Mindfulness, Need for Cognition, and Thinking Styles Predict Cognitive Failures

Mary Frame, Kathleen Szymczuk, & Ashley Abraham

Department of Psychology
Abstract
Cognitive failures are minor task failures such as losing ones keys or forgetting an appointment. Such failures, though small, may hinder academic and professional success or the management of daily activities. For some, these failures are rare but others experience them regularly; the cause of cognitive failures is not well understood. Research suggests that individuals who practice mindfulness may experience fewer cognitive failures because they attend to information in the here and now rather than to the past or future (Herndon, 2008). Cognitive failures may also be attributed to ones preferred thinking style. Thinking styles are patterns in the way that one prefers to engage in cognitive work. For instance, an individual may prefer to focus on details, whereas another would prefer more abstract ideas. Sternberg proposed 13 thinking styles with an individuals thinking style profile being comprised of a combination of preferences within these styles (Sternberg & Wagner, 1992). An individuals Need for Cognition is defined as a tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982); those high in NFC pay more careful attention to detail, similar to those that are mindful. We investigated the role that mindfulness, need for cognition, and thinking style play in cognitive failures. We found that high-CF individuals differed from low-CF individuals in terms of mindfulness, Need for Cognition, and thinking style. Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) suggested that certain tasks and situational demands might encourage the development of the various thinking style preferences. Thus, it may be the case that someone scoring high in anarchic thinking style would experience greater cognitive failures purely based on this stylistic preference. We investigated the relationship between mindfulness, NFC, thinking styles, and cognitive failures. Our second hypothesis was that individuals reporting more cognitive failures would have a lower need for cognition. Using a median split of cognitive failures, an independent samples t-test was conducted using total need for cognition as a dependent variable. As predicted, Figure 2 shows that those scoring higher in cognitive failures were lower in need for cognition, t(73) = 3.99, p = .00. Thus, a higher need for cognition may serve as a preventative factor for cognitive failures. A follow-up simple regression indicated that mindfulness alone, R2 = .343, F(1, 75) = 38.65 , p = .00, accounted for 34.3% of the variability within cognitive failure scores (see Figure 4). Thus, mindfulness accounted for the overwhelming majority of the variance in cognitive failures.

Method
Measures
Cognitive Failures The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ; Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald, & Parkes, 1982) was used to measure minor task failures such as losing ones keys or forgetting where ones car is parked. The CFQ contained 25 questions answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = never, 4 = very often). The CFQ is divided into four subscales: Distractibility, Memory, Blunders, and Names, each measuring a different type of cognitive failure. Participants were scored on the CFQ using their average response on each subscale (a = .78 - .80) and on the CFQ as a whole (a = .92), a high score indicating a high probability of cognitive failures. Mindfulness The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Herndon, 2008) was used to measure ones attentiveness to the here and now and contained 15 questions answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always). A high score on the MAAS indicated that an individual was more focused on the present than on the past or future; a low score on the MAAS indicated that an individuals focus was generally not on the here and now. The MAAS demonstrated acceptable internal consistency ( = .86). Need for Cognition The Need for Cognition Scale (NFC; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) was used to measure ones interest in engaging in cognitively demanding tasks and contained 45 questions answered on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = very strong agreement, 4 = very strong disagreement). The mean scores of participants were used to differentiate between individuals with a high need for cognition and a low need for cognition. The NFC demonstrated acceptable internal consistency ( = .84). Thinking Styles The Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI; Sternberg & Wagner, 1991), based on Sternbergs theory of Mental Self Government, was used to measure the dimensions of MSG including functions, forms, levels, scope, and leanings. The TSI contained 104 questions answered on a 7-point Likert scale(1 = Not at all Well, 7 = Extremely Well). The TSI included 13 subscales including Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Monarchic, Oligarchic, Hierarchical, Anarchic, Local, Global, Internal, External, Liberal, and Conservative. Cronbachs alphas for each subscale were acceptable ( = .74 .93).

