Research has shown that academic risk taking—the selection of school tasks with varying difficulty levels—affords important implications for educational outcomes. In two experiments, we explored the role of cognitive processes—specifically, global versus local processing styles—in students’ academic risk-taking tendencies. Participants first read a short passage, which provided the context for their subsequent academic risk-taking decisions. Following which, participants undertook the Navon's task and attended to either global letters or local letters only, i.e., were either globally or locally primed. The effects of priming on academic risk taking were then assessed using a perception-based measure (Experiment 1) and a task-based measure (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 provided preliminary evidence, which Experiment 2 confirmed, that globally focused individuals took more academic risk than did locally focused individuals after controlling for participants’ need for cognition (how much they enjoy effortful cognitive activities). Additionally, the inclusion of and comparisons with a control group in Experiment 2 revealed that locally focused participants drove the observed effects. The theory of predictive and reactive control systems (PARCS) provides a cogent account of our findings. Future directions and practical applications in education are discussed.
AguinisH., GottfredsonR. K., & JooH. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301.
2.
AmabileT. M., HillK. G., HennesseyB. A., & TigheE. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967.
3.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
4.
BassoM. R., SchefftB. K., RisM. D., & DemberW. N. (1996). Mood and global-local visual processing. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2(3), 249–255.
5.
BeghettoR. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 210–223.
6.
BollenK. A., & JackmanR. W. (1990). Regression diagnostics: An expository treatment of outliers and influential cases. In FoxJ. & LongJ. S. (Eds.), Modern methods of data analysis (pp. 257–291). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
CacioppoJ. T., & PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
8.
CacioppoJ. T., & PettyR. E. (1984). The need for cognition: Relationship to attitudinal processes. In McGlynnR. P., MadduxJ. E., StoltenbergC. D., & HarveyJ. H. (Eds.), Social perception in clinical and counselling psychology (pp. 91–119). Lubbock: Texas Tech University.
9.
CacioppoJ. T., PettyR. E., FeinsteinJ. A., & JarvisW. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253.
10.
CacioppoJ. T., PettyR. E., & KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.
11.
CliffordM. M. (1988). Failure tolerance and academic risk-taking in ten- to twelve-year-old students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 15–27.
12.
CliffordM. M. (1991). Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 263–297.
13.
CliffordM. M., & ChouF.-c. (1991). Effects of payoff and task context on academic risk taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 499–507.
14.
CliffordM. M., LanW. Y., ChouF. C., & QiY. (1989). Academic risk-taking: Developmental and cross-cultural observations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 57(4), 321–338.
15.
CookL. K., & MayerR. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448–456.
16.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow. New York: Harper & Row.
17.
DaleG., & ArnellK. M. (2013). Investigating the stability of and relationships among global/local processing measures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(3), 394–406.
18.
DeciE. L., & PoracJ. (1978). Cognitive evaluation theory and the study of human motivation. In LepperM. R. & GreeneD. (Eds.), The hidden costs of reward (pp. 149–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19.
DemareeH. A., DeDonnoM. A., BurnsK. J., & Erik EverhartD. (2008). You bet: How personality differences affect risk-taking preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1484–1494.
20.
DerryberryD., & ReedM. A. (1998). Anxiety and attentional focusing: Trait, state and hemispheric influences. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(4), 745–761.
21.
DerryberryD., & TuckerD. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In NiedenthalP. M. and KitayamaS. (Eds.), The heart's eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention, (pp. 167–196). New York: Academic Press.
22.
DevonshireI. M., DavisJ., FairweatherS., HighfieldL., ThakerC., WalshA., & HathwayG. J. (2014). Risk-based learning games improve long-term retention of information among school pupils. PLoS One, 9(7), e103640. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103640
23.
FörsterJ., & HigginsT. E. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–636.
24.
FredricksonB. L., & BraniganC. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332.
25.
GeorgeD., & MalleryP. (2010). Using SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
International English Language Testing System (IELTS). (2015). Retrieved August 12, 2016, from http://www.ielts-exam.net/.
27.
JarvisB. G. (2004). DirectRT research software(Version 2004) [Computer software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft.
28.
JarvisW. B. G., & PettyR. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172–194.
29.
KangM. J., RangelA., CamusM., & CamererC. F. (2011). Hypothetical and real choice differentially activate common valuation areas. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(2), 461–468.
30.
LaffertyT., & HigbeeK. L. (1974). Realism and risk taking. Psychological Reports, 34(3), 827–829.
31.
LewisM. B., & DawkinsG. (2015). Local navon letter processing affects skilled behavior: A golf-putting experiment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 420–428.
32.
LibermanN., FörsterJ. A., & FriedmanR. (2007). Seven principles of goal activation: A systematic approach to distinguishing goal priming from priming of non-goal constructs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(3), 211–233.
33.
LimS. W. H., & GohW. D. (2013). Articulation effects in melody recognition memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 1774–1792.
34.
LimS. W. H., YuenA. Y. L., & TongE. M. W. (2015). Global-local visual processing impacts risk taking behaviors, but only at first. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1257.
35.
LoerschC., & PayneB. K. (2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 234–252.
36.
MacraeC. N., & LewisH. L. (2002). Do I know you? Processing orientation and face recognition. Psychological Science, 13, 194–196.
37.
MilneE., & SzczerbinskiM. (2009). Global and local perceptual style, field-independence, and central coherence: An attempt at concept validation. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5(1), 1–26.
38.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.
39.
PerfectT. J., DennisI., & SnellA. (2007). The effects of local and global processing orientation on eyewitness identification performance. Memory, 15(7), 784–798.
40.
TopsM., BoksemM. A. S., LuuP., & TuckerD. M. (2010). Brain substrates of behavioral programs associated with self- regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 1:152. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00152
41.
TopsM., BoksemM. A. S., QuirinM., IJzermanH., & KooleS. L. (2014). Internally-directed cognition and mindfulness: An integrative perspective derived from predictive and reactive control systems theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5:429. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00429
42.
TuckerD. M., & WilliamsonP. A. (1984). Asymmetric neural control systems in human self-regulation. Psychological Review, 91, 185–215.
43.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
WellerJ. A., & TikirA. (2011). Predicting domain-specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(2), 180–201.
45.
WheelerS. C., DeMarreeK. G., & PettyR. E. (2014). Understanding prime-to-behavior effects: Insights from the active-self account. Social Cognition, 32(Supplement), 109–123.
46.
WolpertL. (2002). Is science dangerous?Journal of Molecular Biology, 319(4), 969–972.
47.
ZuckermanM., & KuhlmanD. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999–1029.
