overview of theories of cognitive style: neurotypical and...

Running head: NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION 1 1

Overview of Theories of Cognitive Style: Neurotypical and Autistic

A Research Paper

Presented to

The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School

_________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master of Arts in

Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy

_________________________________

By

Cory D. Hermann

Adler Graduate School

NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION 2

Abstract

The prevalence of diagnoses of autism has been steadily increasing since first being studied in

the 1960’s. The most recent data found related to increased prevalence of diagnoses of ASD can

be found in information gathered by The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring

Network which shows a rate of 14.7 per 1,000 or one in 68. As the prevalence of individuals

with an ASD diagnosis increases, knowledge of differences in cognition must also increase.

Differences in style of communication, cognition and information processing, as well as decision

making strategies all have an impact on how individuals with ASD interact within the

neurotypical world and misinterpretation can have negative impacts and cause distress in

relationships. This review provides a broad overview of multiple theories of cognition; both

neurotypical and autistic. Neurotypical theories covered are; Reflection-Impulsivity, Field

Dependence-Independence, Theory of Types, Gregorc’s Energic Model, VARK Learning Styles,

and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory. Autistic Theories covered are; Theory of Mind,

Executive Function, Central Coherence, and Intense World Theory. Discussed are examples of

assessment tools to assist in understanding personal style accepting other styles of processing.

The author provides suggestions for utilizing tools and assessments in order to increase personal

self-awareness and suggests both neurotypical and autistic cognition share similar traits. The

assertion of the review is that just as autism is considered a spectrum so is cognition and each

individual falls somewhere on the cognitive spectrum. Additional related information and

application of the material in this review can be found in the accompanying manual developed in

conjunction with this review titled, How do you think?: Creating a Cognitive Profile.


Overview of Theories of Cognitive Style: Neurotypical and Autistic

The prevalence of diagnoses of autism has been steadily increasing since first being

studied in the 1960’s. In 1966, the estimated occurrence of autism was 4.5 per 10,000 (Lotter,

1966, p. 124), a rate that remained consistent in studies published prior to 1990 (Rates of autism,

2010). In an article published in 2003, Lingam, Simmons, Andrews, Miller, Stowe, and Taylor

surveyed London families with children having been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder

(ASD) and found that between 1979 and 2000, the rate of ASD diagnoses had been rising

(Lingam et al, 2003, p. 668). Based on their findings, the rate of diagnoses in 2000 was roughly

19.3 per 10,000 or 2.6 per 1,000 births (Lingam et al, 2003, p. 666). The most recent data found

related to increased prevalence of diagnoses of ASD can be found in information gathered by

The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM). In 2010, ADDM

collected data of diagnoses of ASD from 11 network sites across the United States which shows

the rate of ASD diagnoses being currently 14.7 per 1,000 or one in 68, broken down by gender,

the rates are roughly one in 42 males and one in 189 females having been diagnosed with ASD

(Baio, 2014). With the recent 2013 adoption of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM 5), and changes in both diagnostic criteria and consolidation of

related disorders, the prevalence of ASD diagnoses may possibly see a dramatic increase.

As the prevalence of individuals with an ASD diagnosis increases, more children enter

educational systems with earlier diagnoses, transition from high school to higher education or the

work force, knowledge of differences must also increase. Differences in style of communication,

cognition and information processing, as well as decision making strategies to name a few, all

have an impact on how individuals with ASD interact within the neurotypical, non-autistic world

and misinterpretation can have negative impacts and cause distress in relationships. The intent of


this review is to provide a broad overview of multiple theories of cognition; both neurotypical as

well as autistic perspectives as well as provide a few examples of assessment tools that may

assist in understanding one’s own style as well as considerations of other style of processing. It is

this writers’ belief that having an understanding of this type of material will promote better

working relationships in personal as well as professional pursuits.

Cognitive Styles

Cognitive styles, as defined by Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko are, “people’s

characteristic and typically preferred modes of processing information” (Sternberg &

Grigorenko, 1997, p. 700), or “A method of cognitive involvement that an individual is likely to

select among others available to them, therefore, the one that they spontaneously most frequently

use” (Ledzinska, Battala, & Stolarski, 2014, p. 135). Cognitive style can also be termed as an

individuals’ thinking style and refers to the organizing, processing, and interpreting of

information, based on perception, memory, thought, and judgment (Messick, 1984, 1996). It is

important to keep in mind that though there may be similarities between individuals, each person

makes sense of the world in their own unique way, (Cross, 1976) focusing on different details of

interactions, environments, and problems, to make decisions based on a unique interpretation of

information. Cognitive style should not be confused with learning style, which more involves the

various ways an individual best gathers information.