Figure 2: Mean CFQ Scores for Low and High Mindfulness Groups

Background
Losing ones keys, having someones name on the tip of the tongue, and turning right instead of left when driving are all examples of cognitive failures. These small deficits in perception, memory, and motor function impair ones ability to complete a task that one is ordinarily able to do (Broadbent, Cooper, FitzGerald, & Parkes, 1982; Wallace, 2004). The cause of a cognitive failure is not well understood. Encoding style may help to explain the differences between those who experience many cognitive failures and those who experience very few. Those who rely heavily on internal encoding may be more susceptible to these failures. The cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ: Broadbent et al., 1982) was developed as a measure of common errors and was derived from three categories: memory slips (e.g., absentmindedness), attention slips (e.g., fail to notice something relevant), and psychomotor slips (e.g., action slips). Individuals differ in the amount of task failures they experience. However, this rate remains constant over time indicating that cognitive failures are more likely a trait than a particular psychological state (Wallace, 2004). For this reason it is believed that other cognitive individual difference variables such as need for cognition and mindfulness could be used to predict the occurrence of cognitive failures. There is ample evidence to suggest that an individuals orientation to their internal world could be a factor in determining the cause of a cognitive failure (Ishigami & Klein, 2009; Herndon, 2007). Herndon (2008) showed that mindfulness, defined as, being attentively present to what is here and now, was related to cognitive failures. Herndons (2008) results suggested that individuals who were mindful, or attentive and aware of what is happening at the moment, had a lower rate of cognitive failures, whereas individuals who were focused on the past or future had more. Fortunately, mindfulness seems to be a skill that can be taught. Several studies report that mindfulness training can result in increases in attentional control (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Another factor that could contribute to the number of cognitive failures an individual experiences is their need for cognition (NFC) level. Need for cognition is an individual difference variable that measures how interested one is in participating in effortful thinking. NFC has been shown to be positively related to student achievement and test performance (Sadowski & Gulgoz, 1992). Students high in NFC seem to prefer analyzing arguments, discussing abstract issues, and paying careful attention to detail (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Similar to NFC, ones thinking style might help to explain cognitive failures. Sternberg (1988) proposed a Mental Self Government (MSG) model of thinking style. In this model, Sternberg used a governmental model to illuminate individuals preferences in doing cognitive work. For instance, the judicial thinking style refers to a function, in which one compares and evaluates ideas, rules, and procedures. The oligarchic and anarchic styles, in comparison, focus on goal-setting behaviors. Those who prefer the oligarchic style prefer to have multiple simultaneous goal pursuits, and those who prefer an anarchic style take a random approach to pursuing goals and problems. Global and local preferences refer to the level of abstraction at which a thinker prefers to work; global thinking style refers to a high level of abstraction, in comparison to local thinking style, which requires more attention to detail. The scope refers to how one prefers to work; those that prefer to work independently show an internal preference in comparison with those that prefer to work collaboratively in group settings, who would show an external preference. Finally, a leaning refers to how an individual prefers to complete tasks. One with a conservative leaning would prefer to complete tasks according to set rules and guidelines.

Figure 3 shows comparisons between those who scored high and low on cognitive failures on several of the thinking styles. In particular, independent samples t-tests resulted in significant differences on each of the following thinking styles: judicial ( t(74) = 2.27, p = .03), oligarchic(t(74) = 4.28, p = .00), anarchic(t(74) = 3.36 p = .00), global(t(74) = 2.26, p = .03), local(t(74) = 2.80, p = .01), external(t(74) = 2.90, p = .01), and conservative(t(74) = 2.24, p = .03). In all cases, those scoring higher in the various thinking styles reported fewer cognitive failures. Importantly, differences in thinking styles encompassed all dimensions of Sternbergs (1988) Mental Self Government (MSG) model, including function, form, level, scope, and leanings.
5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Low CFQ High CFQ

