Reliability and Validity of the Complex Postformal

Download PDF
0 downloads 0 Views 205KB Size Report
Comment
Traditional Piagetian notions of cognitive development described a series of qualitatively different, progressively more complex stages of thinking—from ...
J Adult Dev DOI 10.1007/s10804-009-9055-1

Reliability and Validity of the Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire: Assessing Adults’ Cognitive Development Kelly B. Cartwright Æ M. Paz Galupo Æ Seth D. Tyree Æ Jennifer Gavin Jennings

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract Three studies investigated the psychometric properties of the complex postformal thought (PFT) questionnaire (Sinnott, unpublished scale, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997), which is a measure of adult cognitive development. The scale was found to be moderately reliable (a = .63). To assess construct validity, a comparison of participants’ performance on the PFT scale to their performance on the Need for Cognition scale was conducted, which indicated the PFT scale is valid measure of complex thought. Factor analysis reduced the scale to three factors, which correspond to important components of PFT: Multiple Elements, Subjective Choice, and Underlying Complexities. Implications for understanding the nature of adult cognitive development and the usefulness of this new measure for research in this area are discussed. Keywords Postformal thought  Complex thought  Cognitive development  Adult development  Scale development

Traditional Piagetian notions of cognitive development described a series of qualitatively different, progressively more complex stages of thinking—from sensorimotor to formal operational—that occur between infancy and adolescence (Piaget and Inhelder 1969). Recent work has led to K. B. Cartwright (&)  S. D. Tyree Christopher Newport University, Newport News, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. P. Galupo  J. G. Jennings Towson University, Towson, MD, USA M. P. Galupo e-mail: [email protected]

updates in understanding of this classic position. For example, we now understand that cognitive development occurs gradually (rather than in discrete stages), is variable across individuals of a given age, and is dependent upon personal, domain specific experiences, rather than occurring uniformly across all domains of thinking (Bidell and Fisher 1992; Bigler and Liben 1992; Cartwright 2002; Case 1992; Case and Okamoto 1996; Karmiloff-Smith 1991; Piaget 1972; Sinnott 1998). With respect to adult development, Piaget’s classic description of cognitive development suggested the pinnacle of human reasoning, formal operational reasoning, was achieved in adolescence, neglecting to address mechanisms and descriptions of cognitive change in adulthood. Piaget (1972) did eventually acknowledge that cognitive change may continue into adulthood, and recent work in adult development has demonstrated this to be the case (Andrews and Halford 2002; Blackburn and Papalia 1992; Kuhn and Pease 2006; Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Luna et al. 2004; Sinnott 1998). These findings have led theorists to suggest that postformal thought, a more complex form of thinking that develops beyond formal operational thought, be added to theoretical conceptions of lifespan cognitive development (Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1984, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997). Traditional Piagetian notions suggested that the greatest sophistication in cognitive development was evidenced by an increasing reliance on objective, scientific reasoning within a logical system, which Piaget called formal operational reasoning (Piaget and Inhelder 1969). However, more recent work on adults’ thinking suggests a more advanced type of cognition, postformal reasoning, is evidenced by the addition of subjective experience such as social, interpersonal, and contextual information to formal, logical reasoning. This work proposes that adults learn to step outside a single logical system