Keeping the individual aspect in mind, and acknowledging the availability of research

and theory related to non-autistic or neurotypical cognitive styles, an attempt will be made to

cover common styles and theories for both neurotypical and autistic cognition.


Theories of Neurotypical Cognition

Due to the vast number of theories of cognitive style, the theories covered within the

neurotypical section will be largely based on Sternberg and Grigorenko’s 1997 article, Are

Cognitive Styles Still in Style? The rational for use of this article is based on criteria set by the

authors, mainly that each theory has been “operationalized”, which according to the authors

means, “there is at least one measure of the style or styles posited by a given theory” (Sternberg

& Grigorenko, 1997, p.703). The authors provide three specific categories for cognitive style; the

cognition-centered approach, which includes reflection – impulsivity and field dependence –

independence, the personality-centered approach which includes the theory of types and

Gregorc’s Energic Model, and finally the activity-centered approach, which focuses more on

individual learning style.

Cognitive-Centered Approach

The cognitive-centered approach perspective and research of cognitive styles can be

defined as, “the characteristic, self-consistent modes of functioning which individuals show in

their perceptual and intellectual activities” (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971, p. 3).

Research and other theories of cognition related to a cognitive-centered approach can also be

recognized as cognitive abilities, which can also appear to be a black or white type of

assessment. An individual may poses one aspect of the theory or the other, this is also the

perspective taken by tools assessing the theories where there is seemingly a right and a wrong

answer (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). The two theories to be covered here will be reflection-

impulsivity and field-dependence-independence.


Reflection-Impulsivity

The reflection-impulsivity theory of cognition, also referred to as conceptual tempo,

focuses on the difference in approach between what can be describe as really two extremes of a

continuum. Two indicators used and recognized in evaluation of reflection-impulsivity are speed

and correctness of solutions (Ledzinska, Battala, & Stolarski, 2014). In this theory, reflection can

be defined as pausing prior to approaching a task or choosing a plan of action to consider and

evaluate other options. Impulsivity can be defined as a tendency to react or respond instinctively

without taking much time for contemplation (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Individuals

determined to be high in reflection are viewed as being more methodical and taking more time in

their approach to tasks and making decisions as well as making fewer mistakes. On the opposite

end of the continuum, individuals determined to be high in impulsivity are viewed as having a

tendency for impulsive decisions and responding quickly as well as making many mistakes

(Ledzinska, Battala, & Stolarski, 2014).

Jean-Pierre Ancillotti hypothesized that reflective individuals tend to take a more

analytical approach in processing and display what he termed cognitive maturity and impulsive

individuals process in a more holistic way and are lacking in cognitive maturity (Ancillotti,

1984). A test of this hypothesis and of the principles of reflection-impulsivity theory by

Rozencwajg and Corroyer (2005), set to develop more understanding of cognitive process of the

theory. In their research study, Rozencwajg and Corroyer identified two additional possibilities

for the reflection-impulsivity cognition theory; individuals who process in a fast and accurate

way, impulsive and accurate results, and individuals who process slow and inaccurately,

reflective and inaccurate results. They identified individuals who were capable of using both the


analytic style of processing used by reflective individuals as well as the holistic style of

processing used by more impulsive individuals (Rozencwajg & Corroyer, 2005).

The most commonly used tool for assessing the reflection-impulsivity is the Matching

Familiar Figures Test (MFFT). The MFFT involves an individual being presented with a

standard figure and then a series of eight similar figures with which to compare. The individual

is timed and assessed for accuracy in correctly selecting and identifying the identical figure

(Kagan, Rosman, Day, and Phillips, 1964). The benefit of an understanding of where an

individual falls on a reflection-impulsivity continuum can be useful in how questions and

communication are approached. An individual with a more reflective approach may need more

time to process questions and information where as an individual with a more impulsive

approach could benefit from a more rapid approach to questioning and presentation of

information.