Figure 4: Linear Regression Predicting Cognitive Failures from Mindfulness

Discussion
A predictive relationship was found between mindfulness, need for cognition, thinking style, and cognitive failures. Individuals who are more mindful, have a higher NFC, and who prefer to work independently tended to have fewer cognitive failures overall. As the concept of mindfulness grows in public awareness, more people are becoming aware of its positive and long-lasting effects on attentional processes (Brown & Ryan, 2003). We found that higher mindfulness scores were related to fewer cognitive failures across the three types of failures: perception, attention, and action. Future research should attempt to further explore these differences. It is possible that mindfulness could simply be the equivalent of attentional encoding. However, with recent definitions of mindfulness calling for a distinction between attention and awareness (Brown & Ryan, 2003), the construct may be the result of something much more complex than pure encoding. Importantly, mindfulness is seen as a skill that can be learned, whereas encoding is generally considered to be an individual difference. If mindfulness can be taught, we might be able to teach people to have fewer cognitive failures. Similarly, thinking styles are preferences that some see as skill-based, and can therefore also be taught. Sternberg and Grigorenko (1997) suggested that certain tasks and situational demands might encourage the development of the various thinking style preferences. Thus, it may be possible to train individuals to use their thinking styles to ward off cognitive failures.

Results
We predicted that individuals high in mindfulness would experience fewer cognitive failures than those who were lower in mindfulness. A median split comparing those scoring high and low on mindfulness was conducted. An independent samples t-test showed a significant difference in total amount of cognitive failures, t(72) = 5.04, p =.00 (see Figure 1). Likewise, Figure 1 also shows that significant differences were found on all subscores of the CFQ, with higher mindfulness leading to lower cognitive failures: Distractions, t(72) = 5.12, p = .00; Memory, t(72) = 4.24, p = .00; Blunders, t(72) = 4.21, p = .00; and Names, t(72) = 2.89, p = .01.
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

References
Figure 3: Mean CFQ Scores for thinking styles (with significant differences) Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.42.1.116 Herndon, F. (2008). Testing mindfulness with perceptual and cognitive factors: External vs. internal encoding, and the cognitive failures questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 3241. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.002 Ishigami, Y. & Klein, R. M. (2009) Are individual differences in absentmindedness correlated with individual differences in attention? Journal of Individual Differences, 20, 220-237. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.4.220 Sadowski, C. J., & Gulgoz, S. (1992a). Association of need for cognition and course grades. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 498. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31(4), 197-224. doi:10.1159/000275810 Sternberg, R. & Grigorenko, E. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700712. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.52.7.700 Sternberg, R.J. & Wagner, R.K. (1991). MSG Thinking Styles Inventory: Manual, Unpublished Test, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Tacit knowledge: An unspoken key to managerial success. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1, 513. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.1992.tb00016.x Wallace, J. C. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire: Evidence for dimensionality and construct validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(2), 307-324. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.005

Low Mindfulness High Mindfulness

A backward multiple regression was conducted to predict the amount of variability in cognitive failures accounted for by thinking styles, mindfulness, and need for cognition. Variables entered in the regression included mindfulness, need for cognition, and the 13 thinking styles. In the final model, mindfulness, need for cognition, and internal thinking styles were significant predictors of cognitive failures, R2 = .445, F(4, 74) = 14.06, p = .00. We found that mindfulness ( = .34, p = .00), need for cognition ( = .013, p = .02), and internal thinking style ( = .10, p = .04) were significant predictors, and there was a strong trend with external thinking style ( = .09, p = .07). Taken together, these four variables accounted for 44.5% of the variability in cognitive failure scores, and suggest that those individuals who are higher in mindfulness and need for cognition, and who show a preference for an internal thinking style are less likely to have cognitive failures.

Figure 1: Mean NFC Scores for Low and High CFQ Groups