Conceptual Tempo or Impulsivity/Reflectivity

Another cognitive style variable with some extensive research to support it is conceptual tempo or impulsivity-reflectivity. 

Impulsive students tend to jump at the first response where as reflective students think about (or reflect on) their answers. 

Reflective student make fewer mistakes and are probably more analytical. 

The reflective learner takes more time to analyze the structure of the problem and the details that are presented. Usually this could lead to a lower error rate. 

Reflective students are better when the learning calls for inductive reasoning (Kagan, Pearson & Welch, 1965) or memory (Kagan, 1966). They also are better generally at schoolwork (Messer, 1970) most of which requires an analytic and reflective approach. 

A cognitive style, such as impulsivity/reflectivity will affect the way in which competence can be used or deployed when it has developed to its full capacity, Brodzinsky (1985). 

Impulsive individuals, for example, perform tasks rapidly, but usually with a high error rate. 

Reflective individuals are slower but more accurate. This style affects learning when we wish to measure acquisition. 

Impulsive learners will have lower initial acquisition scores than will reflective learners. 

Much of the research in cognitive styles has focused on individual differences but there are clearly task and situational differences as well, which will positively or negatively affect learning. 

Conceptual tempo (impulsivity/reflectivity) yields four groupings based on a median split of latency and errors. One's position is likely to maintain position over time, according to Brodzinsky (1985). However as one grows older one becomes more reflective, at least until adolescence. 

Reflective students, according to Brodzinsky (1985) are more likely to be more efficient in learning because they can use the rule system and knowledge base related to academic problems better than can impulsives.

 When tasks are simple impulsive children should learn more efficiently, but when tasks require analytic planful problem solving the reflectives should perform better. It follows therefore that reflectives perform better on conservative tasks than do impulsives.

Conceptual Tempo and Learning Disability

GREG R. GAY

Kagan (1966) referred to impulsive or reflective tendencies as "conceptual tempo" (also called cognitive tempo or cognitive style by others). He used the Matching Familiar Figures (MFFT) test to measure impulsivity in children of 6 to12 years of age. Children were asked to identify the exact match of a familiar figure from a selection of six similar figures presented together. Response times and accuracy were recorded and used as criteria for classifying impulsivity-reflectivity. Children were then divided into fast-inaccurate and slow-accurate groups. Slow-accurate (reflective) children fell above the median on MFF response time and below the median on MFF errors. Fast-inaccurate (impulsive) children fell below the median on MFF response time and above the median on MFF errors. Only a small number could not be classified into one of these two groups. Kagan compared impulsive and reflective groups on a serial learning task (list memorization and recall). It was consistently found that those who responded more slowly were also those who tended to answer more accurately on the MFF task, and those same individuals also performed better on the serial learning task.

Block, Block, and Harrington (1974) argue however, that response times tell little about the impulsivity of an individual -- some people may just be fast at answering. Based on results of a study that looked at the contributions of speed and accuracy, it was argued that accuracy scores are more closely linked to personality characteristics. The contributions of speed and accuracy were measured using the California Child Q set, in which a trained observer records traits such as curious, exploring, thoughtful, or distractable, impulsive, restrictive. Latencies did not predict personality traits but accuracy did. This result doesn't fit the meaning of conceptual tempo as suggested by Kagan, in which speed is a major factor.

Block, et.al. (1974) go on to point out that, in previous studies using the MFF, a portion of the sample was dropped: those who are fast-accurate or slow-inaccurate and did not fit into Kagan's (1966) original two classifications. Block et. al. point out that this part of the sample could be used to identify the relative portions of speed and accuracy that distinguish between impulsives and reflectives. Block et. al. argue that response times engender other personality characteristics such as motivation, cultural importance assigned to speed of response, self-efficacy, and anxiety. Thus it is likely latencies represent variables other than just impulsivity and speed of response.

Block, Block and Harrington (1975) argue that a combined measure of speed and accuracy measures adaptive-maladaptive behaviour rather than impulsive-reflective behaviour. They offered no explanation for these classifications. Block et. al. also suggest that IQ predicts reflectivity and that a full understanding of it must include a component of intellectual ability. Others have found that IQ is not related to impulsivity-reflectivity, but rather that particular subtests of intelligence are. Using the Primary Mental Abilities Test, Lojoie and Shore (1987) found that the only difference between fast-accurate and slow-accurate adolescents was their score on word fluency, which hints that phonological ability may be related to impulsive-reflective tendencies.

Salkind and Wright (1977) proposed the use of "impulsivity" and "efficiency" scores in attempting to incorporate accuracy and speed together into the developing model of conceptual tempo. Their model is visualized as four quadrants in a graph with mean latency along the X axis, and total errors along the Y axis. Impulsives occupy the upper left quadrant (fast with more errors), reflectives occupy the lower right quadrant (slow with few errors). Efficient learners occupy the lower left quadrant (fast with few errors), and inefficient learners occupy the upper right quadrant (slow with more errors). Salkind and Wright define performance in terms of its "stylistic strategy and its efficacy," and suggest that the study of impulsive-reflective tendencies include measures of both speed and accuracy.

Cullinan, Epstien, Lloyd, and Noel (1980) looked at impulsivity and efficiency in younger and older normally achieving and LD children from 8 to 11 years old using the MFF test. Their results confirm that LD children tend to be more impulsive than normally achieving children, but they do not support the idea that conceptual tempo in LD children is developmentally delayed, but rather, is deficient. Younger and older LD children did not differ in impulsivity, nor did they differ from the younger normally achieving children, but older normally achieving children were less impulsive than the other three groups. This pattern of results suggests that impulsivity is a characteristic of young children, who become reflective with age, and of LD children, who's impulsivity persists with age. As they expected, given that the definition of both LD and normal achievement includes normal intelligence, Cullinan et. al. found no differences in efficiency between achievement groups. Efficiency differences were found between age groups though, suggesting a link between efficient performance and age.

In a preliminary study Palladino, Poli, Masi, & Marcheschi, (1997) investigated the relationship between cognitive style and metacognition. Specifically, between impulsivity, strategy knowledge, and memory and comprehension monitoring ability. Normally achieving children from grades 6 to 8 were tested on: 1) a modified version of the MFF, the MFF-20 (Cairns & Cammock, 1978; cf. Palladino et. al. 1997), 2) the short form of the WISC-R, 3) a multiple choice and short answer metacomprehension test which evaluated childrens' strategic knowledge and monitoring, and 4) a multiple choice metamemory test to measure strategic knowledge and beliefs about memorization processes. Four groups were formed based on the four quadrants of the Salkind and Wright (1977) model, though only the impulsive and reflective groups were examined. A significant cognitive style by grade level interaction was found, with significant differences in metacognitive monitoring between grades 6 and 8, and significant differences between metacognitive monitoring in impulsive and reflective grade 6 students. Metamemory knowledge showed a significant effect of grade but not cognitive style. Based on their results, Paladino et. al. suggest that differences between metacognitive monitoring ability in impulsive and reflective children changes through development and schooling. Their results also support a relationship between metacognitive monitoring ability and impulsivity, though Paladino et. al. suggest that with age, metacognitive abilities in older impulsive students develop so that no differences are found in these abilities by grade eight. Though far from conclusive, these results point to a need to investigate more closely impulsivity and metacognitive behaviour in children with learning disabilities.