Field dependence-independence. Field dependence-independence theory refers to, “the

extent a person is dependant versus independent of the organization from the surrounding

perceptual field” (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p.703). Field dependence suggests a tendency

to be influenced strongly by the background or the whole, which causes difficulty separating

detail from the contextual whole. Conversely, field independence is an ability to separate and

restructure details of the whole (Davis, 1982). More simply put, field dependant individuals rely

on external, surrounding information to guide their cognitive processes. This causes them to be

more socially oriented and interested in other people as well as more socially skilled yet tend to

also be limited in their personal autonomy. Field independent individuals rely more on internal

knowing or experiences to guide their cognitive processes. This creates development of a greater

level of autonomy, yet less likely to be socially oriented and less skilled in personal interactions


(Witkin, Moore, Oltman, Goodenough, Friedman, Owen, & Raskin, 1977). One major difference

between field dependant and field independent individuals is what each is able to identify and

pick out within as similar situation. Field independent individuals have an ability to see what

field independent individuals do not (Matthes, Wirth, Schemer, & Kissling, 2011).

The most common tool for assessing field dependence-independence is the Embedded

Figures Test (EFT). EFT involves the use of pictures of complex geometric figures that are

presented to an individual and their task is to identify a simple figure within the complex field of

information. Individuals high in a field-independent processing tend to have the ability to

separate the simple from the field more rapidly than those high in field dependent processing

(Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). In utilizing the information gained from an

assessment of field dependant-independent cognitive preference, one could develop an approach

that best suits individual style of gathering information as well as assessment of surroundings.

Such knowledge would also assist in understanding and individuals need for and willingness to

ask for and benefit from external assistance as well as recognition of the need.

Personality-Centered Approach

The personality-centered approach of cognitive styles can be more simply described as

variations in personality or personality types. Within this perspective can be found Jung’s theory

of Psychological Types and Gregorc’s Energic Model, though Gregorc model may appear to be

more learning style than personality, elements of personality type trait can be identified within it.

Theory of types. In 1923, based on studies and research into human behavior, Jung

suggested that individuals can be divided into two distinct groups or attitudes; introvert and

extravert (Barger & Hoover, 1984; McCaulley, 2000). The basis and justification for these two

groups was developed by identifying where individual places their focus within the environment


or in relation to an object and their general approach to cognitive processing. Introverts are

thought to be concerned first with themselves and then with the environment or object, where as

the extravert is more concerned first with the environment or object and then with themselves

(Malamud, 1923). Jung also suggested that each individual possesses and relies on four basic

psychological modes of function or mental ways of processing; thinking, feeling, perception, and

intuition (Malamud, 1923). The four functions are broken down further into rational judging

functions and irrational perceiving functions; thinking and feeling being rational judging

functions and sensation and intuition being irrational perceiving functions (Malamud, 1923;

McCaulley, 2000). Sensation refers to information that can be gathered or experientially via the

five senses and processing of this information is more subjective based on the individuals’

experience. Gathering and processing information through the function of intuition is described

as being based more on hidden meaning, abstract possibilities or imagined perception as well as

being a attributed to the unconscious. Though Jung used the concept of irrational to describe

these perceiving functions, the intent was not to view them from a negative connotation, but as

how an individual draws conclusions based without relying on reasoning or logic (McCaulley,

2000). Rational functions of judging; thinking and feeling are described as the use mental

processing and the mind to draw conclusions about what has been perceived. Thinking relies on

impersonal logic and analysis of information to make decisions or judgment and reaching

conclusions by a feeling process weighs what is perceived against what an individual values

(Malamud, 1923; McCaulley, 2000; Barger & Hoover, 1984).

Perhaps the most well known and utilized assessment and identification of Jungian type

is the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).The MBTI has been applied and found to be useful

in numerous contexts; organizational development, education, counseling, employment, and


career development just to name a few. Use of the MBTI helps to identify the primary modes of

function and preference identified by Jung and can be useful in both developing self awareness

and understanding into an individual’s preferred mode of interaction with the world in a variety

of contexts (Hall, 2012).

