Cognitive styles are commonly studied constructs in cognitive psychology. The theory of field dependence-independence was one of the most important cognitive styles. Yet in the past, its measurement had significant shortcomings in validity and reliability. The theory of analytic and holistic cognitive styles attempted to extend this theory and overcome its shortcomings. Unfortunately, the psychometric properties of its measurement methods were not properly verified. Furthermore, new statistical approaches, such as analysis of reaction times, have been overlooked by current research. The aim of this pre-registered study was to verify the psychometric properties (i.e., factor structure, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, discriminant validity with intelligence and personality, and divergent, concurrent and predictive validity) of several methods routinely applied in the field. We developed/adapted six methods based on self-report questionnaires, rod-and-frame principles, embedded figures, and hierarchical figures. The analysis was conducted on 392 Czech participants, with two data collection waves. The results indicate that the use of methods based on the rod-and-frame principle may be unreliable, demonstrating no absence of association with intelligence. The use of embedded and hierarchical figures is recommended. The self-report questionnaire used in this study showed an unsatisfactory factor structure and also cannot be recommended without futher validation on independent samples. The findings also did not correspond with the original two-dimensional theory.

Department of Information and Library Studies Faculty of Arts Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Psychology Faculty of Arts Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Social Studies Faculty of Regional Development and International Studies Mendel University in Brno Brno Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Messick S. Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In Messick S, editor. Individuality in learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1976: pp. 4–23.

Witkin HA, Moore CA, Goodenough D, Cox PW. Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications. Rev Educ Res. 1977. Mar;47(1):1–64. PubMed

Kozhevnikov M. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychol Bull. 2007. May;133(3):464–81. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464 PubMed DOI

Kozhevnikov M, Evans C, Kosslyn SM. Cognitive Style as Environmentally Sensitive Individual Differences in Cognition. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2014. May;15(1):3–33. PubMed

Riding RJ, Rayner S. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behavior. London: David Fulton Publishers, 1998.

Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL. Are cognitive styles still in style?. Am Psychol. 1997. Jul;52(7):700–12.

Riding RJ, Cheema I. Cognitive Styles—an overview and integration. Educ Psychol. 1991. Jan;11(3–4):193–215.

Anakwah N, Horselenberg R, Hope L, Amankwah‐Poku M, Koppen PJ. Cross‐cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports. Appl Cognit Psychol. 2020. Mar;34(2):504–15.

Čeněk J, Tsai J, Šašinka Č. Cultural variations in global and local attention and eye-movement patterns during the perception of complex visual scenes: Comparison of Czech and Taiwanese university students. pLoS ONE. 2020. Nov 16;15(11):e0242501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242501 PubMed DOI PMC

Lawrence RK, Edwards M, Chan GW, Cox JA, Goodhew SC. Does cultural background predict the spatial distribution of attention?. Cult Brain. 2020. Dec;8(2):137–65.

Beekman TL, Seo H. Analytic versus holistic: Cognitive styles can influence consumer response and behavior toward foods. J Sense Stud. 2022. Apr;37(2).

Park H, Kim S, Lee J. Native advertising in mobile applications: Thinking styles and congruency as moderators. J Mark Commun. 2020. Aug 17;26(6):575–95.

Chen B. Enhance creative performance via exposure to examples: The role of cognitive thinking style. Pers Individ Differ. 2020. Feb;154:109663.

Hsieh S, Yu Y, Chen E, Yang C, Wang C. ERP correlates of a flanker task with varying levels of analytic-holistic cognitive style. Pers Individ Differ. 2020. Jan;153:109673.

Spaccatini F, Pancani L, Richetin J, Riva P, Sacchi S. Individual cognitive style affects flood‐risk perception and mitigation intentions. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2021. Mar;51(3):208–18.

Baughan A, Oliveira N, August T, Yamashita N, Reinecke K. Do cross-cultural differences in visual attention patterns affect search efficiency on websites? Conf Hum. 2021. May; 326:1–12.

Zhou X, Requero B, Gonçalves D, Santos D. Every penny counts: The effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on donation decisions in the times of Covid-19. Pers Individ Differ. 2021. Jun;175:110713.

