•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Research

Abstract

Miles, in two closely related investigations (5, 6), dichotomized male subjects on the basis of their statements as to how they had gone about solving several block design problems of the Kohs type. The two categories were analyzers and non-analyzers. Subjects were classified as analyzers if their a posteriori verbalizations indicated a tendency, at the conceptual level, to break each design down into parts before any blocks were actually moved. They were classified as non-analyzers if their statements failed to suggest that a breaking-into-parts approach had been employed. In the common run of male undergraduate students at the State University, the probability of getting an analyzer in this general way is about 45/100. The dichotomizing was not done for its own sake but for the purpose of identifying, if possible, one (or more) of the primary determiners of the very great differences among male undergraduates in learning to perform the complex perceptual-motor tasks provided by the Iowa Pursuitmeter. As predicted, the analyzers, as a group, were markedly superior to the non-analyzers in performing the standard task, and superior to a lesser degree in performing the reversed task.

Publication Date

1958

Journal Title

Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science

Volume

65

Issue

1

First Page

370

Last Page

376

Copyright

© Copyright 1958 by the Iowa Academy of Science, Inc.

Language

EN

File Format

application/pdf

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.