123

K. B. Cartwright et al.

of thought to consider multiple, logical systems, and recognize that they must choose to apply a particular system of thought in any given situation, thus creating the ‘‘truth’’ of that particular experience (Sinnott 1998). For example, this kind of subjectivity might occur when reasoning in the domain of physics because light can be regarded as both a wave and a particle simultaneously. In this case, the scientist must choose the way in which she will view the concept, thus choosing the system of reasoning for that situation (Sinnott 1998). Finally, recent work in adults’ cognitive development suggests personal, subjective experience, especially experience, which requires that one consider multiple perspectives, such as in the negotiation of relationships or conflicts, produces cognitive change in adulthood (Bidell and Fisher 1992; Blackburn and Papalia 1992; Case 1992; Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1998). The recognition that cognitive development continues into adulthood is a great step forward in developing a complete picture of lifespan intellectual development. Research in this area must necessarily rely on assessments of complex postformal thought to further elucidate the nature of adults’ thinking. However, few such published measures exist. Sinnott (1984, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997), for example, has assessed adults’ capability for postformal thought using individual, problem-based reasoning tasks in which participants think aloud while solving complex problems. This assessment method is, however, time consuming and difficult to administer to large numbers of research participants. Thus, Sinnott (unpublished measure, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997) also developed a 10-item Complex Postformal Thought (PFT) Questionnaire to assess the degree to which adults use complex postformal thought. Both assessments tap individuals’ ability to engage in several dimensions of complex thought, including metatheory shift, problem definition, process/product shift, parameter setting, pragmatism, multiple solutions, multiple goals, multiple methods, and paradox (see Sinnott 1998, 2008; Sinnott and Johnson 1997 for descriptions of these features of complex postformal thought). Sinnott and Johnson (1997) demonstrated that participants’ responses on the individual, problem-based measurement were consistent with their responses on the 10-item PFT questionnaire that was adapted for use with participants in that study, providing some indication of construct validity for the scale. However, no studies have examined the psychometric properties of the PFT scale beyond that first look at construct validity. Thus, the purpose of the current studies was to examine the reliability and validity of the PFT scale to provide a basis for future use of this measure in work on adult cognitive development. To assess construct validity, we sought an assessment that indicated adults’ tendency to engage in complex thought. One such measure is the Need for Cognition (NFC) scale, which assesses the inclination to engage in

123

and enjoy effortful cognitive activities (Cacioppo and Petty 1982). According to Cacioppo and Petty (1982), individuals vary in their levels of intrinsic motivation for cognitive activity. Individuals high in NFC seek opportunities to engage in effortful cognitive activities and derive enjoyment from thinking deliberately and for extended periods. Individuals low in NFC, however, avoid effortful cognitive activity, and find such cognitively complex activities aversive. NFC can be measured with an 18-item scale (Cacioppo et al. 1984), and has been positively associated with such things as education, intrinsic motivation, curiosity, openness to ideas, and the tendency to seek information when making judgments or decisions. Conversely, NFC is negatively related to such attributes as authoritarianism, dogmatism, the tendency to oversimplify or distort new information, and closed-mindedness (see Cacioppo et al. 1996, for a review). Further, Tanaka et al. (1988) suggested that NFC involves at least three components, including cognitive persistence, cognitive complexity, and cognitive competence. Because cognitive competence and complexity appear to be important components of both NFC and complex postformal thought, we expected individuals’ scores on the NFC scale and the PFT scale to be significantly, positively correlated, providing additional evidence of construct validity of the PFT scale. Moreover, we expected participants high in PFT to demonstrate significantly higher levels of NFC than individuals low in PFT, further confirming construct validity.

Statement of the Problem In sum, the purpose of this research was to describe the psychometric properties of a 10-item research instrument for measuring complex postformal thought (PFT; Sinnott, unpublished scale, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997), the Complex Postformal Thought (PFT) Questionnaire. Sinnott’s general scale is assessed here (Sinnott, unpublished scale), which she adapted for use with skilled research administrators in Sinnott and Johnson (1997). The objectives of the research were threefold: (1) to assess the reliability of the scale; (2) to establish the construct validity of the scale by examining correlations between PFT and NFC and by comparing NFC scores for participants high and low on PFT; and (3) to establish the factor structure of the scale.

General Method Participants and Procedure Participants in all studies included adult women and men. All participants completed the 10-item PFT questionnaire

Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire

(Sinnott, unpublished scale), the 18-item NFC scale (Cacioppo et al. 1984), and a basic demographic questionnaire. Participation was individual, voluntary, and required approximately 15–20 min. Upon completing the study, participants were free to ask any questions generated by the research. All participants were treated in accordance with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association (2002).

Measures Complex Postformal Thought (PFT) Questionnaire The PFT questionnaire measured participants’ levels of postformal thought. Developed by Sinnott (unpublished scale) and adapted by Sinnott and Johnson (1997), the questionnaire included 10 items, which assessed individual postformal thinking skills (see Table 1). Each question was intended to tap a different operation of postformal thinking, including paradox, multiple methods, parameter setting, problem definition, process/product shift, metatheory shift, multiple causality, multiple solutions, multiple goals, and pragmatism as described by Sinnott (1984, 1998, 2008). Participants responded to each statement by choosing a number on a seven-point Likert scale (where 7 = very true to 1 = not true) to indicate the degree to which each of the ten statements characterized their own thinking. Possible scores ranged from 10 (indicating low levels of complex postformal thought) to 70 (indicating high levels of complex postformal thought).