Witkin HA, Goodenough DR. Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. ETS Res Rep Ser. 1976. Jun;1976(1):i–78. PubMed

Boccia M, Piccardi L, Di Marco M, Pizzamiglio L, Guariglia C. Does field independence predict visuo-spatial abilities underpinning human navigation? Behavioural evidence. Exp Brain Res. 2016. Oct;234(10):2799–807. PubMed

Cuneo F, Antonietti J, Mohr C. Unkept promises of cognitive styles: A new look at old measurements. pLoS ONE. 2018. Aug 28;13(8):e0203115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203115 PubMed DOI PMC

Guisande M, Páramo M, Tinajero C, Almeida L. Field dependence-independence (FDI) cognitive style: An analysis of attentional functioning. Psicothema. 2007;19(4):572–577. PubMed

Miyake A, Witzki AH, Emerson MJ. Field dependence–independence from a working memory perspective: A dual-task investigation of the Hidden Figures Test. Memory. 2001. Jul;9(4–6):445–57. doi: 10.1080/09658210143000029 PubMed DOI

Rémy L, Gilles P. Relationship between field dependence-independence and the g factor: Rev Eur Psychol Appl. 2014. Mar;64(2):77–82.

Tinajero C, Páramo MF. Field dependence-independence and academic achievement: a re-examination of their relationship. Br J Educ Psychol. 1997. Jun;67(2):199–212.

Furnham A. Personality and learning style: A study of three instruments. Pers Individ Differ. 1992. Apr;13(4):429–38.

von Wittich D, Antonakis J. The KAI cognitive style inventory: Was it personality all along?. Pers Individ Differ. 2011. May;50(7):1044–9.

Bergman H, Engelbrektson K. An examination of factor structure of Rod-and-frame Test and Embedded-figures Test. Percept Mot Skills. 1973. Dec;37(3):939–947. doi: 10.1177/003151257303700353 PubMed DOI

Zhang L. Field-dependence/independence: cognitive style or perceptual ability?––validating against thinking styles and academic achievement. Pers Individ Differ. 2004. Oct;37(6):1295–311.

Goodenough DR, Witkin HA. Origins of field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles. ETS Res Bull Ser. 1977. Jun;1977(1):i–80.

Allinson CW, Hayes J. The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition-Analysis For Organizational Research. J Management Studies. 1996. Jan;33(1):119–35.

Witkin HA, Berry JW. Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural perspective. ETS Res Bull Ser. 1975. Jun;1975(1):i–100.

Zhang L. The malleability of intellectual styles. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013.

Lis DJ, Powers JE. Reliability and Validity of the Group Embedded Figures Test for a Grade School Sample. Percept Mot Skills. 1979. Apr;48(2):660–2. doi: 10.2466/pms.1979.48.2.660 PubMed DOI

Kepner MD, Neimark ED. Test–retest reliability and differential patterns of score change on the Group Embedded Figures Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984. Jun;46(6):1405–13. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.46.6.1405 PubMed DOI

Goldstein AG, Chance JE. Effects of practice on sex-related differences in performance on Embedded Figures. Psychon Sci. 1965. Jan;3(1–12):361–2.

Ludwig I, Lachnit H. Effects of practice and transfer in the detection of embedded figures. Psychol Res. 2004. Aug;68(4). doi: 10.1007/s00426-003-0141-x PubMed DOI

Álvarez-Montero FJ, Leyva-Cruz MG, Moreno-Alcaraz F. Learning Styles Inventories: an update of Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone’s Reliability and Validity Matrix. EJREP. 2018. Dec 9;16(46):597–629.

Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K. Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning. London: Learning Skills Research Centre, 2004.

Curry L. A critique of the research on learning styles. Educ Leadersh. 1990;48:50–52.

Bendall RCA, Galpin A, Marrow LP, Cassidy S. Cognitive Style: Time to Experiment. Front Psychol. 2016. Nov 15;7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01786 PubMed DOI PMC

Witkin HA. Socialization, Culture and Ecology in the Development of Group and Sex Differences in Cognitive Style. Hum Dev. 1979;22(5):358–72.

Nisbett R. The geography of thought: How asians and westerners think differently… and why. New York: The Free Press; 2003.

Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):3–22.

Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A. Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev. 2001;108(2):291–310. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 PubMed DOI

Nisbett RE, Masuda T. Culture and point of view. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003. Sep 16;100(19):11163–70. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1934527100 PubMed DOI PMC

Nisbett RE, Miyamoto Y. The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005. Oct;9(10):467–73. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004 PubMed DOI

Wertheimer M. Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. Psychol Forsch. 1922;1(1):47–58.