Gregorc’s energic model. Energic is defined as, “in a state of action; acting; or

operating” (Energic - definition of energic by the free dictionary, n.d.). Gregorc identified

cognitive styles based on students’ preference of college instructor teaching styles; instructors

who taught in an ordered, step by step process, and instructors who taught less form the text and

used a more personalized approach to instruction (Gregorc, 1985; O’Brien, 1991). These two

dimensions can be described as the use of time (temporal) and use of space (spatial). The spatial

or space dimension is separated into two additional components that describe an individuals’

preferential mode of acquiring and expressing or perceiving information; concrete or abstract.

Concrete is relatable to physical experience, “here and now” focused presentation of information

and acquisition, and abstract is more of a metaphorical, intuitive, and imaginative perspective.

The time or temporal dimension is separated into the two components of sequential and random,

which refers to a preference in how events, facts, and information are ordered. An individual

with a preference for sequential ordering prefers a more step by step, linear, planned, and

organized form, where as an individual with a preference for random may prefer no particular

order, skip steps of a plan, and be somewhat impulsive in approach (Gregorc, 1985; Tendy &

Geiser, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). While each individual has a certain level of ability

and capacity for each of the four elements, they have a preference to approach and their

cognitive style is the preference of perceptual quality; concrete or abstract, and ordering ability:

sequential or random (Gregorc, 1985; Seidel & England, 1997).


The Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) is the primary tool used to assess Gregorc’s model

of cognitive processing. The results given identify an individual’s preferences of perceptual

quality and ordering ability and the combination of styles (Gregorc, 1999). The tool identifies

four combinations; concrete sequential, abstract random, abstract sequential, and concrete

random as well as provides descriptions of strengths, abilities, preferences, and challenges of

each combination (Gregorc, n.d.& Gregorc, 1999). Utilization of the Gregorc Style Delineator

and identification of a preferred mode of perception and ordering can be beneficial in

approaching tasks and decision making. Taking or following a sequential approach to a task or

process with an individual with a preference for random ordering may create the opposite of

desired effect and outcome. This has the potential to cause essentially a paralysis of movement

toward a goal and difficulty in meeting guidelines that appear rigid. Conversely, taking a more

random approach to a task with a more sequentially leaning individual may have the affect of

creating a high level of confusion.

Activity-Centered Approach

The activity-activity centered approach of cognitive styles theories essential focus on

aspects of both cognition and personality (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Thus, there is an

overlap of theories and related tools of assessment within this approach. There is also a blending

of terminology, for example: previous approaches have used a definition of cognitive style as

being, “people’s characteristic and typically preferred modes of processing information”

(Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p. 700). Theories of cognition within this approach come from a

perspective more of leaning style, where a learning style can be defined as, “an individual’s

unique way of interacting with the environment” (Sewall, 1986). This definition differs from that

of cognitive style in that cognitive style refers more to the processing of information, yet at the


same time quite similar to Gregorc’s theory of individual preferences for gathering and intake of

information. Discussed in this section will be two theories related the activity-centered approach

of cognition and styles of learning: the VARK Learning Styles and the Kolb Experiential

Learning Theory.

VARK learning styles. Developed by Fleming and Mills, VARK stands for; visual,

aural, read/write, and kinesthetic preferences or style of learning (Fleming & Mills, 1992). An

individual with a preference for visual learning have a preference for symbolic representations of

information as well as a need to visually observe and instructor. Preference of aural or auditory

learning need to hear information spoken as well as to speak it themselves in their own words,

they may need to process information through speaking rather than contemplation and then

presentation. Individuals with a preference for reading and writing learn by taking information in

text or written form through any related material. Kinesthetic learners do best when they

experience the reality of information and do things themselves physically or hands on, this type

of learner does best with specific examples where information can be applied (Fleming & Mills,

1992; Fleming & Bonwell, 2006; Narayanan, 2012). The VARK Questionnaire is self-

assessment tool developed by Fleming and Mills to identify an individual’s preferred mode of

learning. Results given are number rankings based on answering 18 situation based task

questions where a higher number represents the preferred mode of learning as well as strategies

based on the preference. The benefit to utilization of the VARK assessment can be found in

determining how an individual best learns or their preference. By identifying this preference, the

presentation of information as well as development of learning tasks and skills can be tailored to

the specific individual needs.


