A Review of Recent Literature in Perceptual/Cognitive Style with Implications for Theory and Research in Art Education

References

• June King McFee, “Perception-Delineation Theory,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1957.
   Google Scholar
• H. A. Witkin, Psychological Differentiation, New York: Wiley, 1962.
   Google Scholar
• Stanford Studies in Perceptual Learning were:.
   Google Scholar
• a. Richard A. Salome, “The Effects of Perceptual Training upon the Two-Dimensional Drawings of Children,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1964.
   Google Scholar
• b. Mary D. Rouse, “A Comparison of Witkin's Field Independence Dimension and Low-enfeld's Visual-Haptic Theory,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1963.
   Google Scholar
• c. Arthur D. Efland, “The Effects of Perceptual Training on the Differentiation of Form in Children's Drawings,” doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1965.
   Google Scholar
• d. Gordon L. Kensler, “Perceptual Training and Utilization of Space Aids in Perspective Drawing,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1964.
   Google Scholar
• e. Ronald H. Silverman, “Comparing the Effects of Two vs. Three-Dimensional Art Activity Upon Spatial Visualization, Aesthetic Judgment, and Art Interest,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1962.
   Google Scholar
• f. Harold J. McWhinnie, “The Results of a Learning Experience upon the Figurai Preferences for Complexity and Asymmetry,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., 1965.
   Google Scholar
• VIktor Lowenfeld and Lambert Brittain, Creative and Mental Growth, N.Y.: MacMillan, 1964.
   Google Scholar
• Harold J. McWhinnie, “Lowenfeld Revisited,” Creative Crafts, Fall, 1964.
   Google Scholar
• Arthur D. Efland, “An Examination of Perception Delination Theory: Some Proposed Modifications,” Studies in Art Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, Spring, 1969, pp. 66.
   Google Scholar
• Manuel Barkan, “Viktor Lowenfeld, His Contribution to Art Education,” Viktor Lowenfeld Memorial Lecture, NAEA Monograph #2, 1965.
   Google Scholar
• H. A. Witkin and Phillip Oltman, “Cognitive Style,” International Journal of Neurology, Vol. 2, 1967, pp. 119–137.
   Google Scholar
• Gerald V. Barrett and Carl L. Thornton, “Cognitive Styles, Differences between Engineers and College Students,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 25, 1967, pp. 789–793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David Elkin and Ronald Koegler, “Field Independence and Concept Formation,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 17, 1963, pp. 383–386.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolph Arnheim, “A Study of Visual Factors in Concept Formation,” United States Office of Education Final Report, OEC 1-6-061741-1196, 1968.
   Google Scholar
• June King McFee, Preparation for Art, Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1961.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig Immergluck, “Visual After Effects and Field Dependence,” Psychoanalytic Science, Vol. 4, (6), 1966, pp. 219–220.
   Google Scholar
• L. Immergluck, “Figurai After Effects, Rate of Figure-Ground Reversal, and Field Dependence,” Psychoanalytic Science, Vol. 6, (2), 1966, pp. 45–46.
   Google Scholar
• L. Immergluck, “Resistance to an Optical Illusion, Figurai After Effects, and Field Dependence,” Psychoanalytic Science, Vol. 6, (6), 1966, pp. 281–282.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander W. Pressey and Golda Koffman, “Figurai After Effects, Illusions, and Dimensions of Field Independence,” Psychoanalytic Science, Vol. 10, (8), 1968, pp. 279–280.
   Google Scholar
• L. Immergluck, “Comment on Figurai After Effects, etc.,” Psychoanalytic Science, Vol. 11, (10), 1968, p. 363.
   Google Scholar
• Frank Haronian and Arthur Sugarman, “Field Independence and Resistance to Reversal of Perspective,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 22, 1966, pp. 543–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greta Adevai, et al., “Perceptual Correlates of The Rod and Frame Test,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 26, 1968, pp. 1055–1064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greta Adevai and W. Edward McGough, “Retest Reliability of Rod and Frame Scores During Early Adulthood,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 26, 1968, p. 1308.
   Google Scholar
• S. A. Rudin, “Figure-Ground Differentiation under Different Perceptual Sets,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 27, 1968, pp. 71–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvin G. Goldstein and June Chance, “Effects of Practice on Sex Related Differences in Performance on E.F.T.,” Psychological Science, Vol. 3, 1965, pp. 361–362.
   Google Scholar
• Morton Bloomberg, “Towards a Rapproachement between Field Independence and Creativity,” unpublished paper, Eastern Psychological Association, 1966.
   Google Scholar
• Harold J. McWhinnie, “Some Relationships between Creativity and Perception,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 25, 1967, pp. 979–980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harold J. McWhinnie, “Study of Perceptual Behavior in 4, 5, and 6th Grades,” unpublished report, 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Gerald V. Barrett et al., “Relation of Perceptual Style to Measures of Visual Functioning,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 25, 1967, pp. 235–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerald V. Barrett et al., “Visual Functioning and E.F.T. Performance,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 26, 1968, p. 40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judson A. Pillsbury, “E.G.G. Correlates of Perceptual Style: Field Orientation,” Psychomatic Medicine, Vol. XXIX, No. 5, 1967, pp. 441–449.
   Google Scholar
• Philip K. Oltman and Frances Capobianco, “Field Independence and Eye Movement,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 25, 1967, pp. 645–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irving R. Stuart, et al. “The Question of Constitutional Influence on Perceptual Style,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 20, 1965, pp. 419–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessie J. Lovano, “The Relation of Conceptual Style and Modes of Perception to Graphic Expression,” Studies in Art Education, Vol. 11, No. 3, Spring 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Helen E. Janes, “Conceptual Modes of Children in Responding to Art Objects.” Studies in Art Education, Vol. 11, No. 3, Spring 1970.
   Google Scholar
• Abraham H. Maslow, “Some Educational Implications of the Humanistic Psychologies.” Harvard Education Review, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1968, pp. 685–696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar