnikov

    Abstract:

    SUMMARY The current study challenges traditional approaches to Visual–Verbal cognitive style as a unitary Bipolar Dimension, and instead suggests a new three-Dimensional cognitive style model developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories that distinguish between object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal Dimensions. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the overall fit to the data of the new three-Dimensional model of cognitive style was significantly better than that of a traditional model. Furthermore, based on the new theoretical model, we designed and validated a new self-report instrument assessing the individual differences in object imagery, spatial imagery and verbal cognitive styles, the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). Across a series of studies, the OSIVQ demonstrated acceptable internal reliability as well as construct, criterion and ecological validity. The current study supports the validity of an objectspatial-verbal cognitive style Dimension and related measures when developed on the basis of modern cognitive science theories. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Cognitive styles refer to psychological Dimensions representing consistencies in an individual’s manner of cognitive functioning, particularly with respect to acquiring and processing information (Ausburn & Ausburn, 1978; Messick, 1976; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). One of the most commonly acknowledged cognitive styles, which will be the focus of the present paper, is the Visual–Verbal cognitive style Dimension (e.g. Paivio, 1971; Richardson, 1977) that describes consistencies and preferences in processing visual versus verbal information, and classifies individuals as either visualizers (also calledimagers), who rely primarily on imagery when attempting to perform cognitive tasks, or verbalizers, who rely primarily on verbal-analytical strategies. Although most of the previous studies on Visual–Verbal cognitive style were based on a general idea about the existence of two different visual and verbal processing systems, they were neither motivated by any cognitive theory that specifies how information is processed in the brain nor did they attempt to apply stringent theoretical principles in order to assess the Dimension accurately. As a consequence, a variety of ways to operationalize the Visual–Verbal cognitive style have been proposed (e.g. as self-reported experiences, learning preferences, problem-solving strategies, preference for verbal vs. visual cues for recall and accuracy or response times on verbal vs. visual aptitude tasks) that have resulted in the development of numerous instruments to assess this Dimension, ranging from

James M. Cantor – 3rd expert on this subject based on the ideXlab platform

  • Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men
    Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2012
    Co-Authors: Ray Blanchard, Michael E. Kuban, Thomas Blak, Philip E. Klassen, Robert Dickey, James M. Cantor

    Abstract:

    The penile response profiles of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles, hebephiles, and teleiophiles to laboratory stimuli depicting male and female children and adults may be conceptualized as a series of overlapping stimulus generalization gradients . This study used such profile data to compare two models of alloerotic responding (sexual responding to other people) in men. The first model was based on the notion that men respond to a potential sexual object as a compound stimulus made up of an age component and a gender component. The second model was based on the notion that men respond to a potential sexual object as a gestalt, which they evaluate in terms of global similarity to other potential sexual objects. The analytic strategy was to compare the accuracy of these models in predicting a man’s penile response to each of his less arousing (nonpreferred) stimulus categories from his response to his most arousing (preferred) stimulus category. Both models based their predictions on the degree of dissimilarity between the preferred stimulus category and a given nonpreferred stimulus category, but each model used its own measure of dissimilarity. According to the first model (“summation model”), penile response should vary inversely as the sum of stimulus differences on separate Dimensions of age and gender. According to the second model (“Bipolar model”), penile response should vary inversely as the distance between stimulus categories on a single, Bipolar Dimension of morphological similarity—a Dimension on which children are located near the middle, and adult men and women are located at opposite ends. The subjects were 2,278 male patients referred to a specialty clinic for phallometric assessment of their erotic preferences. Comparisons of goodness of fit to the observed data favored the uniDimensional Bipolar model.