Need for Cognition (NFC) Scale Cacioppo et al.’s (1984) 18-item NFC Scale measures an individual’s inclination to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. The scale includes 18 statements (e.g., ‘‘I would prefer complex to simple tasks.’’), nine of which are reverse scored. Participants indicated the degree to which the statements described themselves with a ninepoint Likert scale ranging from -4 (disagree) to 4 (agree). The potential range of scores is thus -72 (low NFC) to ?72 (high NFC). The NFC scale has an established reliability of a = .90 (Cacioppo et al. 1984).

Study 1 Method Purpose The purpose of Study 1 was to examine the psychometric properties of the 10-item PFT scale developed by Sinnott. Reliability and construct validity were considered. Participants The sample consisted of 302 undergraduate students (251 women, 49 men, 2 not reported) from two Mid-Atlantic universities. Participants identified themselves as African American/Black (15.6%, n = 47), Asian American (1.0%,

Table 1 Means (and standard deviations) for individual items on the Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire in Study 1 and Study 2 Item

Study 1 (n = 302)

Study 2 (n = 218)

1. I see the paradoxes in life (Paradox)

4.74 (1.40)

4.58 (1.55)

2. I see more than one method that can be used to reach a goal (Multiple Methods)

5.52 (1.37)

5.72 (1.37)

3. I am aware that I can decide which reality to experience at a particular time; but I know that reality is really multi-level and more complicated (Parameter Setting)

4.80 (1.61)

4.93 (1.70)

4. There are many ‘‘right’’ ways to define any life experience; I must make a final decision on how I define the problems of life (Problem definition)

3.74 (1.97)

3.97 (2.08)

5. I am aware that sometimes ‘‘succeeding’’ in the everyday world means finding a concrete answer to one of life’s problems; but sometimes it means finding a correct path that would carry me through any problems of this type (Process/product shift)

4.81 (1.57)

4.60 (1.83)

6. Almost all problems can be solved by logic, but this may require different types of ‘‘logics’’ (Metatheory shift)

4.62 (1.68)

4.54 (1.81)

7. I tend to see several causes connected with any event (Multiple causality)

5.18 (1.56)

5.38 (1.46)

8. I see that a given dilemma always has several good solutions (Multiple solutions)

4.56 (1.63)

4.63 (1.69)

9. I realize that I often have several goals in mind, or that life seems to have several goals in mind for me. So I go toward more than one in following my path in life (Multiple goals)

5.29 (1.73)

5.33 (1.69)

10. I can see the hidden logic in others’ solutions to the problem of life, even if I don’t agree with their solutions and follow my own path (Pragmatism)

4.89 (1.60)

5.09 (1.45)

Note: Participants responded to each item on a Likert scale where 1 = Not True (of self) and 7 = Very True (of self). Actual responses ranged from 1 to 7 for all items in both studies

123

K. B. Cartwright et al.

n = 3), White/non-Hispanic (76.5%, n = 231), Hispanic/ Latino/a (3.6%, n = 11), Native American (0.7%, n = 2), or not identified (2.0%, n = 8). Participants were recruited on a volunteer basis from psychology courses and may have received extra credit for their participation. Results and Discussion The 10-item PFT questionnaire yielded a moderate level of internal consistency, where a = .63. Mean scores and standard deviations for each item are provided in Table 1. These were comparable to the means reported by Sinnott and Johnson (1997). In order to examine construct validity for the scale, a Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed between participants’ PFT and NFC scores. As predicted, a significant, positive correlation emerged from this analysis, r(300) = 0.36, p \ .01. As a further assessment of construct validity, participants were divided into two groups, via a median split, based on their PFT scale scores. Then, NFC scores were compared for participants high in PFT (n = 150) and participants low in PFT (n = 152). Participants high in PFT demonstrated significantly higher levels of NFC (M = 21.25, SD = 19.76) than participants low in PFT (M = 7.54, SD = 21.66), as predicted, t(300) = 5.74, p \ .001. Taken together, these results indicate the PFT scale is a moderately reliable and valid measure of complex postformal thought that can be used in future research.

