The study examined the performance of 124 practicing accountants on the Group Embedded Figures Test. Descriptive statistics and reliability measures for the sample of accountants were compared to previously published norms for samples of students. The accountants were significantly less field independent than two of the three samples of business students. Sex differences noted previously for liberal arts students were not observed for the accountants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenbasetI., & DexterA. S.Values and events approaches to accounting: an experimental evaluation. The Accounting Review, 1979, 54, 734–749.
2.
BenbasetI., & DexterA. S.Individual differences in the use of decision support aids. Journal of Accounting Research, 1982, 20, 1–11.
3.
CarterH., & LooR.Group Embedded Figures Test: psychometric data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1980, 50, 32–34.
4.
ChesleyG. R.Subjective probability elicitation: the effect of congruity of datum and response mode on performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 1977, 15, 1–11.
5.
CopelandR. M.FranciaA. J., & StrawserR. H.Students as subjects in behavioral research. The Accounting Review, 1973, 48, 365–372.
6.
DesanctisG., & DunikosktR.Group Embedded Figures Test: psychometric data for a sample of business students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1983, 56, 707–710.
7.
DoktorR. H., & HamiltonW. F.Cognitive style and the acceptance of management science recommendations. Management Science, 1973, 19, 884–894.
8.
GulF.A note on the relationship between age, experience, cognitive styles and accountants' decision confidence. Accounting and Business Research, 1983, No. 53, 85–88.
9.
GulF.The joint and moderating role of personality and cognitive style on decision making. The Accounting Review, 1984, 59, 264–277.
10.
GulF., & ZaidO.Field dependence and accountants' confidence in decisions. Psychological Reports, 1981, 49, 949–950.
11.
HughesR. N.Sex difference in field dependence: effects of unlimited time on Group Embedded Figures Test performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1978, 47, 1246.
12.
HulfishS.Relationship of role identification, self-esteem, and intelligence to sex differences in field independence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1978, 47, 835–842.
13.
LuskE. J.Cognitive aspects of annual reports: field independence/dependence. In Empirical research in accounting: selected studies, 1973. Journal of Accounting Research, 1973, 11, 191–209. (Supplement)
14.
LuskE. J.A test of differential performance peaking for a disembedding task. Journal of Accounting Research, 1979, 17, 286–294.
15.
LuskE. J., & KersnickM.Effect of cognitive style and report format on task performance: the MIS design consequences. Management Science, 1979, 25, 787–798.
16.
LuskE. J., & WrightH.Differences in sex and curricula on learning the Group Embedded Figures Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1981, 53, 8–10. (a)
17.
LuskE. J., & WrightH.Note on learning the Group Embedded Figures Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1981, 53, 370. (b)
RennaM., & ZenhausernR.The Group Embedded Figures Test: normative data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 1176–1178.
20.
ShermanJ.Field articulation, sex, spatial visualization, dependency, practice, laterality of the brain and birth order. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 38, 1223–1235.
21.
WitkinH. A.DykR.PatersonH. F.GoodbnoughD. R., & KarpS. A.Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley, 1962.
22.
WitkinH. A.GoodenoughD. R., & KarpS. A.Stability of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 291–300.
23.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE., & KarpS. A.A manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971.