Kolb experiential learning theory. Kolb’s experiential model of learning suggests that

learning is, “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of

experience” (as cited by Hawk & Shah, 2007). Kolb presents learning as a four stage cycle;

experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and doing and completion of this process results in effective

learning (McCleod, 2010). Within the cycle are four modes of processing; concrete experience

(CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation

(AE) (Hawk & Shah, 2007). As suggested by Kolb (1984), the experiential learning process is

non-linear and an individual may have a preference to begin at any point in the cycle. This

preference is where Kolb develop four basic learning styles which are a combination of two

adjacent points in the cycle; Diverger (CE & RO), Assimilator (RO & AC), Converger, and

Accommodator (AE & CE) (Kolb, 1984; Hawk & Shah, 2007). Possibly the most useful aspect

of Kolb’s learning theory is the suggestion that learning is not necessarily a linear process and

more of a cycle where that individuals may approach an process information from any of the four

points.

Theories of Cognition in Autism

Theories of cognition and cognitive processes of individuals with autism attempt to

explain both the primary challenges; communication, social interaction and behavioral flexibility

as well as if autism is caused by one or multiple factors in development (Burnette, Mundy,

Meyer, Sutton, Vaughan, & Charak, 2005; Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007). Difficulty in

developing an all encompassing and unifying theory of autism can be directly related to the

uneven and unique cognitive and behavioral profiles, challenges and development found in

individual on the spectrum (Tonn & Obrzut, 2005). The concept of a spectrum may possibly the

best descriptor of autism and lead to the comment of if you have met one person with autism;


you have met one person with autism. Another key aspect related to spectrum is that of working

with individuals with ASD, due to the broad and unique spectrum of abilities individuals affected

with one challenge may be helped by one approach where the same approach in working with

another may have no benefit (Teunisse, Cools, van Spaendonck, Aerts, & Berger, 2001).

Theories covered with in the autistic portion will be; Theory of Mind, Executive

Function, Central Coherence theory, and Intense World Theory. It is interesting to note that aside

from Intense World Theory, each of these cognitive theories of autism appears to focus more on

deficits than differences in cognitive style. Though there are such theories of cognition specific

to autism, this does not suggest that individuals with ASD do not share traits of the traditional

and neurotypical cognitive styles.

Theory of Mind

The Theory of Mind (ToM) perspective of autism focuses on the challenges individuals

with ASD may face when reasoning about the intentions and beliefs of others (Sheinkopf, 2005).

ToM suggests an intuitive ability in understanding one’s own mental state and mind as well as

the mental state and minds of others. Mental state and mind includes; thoughts, knowledge,

motivation, beliefs, emotions, intentions, and desires and that such things influence an

individual’s behaviors (Alic, 2009). More simply stated, ToM suggests that due to individuals

with ASD diagnoses challenges in social and communicative interactions are a result of limited

ability to understand and interpret the minds of others (Joseph, 1999) or to take on the

perspective of other’s mental states (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985). A common

assessment for ToM is a test of false-belief also referred to as the Sally-Anne test, developed by

Wimmer and Perner (1983) (Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007).


Having an understanding of how an individual with ASD functions within the ToM

theory can assist in understanding current and potentially future difficulties they me have in

social interaction as well as understanding interpreting their own feeling s and emotions. There

may also be a benefit to understanding one’s own perspective of ToM and how assumptions of

normal or acceptable behavior are influenced by an individual with ASDs’ mental state. In other

words, if an individual with ASD has challenges with understanding others, can it be assumed

that others have a similar experience with understanding an individual with ASD.

Executive Functioning Theory

Executive Function (EF) refers to a set of cognitive abilities that regulate thoughts and

actions. These abilities are related to functionality in; strategic planning, flexibility in thought or

shifting of attention and action, control of impulse, initiation of tasks, working memory, and

organization (Sheinkopf, 2005). The initial connection between challenges of EF was similarities

observed in individuals who had suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI), specifically individuals

who had experienced damage to the frontal lobes. Observations and comparisons identified

similar challenges and characteristics of behavior in individuals with ASD ((Tonn & Obrzut,

2005; Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007). While the theory of EF identifies limitations and challenges

in tasks, the benefits of EF can be seen in the ability of individuals with ASD to focus on task

involving areas of interest for extended periods of time.

The benefits of understanding how an individual with ASD experiences EF can be useful

in approaching of tasks. Being able to identify areas that may be challenging for initiation and

subsequent accomplishment of tasks can assist in developing a plan or routine for similar future

related situations or tasks.