Study 2 Method Purpose The purpose of Study 2 was to address an issue that presented during data collection for Study 1. During data collection it became clear that a number of participants did not know how to respond to the first statement (‘‘I see the paradoxes in life’’) because they did not know the meaning of the word paradox, which may have affected reliability of the scale. Thus, Study 1 was replicated with a second sample. Procedures for Study 2 were identical to those of Study 1 with the exception that the first statement was followed by ‘‘paradox = a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true,’’ adapted from Harper Collins Webster’s dictionary (2002). Participants The sample consisted of 218 undergraduate students (168 women, 49 men, 1 not reported) from two Mid-Atlantic

123

universities. Participants identified themselves as African American/Black (12.4%, n = 27), Asian American (1.4%, n = 3), White/Non-Hispanic (79.8%, n = 174), Hispanic/ Latino/a (5.0%, n = 11), Native American (0.5%, n = 1), or not identified (0.9%, n = 2). Participants were recruited on a volunteer basis from psychology courses and may have received extra credit for their participation. Results and Discussion Results for Study 2 provided a successful replication of Study 1. In this sample, the PFT scale yielded a moderate level of internal consistency, where a = .63, consistent with the value obtained in Study 1. Because internal consistency was the same across Studies 1 and 2, we concluded the provision of a definition for paradox was not necessary and did not affect reliability in Study 1. Further, because Sinnott’s original work with this scale (1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997) did not provide such a definition, we recommend that a definition not be included in future work. Means and standard deviations for each of the items are listed in Table 1, and these appear to be consistent with those obtained in Study 1 and by Sinnott and Johnson (1997). To examine construct validity a Pearson’s correlation coefficient was computed between participants NFC and PFT scores; and as predicted, a significant, positive correlation emerged between these scores, r(216) = 0.29, p \ .01. As a further assessment of construct validity, participants were divided into two groups, via a median split, based on their PFT scale scores. Then, NFC scores were compared for participants high in PFT (n = 103) and participants low in PFT (n = 115). Participants high in PFT demonstrated significantly higher levels of NFC (M = 28.40, SD = 23.76) than participants low in PFT (M = 14.85, SD = 23.86), as predicted, t(216) = 4.19, p \ .001. Taken together, these results confirm the findings of Study 1 and indicate the PFT scale is a moderately reliable and valid measure of complex postformal thought that can be used in future work.

Study 3 Method Purpose Results from Studies 1 and 2 revealed the PFT scale to be a moderately reliable and valid measure of complex postformal thought. Study 3 used a combined sample (from Study 1 and Study 2) to investigate the factor structure of the scale.

Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire

Participants Data from participants in Study 1 and Study 2 were combined for these analyses. Participants thus included a total of 520 individuals (419 women, 98 men, 3 not reported). Participants identified themselves as African American/ Black (14.2%, n = 74), Asian American (1.2%, n = 6), White/Non-Hispanic (77.9%, n = 405), Hispanic/Latino/a (4.2%, n = 22), Native American (0.6%, n = 3), or not identified (1.9%, n = 10). Participants were recruited on a volunteer basis from psychology courses and may have received extra credit for their participation. Results and Discussion A Principal Components Analysis with oblimin rotation reduced the 10 items into three factors, which accounted for 46.18% of the variance in the data (see Table 2). The first factor accounted for 24.12% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.41) followed by factor two with 12.03 %

Table 2 Factor loadings for the Postformal Complex Thought Questionnaire Item

Subscale Mean (and Standard Deviation)

Factor 1 Multiple Elements 5.03 (1.07)

