Field Dependent–independent Cognitive Style and Creativity From the Process and Product-Oriented Approaches: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Creativity is a multifaceted construct that can be defined both in terms of process (e.g.,divergent thinking) and product (e.g., a poem). Across years, it has been related to different cognitive and personality variables, including cognitive styles. The current systematic review aimed to summarize the literature on the relationships between field dependence–independence and creativity, considering both the creative process and creative production approaches. We selected eight studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses rules. Findings revealed that a consistent number of studies focused on creative process mainly in terms of divergent thinking instead of convergent thinking, also providing misleading results. Additionally, only two studies focused on creative production, showing that field independents were more creative than field dependents. Given the contradictory results and the paucity of studies, we concluded that the association between field dependence–independence and creativity needs to be further investigated by more accurate empirical explorations. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.

Working Memory and Divergent Thinking: The Moderating Role of Field-Dependent-Independent Cognitive Style in Adolescence

“…These findings suggest that FDI significantly affects people's everyday life, affecting their performance in different domains, including social, emotional, and cognitive domains. As concerns the latter, prior studies highlighted that FDI modulates individual performance in tasks that require high-order cognitive processes, including DT [47,50] and WMC [57], even under high load conditions [13]. This is in line with the finding that FI children 8-11 years old outperformed FD children in terms of verbal working memory [58].…”

“…The association between FDI and creativity has been a focus of research in psychology, given the pivotal role of cognitive styles in acquiring, organizing, and using information for different goals in everyday situations [46]. Although FIs have mainly been defined as more flexible, open-minded, and more capable of breaking down the routine than FDs, empirical evidence on the role of FDI on creativity provided puzzled results in different domains of creativity, including creative potential measures (i.e., divergent thinking, convergent thinking, and creative personality) and real-world creative production [47]. Indeed, performance in the Embedded Figure Test (EFT) was negatively correlated with different measures of visual DT in terms of fluency, flexibility, and originality; moreover, no significant associations between FDI (as captured by the Hidden Figure Test) and verbal DT were found [48].…”

Exploring the Relationships between Personality and Psychological Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Pro-Environmental Behaviors

“…Even though this represents the most popular personality taxonomy in the psychology of personality, the Big Five model only provides a partial picture of personality. Future research should consider other personality taxonomies, as well as different individual features such as cognitive styles (Giancola et al 2021b(Giancola et al , 2022b. Forth, given that PEBs and PWB can be affected by a series of common virtues, such as wisdom, creativity, and knowledge, as well as courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence (Giancola et al 2022a;Corral-Verdugo et al 2015), future research should control for these variables when detecting the mediating mechanisms underlying the association between personality and PWB.…”

Towards Personally Relevant Navigation: The Differential Effects of Cognitive Style and Map Orientation on Spatial Knowledge Development

“…Cognitive style has traditionally been considered dimensional [20,21]. Field independence and field dependence are the most well-known dimensions classifying individual cognitive styles [22,23]. Field-independent (FI) learners can distinguish figures as discrete from their backgrounds, whereas field-dependent (FD) individuals learn figures as an integral part of the background in which the figures are presented [23,24].…”