Central Coherence Theory

Central coherence can be described as the ability to process information and apply it

within its context. As central coherence applies to autism and ASD, Frith (1989) suggested that

individuals with ASD have a tendency for weak central coherence; this is the basic premise of

the Weak Central Coherence Theory (WCC) of autism (Happe, 1999). WCC also attempts to

explain the challenges with routine and repetitious behavior as well as the tendency of

individuals with ASD to focus on and become preoccupied with single parts of objects,

environments, and interactions (Joseph, 1999). Due to these challenges for individuals with

ASD, WCC suggests that processing information in a detailed way; individuals do not reach state

of integration of details into a whole or global concept and thus the information remains

fragmented and meaningless (Teunisse et al., 2001). As such WCC presents In addition to what

may be seen as challenges, WCC in a way addresses the splinter skills and increased abilities

exhibited by individuals with ASD including; savant skills, musical or artistic abilities, hyper

focus, and attention to detail (Joseph, 1999; Tonn & Obrzut, 2005). Utilizing the perspective of

central coherence, it is beneficial in understanding the global versus local focuses individuals

with ASD may have, and grasping the concept that seeing the trees in the forest is just as useful

as seeing the forest itself.

Intense World Theory

Intense World Theory is a relatively recent attempt to explain autism from a

neurobiological perspective. The basic idea behind Intense World Theory is described as a

hyper-functioning of neural circuitry and brain function, which is characterized by hyper-

reactivity and hyper-plasticity (Markram & Markram, 2010). The theory goes on to suggest that

the development of autism may be based on overly strong reactions to experiences causing the


brain to develop a preference to be overly selective in interpretation of new experiences. This

may lead to development of an excessive processing of detailed fragments of information,

causing an individual with ASD to become, “trapped in a painfully intense world, potentially

explaining a broad range of common autistic symptoms such as sensory sensitivity, repetitive

behavior, idiosyncrasies and even exceptional talents” (Markram & Markram, 2010, p. 1).

Markram and Makram ((2010) suggest that Intense World Theory offers an explanation for

cognitive traits common in individuals with ASD; hyper-perception, hyper-attention, and hyper-

memory as well as possible affects on the limbic system creating a hyper-emotionality.

Essentially the assertion of Intense World Theory is an over development of neural

circuitry creating a supercharged brain, resulting in supercharged processing and function. The

benefit of the perspective taken by Intense World Theory in understanding how over function

and development may be able to help in understanding behaviors and challenges faced by

individuals with ASD.

Summary – Conclusion

The material covered here was not meant to be an exhaustive review of cognitive

styles, yet brief snap shot of theoretical explanations and useful tools in assessing cognitive

styles. It is believed that personal and professional utilization of these tools as well as

developing one’s own cognitive profile, and becoming more highly self-aware professional. A

highly self-aware professional is one who understands their own way of thinking, processing,

learning, and bias as well as their own limitations and incorporates such knowledge into day to

day interactions and practice. Development of such a level of self-awareness allows these

professionals to focus more on how their clients function best as well as to meet them where they

are at and see the world from their unique perspective.


One approach to developing such knowledge and self- awareness would be to utilize

some of the assessments and theories presented in this review then developing a personal

cognitive profile then review the theories to gain a personal perspective on where it fits within

the various continuums. Identifying where an individual falls on a reflection-impulsivity

continuum will help with communication; understanding a more reflective person may need

more time to process where more impulsive individuals work best with little time to think.

Differences in field dependant-independent persons can help to identify preferred level of

independence and therefore affect need for and willingness to ask for and benefit from external

assistance as well as recognition of the need. Understanding the specifics of one’s own MBTI

can have a great influence on acceptance of other perspectives most notably the level of need and

tolerance for human interaction. Knowledge found with the Gregorc Style Delineator and

identification of a preferred mode of perception and approach to decision making can benefit in

planning. Sequential approach to a random thinker may seem almost paralyzing, and random

thinking to a sequential individual may be viewed as confusing, illogical and lacking direction.