Subscale Percent Variance 24.12% Accounted For

Factor 2 Subjective Choice 4.38 (1.21) 12.03%

Item 1

Factor 3 Underlying Complexities 5.04 (1.02) 10.04% .750

Paradox Item 2

.602

Multiple Methods Item 3

.608

Parameter Setting Item 4

.631

Problem Definition Item 5

.716

Process/Product Shift Item 6

.554

Metatheory Shift Item 7

.655

Multiple Causality Item 8

.762

Multiple Solutions Item 9

.585

Multiple Goals Item 10 Pragmatism

.482

Note: Variance accounted for was 46.19% for the total sample

(eigenvalue = 1.20) and factor three with 10.03% (eigenvalue = 1.00). Four of the items (items 7, 8, 9, and 10) loaded on the first factor, which seemed to represent an ability to consider multiple elements of a problem or situation, an essential component of complex postformal thought (LaBouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1998). The following operations were clustered to comprise the Multiple Elements factor: multiple causality, multiple solutions, multiple goals, and pragmatism. Three items (items 4, 5, and 6) loaded primarily on the second factor, which seemed to represent the ability to make a subjective choice of a particular logical system to use in a given problem situation. The combination of subjectivity with logical operations is a hallmark of complex postformal thought (Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1998), as it demonstrates progress beyond basic logical reasoning evidenced in formal operational thought. Operations included in the Subjective Choice factor were problem definition, process/product shift, and metatheory shift. Finally, three items (items 1, 2, and 3) loaded primarily on the third factor, which seemed to represent the ability to see the underlying complexities in a situation. The Underlying Complexities factor included the following operations: paradox, multiple methods, and parameter setting. To explore participants’ relative performance on the three factors and the possible developmental track of the processes represented by the three factors, a 3 (Subscale Score: Multiple Elements, Subjective Choice, and Underlying Complexities) 9 2 (Level of PFT: High or Low) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with the three subscale mean scores as the repeated (within subjects) factor and level of PFT as the between subjects factor. This analysis revealed that as would be expected, participants with high PFT scored significantly higher on the subscales than participants low on PFT, F(1, 218) = 934.11, p \ .001. Post hoc analyses confirmed this difference for each of the scales. Furthermore, the analysis revealed a significant effect of subscale, F(1, 518) = 136.10, p \ .001. Post hoc analyses indicated that overall, participants scored significantly lower on Subjective Choice than they did on Multiple Elements or Underlying Complexities. There was no significant difference between Multiple Elements and Underlying Complexities. Finally, a significant Subscale 9 Level of PFT interaction emerged, F(1, 518) = 9.43, p \ .01. Post hoc analyses indicated that for individuals low in PFT, the following pattern of significant differences emerged: Underlying Complexities [ Multiple Elements [ Subjective Choice. For participants high on PFT, however, a different pattern of significant differences emerged, such that Multiple Elements [ Underlying Complexities [ Subjective Choice. Furthermore, despite the different patterns of performance for the two groups, participants high on PFT scored significantly higher than

123

K. B. Cartwright et al. Table 3 Mean subscale scores and (standard error) for individuals high and low in PFT

Multiple Elements

Low PFT

High PFT

4.38 (0.05)

5.80 (0.05)

Subjective Choice

3.79 (0.06)

5.07 (0.07)

Underlying Complexities

4.54 (0.05)

5.64 (0.06)

participants low on PFT on all subscales. It should also be noted that the difference between these groups is of practical significance as well, given that the lowest score on any subscale for those high in PFT is higher than the highest subscale score for individuals low in PFT (see Table 3).

General Discussion Reliability and Validity of the PFT Scale The primary purpose of this series of studies was to investigate the psychometric properties of Sinnott’s complex postformal thought questionnaire. Two studies found the scale to be moderately reliable. Furthermore, assessments of construct validity that compared participants’ PFT performance to performance on another measure of complex thought (NFC) indicated the PFT scale is a valid measure of complex thought. Results of these studies support the contention that the PFT is a psychometrically robust measure of adults’ postformal cognitive development, as the reliability and validity of the scale were consistent across both samples. Factor Structure and Implications for Adult Cognitive Development A second purpose of this research was to examine the factor structure of the PFT scale. This analysis revealed three main factors—Multiple Elements, Subjective Choice, and Underlying Complexities—which each represent an important component of complex postformal thought (Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1984, 1998, 2008). Our analyses indicated that overall, there was no difference in difficulty for Multiple Elements and Underlying Complexities, and that both of these processes were used more frequently by participants than Subjective Choice. An examination of performance by our least skilled postformal thinkers, those who were lowest on PFT, showed that they reported greater use of Underlying Complexities, followed by Multiple Elements, and then Subjective Choice. This pattern of performance suggests a developmental progression that is consistent with theories of postformal thought (Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1984, 1998).

