Field-Dependence/Independence: Ability in Relation to Mobility-Fixity

Abstract

Previous authors have pointed out that, while the classic Rod-and-Frame Test (RFT) yields a measure of ability to perform field-independently, it is unsuitable for identifying stylistic preference, such as mobility-fixity within the field-dependence/independence dimension. To relate mobility-fixity and ability aspects of field-dependence/independence, we compared data obtained from two versions of the test: one with a “free” instruction, on which the subjects were invited to adjust the rod to any position(s) they preferred on each of 10 trials and a process-oriented version (RFT-P), involving 20 trials with the standard instruction but with a constant rod-and-frame configuration, making possible analysis of the process of adaptation. Mobility versus fixity was defined in terms of more or less frequent changes of rod positions and choice of a high or a low proportion of nongeometrical positions in the RFT-Free. 38 female and 23 male university students completed first the RFT-Free and thereafter the RFT-Process. Women were more field-dependent than men throughout the RFT-Process trials; there were no differences between the sexes over trials or in choice of positions in the RFT-Free. Compared with field-dependent subjects, field-independent subjects mote often changed rod positions in the RFT-Free and preferred nongeometrical positions somewhat more. Among field-independent subjects, those with consistently low deviations in RFT-Process more often preferred a variety of nongeometrical positions in RFT-Free than did those with gradually increasing deviations. We conclude that field-independence is associated with mobility and field-dependence with fixity, as defined by the RFT-Free variables, and that a prerequisite for high mobility is a relative stability of field-independence as reflected on the RFT-Process. Theoretical implications of this conclusion are discussed.