Claims

Cognitive style shows a weak, measure-dependent relationship with SPT accuracy

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2004 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i1 Meta-analytic average effect size for cognitive style and perspective taking accuracy was .16, varying from .27 to .08 depending on how cognitive style was assessed. → Gehlbach 2004

Evidence

Gehlbach 2004

Gehlbach, Hunter. (2004). A New Perspective on Perspective Taking: A Multidimensional Approach to Conceptualizing an Aptitude. Educational Psychology Review 16 (3). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034021.12899.11

q2 · i1 · theoretical · r3

The review reports Davis and Kraus's (1997) meta-analytic finding of "an average effect size of .16" between cognitive style (measured via cognitive complexity, locus of control, field independence, and dogmatism scales) and SPT accuracy, with estimates varying by assessment method.

"They found an average effect size of .16 for the relationship of cognitive style to perspective taking accuracy. The effect sizes varied from .27 to .08 depending upon how cognitive style was assessed."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id cognitive-style-weak-spt-accuracy-relation
title Cognitive style shows a weak, measure-dependent relationship with SPT accuracy
description Cognitive style shows a weak, measure-dependent relationship with SPT accuracy
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2004
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — gehlbach-2004

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.