Using the VARK assessment to identify a preferred learning style can greatly affect

understanding of and acquisition of information, which also affects communication and

understanding. Though many of these theories and tools were developed to identify more

neurotypical forms of cognition, thinking, and learning styles they each suggest a spectrum in

some form; spectrum much like that of individuals with ASD. Differences may be that

individuals with ASD may experience the world, including thoughts and cognition more

intensely as suggested by Intense World Theory. Understanding this perspective can help

understand interactions and challenges within context or in lack of identifying differences in

context or even a need to as suggested by Central Coherence Theory. Executive Functioning can


also be viewed as a spectrum of cognitive process and ability in both ASD and neurotypical. One

difference may be that individuals with ASD are limited in their ability to hide or mask

challenges with organizing, planning, and completion of tasks.

With the increase in diagnoses of ASD as well as recent changes to diagnostic criteria to

include a broader, inclusive perspective or spectrum of autism, the importance of understanding

differences in thinking has increased. Understanding the differences in cognitive styles and

processes as well as unique traits of each individual is important for successful alignment,

communication, and attainment of goal, whatever the relationship may be. Earlier theories of

cognitive styles tended to focus more on one or the other type perspectives and did not appear to

allow for much of a gray area or spectrum between two extremes, this appears to have changed

over the years and with additional research and new perspectives as can be found in more

personality driven approaches. Though there are distinctly different concepts and theories of

ASD cognitive abilities, it important to keep in mind the idea of a spectrum of styles and the

uniqueness of individuals. Individuals with ASD share traits and similar processing and

cognitive styles found within traditional theories of cognition yet may be at the extremes with

their functioning. Viewing functioning as a valid and different type of processing as opposed to

disordered or dysfunctional will have an effect on interactions, completion of tasks, and

attainment of goals, thus making ASD a style not a disorder.


References

Akinci, C., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2013). Assessing individual differences in experiential-intuitive

and rational-analytical cognitive styles. International Journal of Selection & Assessment,

21(2), 211-221. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12030

Alic, M. (2009, December 23). Theory of mind. Retrieved from

http://www.education.com/reference/article/theory-of-mind/

Ancillotti, J. (1985). Dimension réflexive–impulsive de la personnalité et fonctionnement

cognitif. = Reflection-impulsivity (conceptual tempo) and cognitive functioning. Cahiers

De Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 5(6), 667-686.

Are rates of autism spectrum disorders increasing? Expanded diagnostic criteria and greater

public awareness may explain why. (2010). The Harvard Mental Health Letter, 26(7), 6.

Baio, J. (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years - autism

and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010.

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries, 63(2), 1-21. Retrieved

from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6302.pdf

Bargar, R. R., & Hoover, R. L. (1984). Psychological type and the matching of cognitive styles.

Theory into Practice, 23(1), 56-63.

Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a 'theory of

mind'? Cognition, 21(1), 37-46. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8

Bokoros, M. A., Goldstein, M. B., & Sweeney, M. M. (1992). Common factors in five measures

of cognitive styles. Current Psychology, 11(2), 99-109.


Burnette, C., Mundy, P., Meyer, J., Sutton, S., Vaughan, A., & Charak, D. (2005). Weak central

coherence and its relations to theory of mind and anxiety in autism. Journal of Autism &

Developmental Disorders, 35(1), 63-73. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-1035-5

Davies, M. F. (1982). Field dependence-independence and the differentiation of self and others.

Journal of Psychology, 112, 109-112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1982.9923542

Energic - definition of energic by the free dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/energic

Evans, C., Richardson, J. E., & Waring, M. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 210-224. doi:10.1111/bjep.12015

Fleming, N., & Bonwell, C. (2006). VARK: Learning styles: Visual, auditory, read/write.

kinesthetic. Retrieved from

http://www.southwesterncc.edu/sites/default/files/Tutor_Program/Learning%20Styles%2

0-%20VARK.pdf

Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To

Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155.

Gregorc, A. (n.d.). Mind styles - Anthony Gregorc. Retrieved from

http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Gregorc.htm

Gregorc, A. F. (1985). Inside styles: Beyond the basics: Questions and answers on style.

Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.

Gregorc, A. (1999). Gregorc style delineator - self-assessment instrument for adults. Retrieved

from http://gregorc.com/instrume.html


Hall, G. (2012). Applying psychological-type theory to faith: Spirituality, prayer, worship and

scripture. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(9), 849-862.

doi:10.1080/13674676.2012.685619

Happé, F. (1999). Autism: Cognitive deficit or cognitive style? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,

3(6), 216-222. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01318-2

Hawk, T. F., & Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning.

Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1-19. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

4609.2007.00125.x

Joseph, R. M. (1999). Neuropsychological frameworks for understanding autism. International

Review of Psychiatry, 11(4), 309-324. doi:10.1080/09540269974195

Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in

the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs:

General and Applied, 78(1), 1-37. doi:10.1037/h0093830

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

Retrieved from http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/process-of-

experiential-learning.pdf! (31.05.2006)

Ledzinska, M., Battala, J., & Stolarski, M. (2014). Cognitive styles could be implicitly assessed

in the internet environment: Reflection-impulsivity is manifested in individual manner of

searching for information. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(1), 133-145.

Lotter, V. (1966). Epidemiology of autistic conditions in young children. Social Psychiatry and

Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1(3), 124-135. doi:10.1007/BF00584048


Malamud, W. (1923). Review of 'psychological types, or the psychology of individuation'. The

Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 18(2), 167-180.

doi:10.1037/h0066013

Matthes, J., Wirth, W., Schemer, C., & Kissling, A. (2011). I see what you don't see: The role of

individual differences in field dependence-independence as a predictor of product

placement recall and brand liking. Journal of Advertising, 40(4), 85-99.

McCaulley, M. H. (2000). Myers—Briggs type indicator: A bridge between counseling and

consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(2), 117-132.

doi:10.1037//1061-4087.52.2.117

McCleod, S. (2010). Kolb's learning styles and experiential learning cycle. Retrieved from

http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

Markram, K., & Markram, H. (2010). The intense world theory—A unifying theory of the

neurobiology of autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 224.

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00224

Narayanan, M. (2012). Assessment of learning using Fleming and Mills’ VARK learning styles

(AC2012-2949). Paper presented at the 8th

annual meeting of the American Society for

Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from

http://search.asee.org/search/fetch;jsessionid=1a03ack9fbqka?url=file%3A%2F%2Flocal

host%2FE%3A%2Fsearch%2Fconference%2FAC2012%2F2949.pdf&index=conference

_papers&space=129746797203605791716676178&type=application%2Fpdf&charset=

O'Brien, T. P. (1991). Relationships among selected characteristics of college students and

cognitive style preferences. College Student Journal, 25(1), 492-500.


Teunisse, J., Cools, A. R., van Spaendonck, K. M., Aerts, F. M., & Berger, H. C. (2001).

Cognitive styles in high-functioning adolescents with autistic disorder. Journal of Autism

and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 55-66.

Tonn, R., & Obrzut, J. (2005). The neuropsychological perspective on autism. Journal of

Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 17(4), 409-419. doi:10.1007/s10882-005-6623-6

Rajendran, G., & Mitchell, P. (2007). Cognitive theories of autism. Developmental Review,

27(2), 224-260.

Rozencwajg, P., & Corroyer, D. (2005). Cognitive processes in the reflective-impulsive

cognitive style. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(4), 451-463.

doi:10.3200/GNTP.166.4.451-466

Rutter, M. (2005). Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: Changes over time and their

meaning. Acta Paediatrica, 94(1), 2-15. doi:10.1080/08035250410023124

Sanders, P., & Conti, G. (2012). Identifying individual differences: A cognitive styles tool.

Journal of Adult Education, 41(2), 43-63.

Seidel, L. E., & England, E. M. (1997). Gregorc's cognitive styles: Preferences for instructional

and assessment techniques in college students. Poster presented at the annual convention

of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED414785.pdf

Sewall, T. (1986). The measurement of learning style: A critique of four assessment tools.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED267247.pdf

Sheinkopf, S. J. (2005). Hot topics in autism: Cognitive deficits, cognitive style, and joint

attention dysfunction. Medicine and Health, Rhode Island, 88(5), 152.


Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American

Psychologist, 52(7), 700-712. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.7.700

Tendy, S. M., & Geiser, W. F. (1997). The search for style: It all depends on where you look.

Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED410029.pdf

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and

field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of

Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi:10.2307/1169967

Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Friedman, F., Owen, D. R., &

Raskin, E. (1977). Role of the field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles in

academic evolution: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(3),

197-211. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.69.3.197

overview of theories of cognitive style: neurotypical and...

Documents