123

Postformal theory suggests that adults move beyond logical reasoning within one logical system, what Piaget and Inhelder (1969) characterized as formal operational reasoning, to a new understanding that there are multiple logical systems that can apply to any given situation. Thus, the recognition that there are underlying complexities in a given situation (the Underlying Complexities factor) seems to precede the ability to consider the multiple elements involved in that situation (the Multiple Elements factor), and both of these processes are clearly important components of postformal thinking. Further, postformal theory also suggests that postformal thought is characterized by the integration of objective logic and subjective elements (Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992). That is, once adults recognize the multiple complexities inherent in a situation, and they are able to consider the multiple ‘‘logics’’ that can thus apply in any given situation, they become aware that they must make a subjective choice to apply one of those logics to solve the problem at hand (the Subjective Choice factor). Although this developmental progression is consistent with theory and with our data on individuals low in PFT, further cross-sectional and longitudinal research is necessary to explore the developmental progression of these factors. Limitations of Present Study and Directions for Future Research The development of the PFT scale represents an important contribution to the study of postformal thought. Establishing the psychometric properties of the scale permits the reliable measurement of postformal thinking in a field where postformal thinking has been largely studied qualitatively. The 10-item PFT scale may provide a sensitive quantitative measure for experimental researchers as the potential range of scores extends between 10 and 70 (60 point spread) on an interval scale. Across the studies reported here, actual participant scores fell within the entire range where the minimum score was 26 and the maximum was 70 (M = 48.40, SD = 7.90). However, despite the range of scores on the measure, the current studies included undergraduate students at public universities. Thus, future research should include adults of varying ages, to determine whether the psychometric properties and factor structure hold across multiple age groups, and to examine the developmental progression of the components of postformal thinking. Furthermore, the three factor structure should be explored in future work to determine whether the PFT scale might be usefully conceptualized and used as a global measure of postformal thinking with three subscales that tap different components of postformal thought. The field of adult cognitive development includes many possible directions for future work with this measure. The relation of postformal thought to spiritual development,

Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire

self development, relationship dynamics, friendship patterns, life satisfaction, reading comprehension, political beliefs, and any number of other variables may further elucidate the nature of the development of adults’ cognition (see Sinnott 1998, 2008, for possible directions for this work). Expanding understanding of the nature of adults’ thinking in multiple domains will bring us closer to having a more complete picture of adults’ cognitive development after adolescence, a significant step in moving the field beyond classic conceptions of cognitive development (e.g., Piaget and Inhelder 1969), which neglected to address changes in adults’ thinking.

References American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. Andrews, G., & Halford, G. S. (2002). A cognitive complexity metric applied to cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 153–219. Bidell, T. R., & Fisher, K. W. (1992). Beyond the stage debate: Action, structure, and variability in Piagetian theory and research. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in children’s gender stereotyping: Theoretical and educational implications of a cognitive-based intervention. Child Development, 63, 1351– 1363. Blackburn, J. A., & Papalia, D. E. (1992). The study of adult cognition from a Piagetian perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: The relation of multiple classification skill to reading comprehension

in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 56–63. Case, R. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of child development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (Chap. 6) (pp. 161–196). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial No. 246). Harper Collins Webster’s dictionary (2002/2003). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1991). Innate constraints and developmental change. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 171–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn differently? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 279–293. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1990). Modes of knowledge and the organization of development. In M. L. Commons, C. Armon, L. Kohlberg, F. A. Richards, T. A. Grotzer, & J. D. Sinnott (Eds.), Adult development, Vol. 2: Models and methods in the study of adolescent and adult thought (Chap. 3) (pp. 43–62). New York: Praeger. Labouvie-Vief, G. (1992). A neo-Piagetian perspective on adult cognitive development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Luna, B., Garver, K. E., Urban, T. A., Lazar, N. A., & Sweeney, J. A. (2004). Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to adulthood. Child Development, 75, 1357–1372. Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1–12. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (Helen Weaver, Trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1966). Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage. In M. Commons, F. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations (pp. 298–325). New York: Praeger. Sinnott, J. D. (1998). The development of logic in adulthood: Postformal thought and its applications. New York: Plenum Press. Sinnott, J. D. (2008). Cognitive and representational development in adults. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.), Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching. NY: Guilford Press. Sinnott, J. D., & Johnson, L. (1997). Brief report: Complex postformal thought in skilled research administrators. Journal of Adult Development, 4(1), 45–53. Tanaka, J. S., Panter, A. T., & Winborne, W. C. (1988). Dimensions of the need for cognition: Subscales and gender differences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 35–50.

123