Kitayama S, Duffy S, Kawamura T, Larsen JT. Perceiving an Object and Its Context in Different Cultures. Psychol Sci. 2003. May;14(3):201–6. PubMed

Kitayama S, Park H, Sevincer AT, Karasawa M, Uskul AK. A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97(2):236–55. doi: 10.1037/a0015999 PubMed DOI

Na J, Grossmann I, Varnum MEW, Karasawa M, Cho Y, Kitayama S, et al.. Culture and personality revisited: Behavioral profiles and within‐person stability in interdependent (vs. independent) social orientation and holistic (vs. analytic) cognitive style. J Pers. 2020. Oct;88(5):908–24. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12536 PubMed DOI PMC

Gottschaldt K. Über den Einfluß der Erfahrung auf die Wahrnehmung von Figuren. Psychol Forsch. 1926. Dec;8(1):261–317.

Riding RJ, Pearson F. The Relationship between Cognitive Style and Intelligence. Educ Psychol. 1994. Jan;14(4):413–25.

Riding RJ, Wigley S. The relationship between cognitive style and personality in further education students. Pers Individ Differ. 1997. Sep;23(3):379–89.

Peterson ER, Meissel K. The effect of Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) test on achievement: A meta-analytic review. Learn Individ Differ. 2015. Feb;38:115–22.

Cook DA. Scores From Riding’s Cognitive Styles Analysis Have Poor Test–Retest Reliability. Teach Learn Med. 2008. Jul 14;20(3):225–9. doi: 10.1080/10401330802199492 PubMed DOI

Parkinson A, Mullally A, Redmond J. Test–retest reliability of Riding’s cognitive styles analysis test. Pers Individ Differ. 2004. Oct;37(6):1273–8.

Peterson ER, Deary IJ, Austin EJ. The reliability of Riding’s Cognitive Style Analysis test. Pers Individ Differ. 2003. Apr;34(5):881–91.

Rezaei AR, Katz L. Evaluation of the reliability and validity of the cognitive styles analysis. Pers Individ Differ. 2004. Apr;36(6):1317–27.

Peterson ER, Deary IJ, Austin EJ. Are intelligence and personality related to verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive styles?. Pers Individ Differ. 2005. Jul;39(1):201–13.

Aslan H, Aslan A, Dinc D, Yunluel D. Testing the Reliability of CSA Test on a Sample of Turkish Population. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2018;4(9):27–31.

Pitta-Pantazi D, Christou C. Cognitive styles, task presentation mode and mathematical performance. Res Math Educ. 2009. Sep;11(2):131–48.

Navon D. Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cogn Psychol. 1977. Jul;9(3):353–83.

Navon D. The forest revisited: More on global precedence. Psychol Res. 1981. Jul;43(1):1–32.

Peterson ER, Deary IJ. Examining wholistic–analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Pers Individ Differ. 2006. Jul;41(1):3–14.

Caparos S, Fortier-St-Pierre S, Gosselin J, Blanchette I, Brisson B. The tree to the left, the forest to the right: Political attitude and perceptual bias. Cognition. 2015. Jan;134:155–64. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.006 PubMed DOI

Dale G, Arnell KM. Investigating the stability of and relationships among global/local processing measures. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013. Apr;75(3):394–406. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0416-7 PubMed DOI

Dale G, Arnell KM. Lost in the Forest, Stuck in the Trees: Dispositional Global/Local Bias Is Resistant to Exposure to High and Low Spatial Frequencies. PLoS ONE. 2014. Jul 3;9(7):e98625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098625 PubMed DOI PMC

Gerlach C, Poirel N. Navon’s classical paradigm concerning local and global processing relates systematically to visual object classification performance. Sci Rep. 2018. Dec;8(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18664-5 PubMed DOI PMC

Gerlach C, Starrfelt R. Global precedence effects account for individual differences in both face and object recognition performance. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018. Aug;25(4):1365–72. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1458-1 PubMed DOI

Chamberlain R, Van der Hallen R, Huygelier H, Van de Cruys S, Wagemans J. Local-global processing bias is not a unitary individual difference in visual processing. Vis Res. 2017. Dec;141:247–57. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2017.01.008 PubMed DOI

Hedge C, Powell G, Sumner P. The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behav Res. 2018. Jun;50(3):1166–86. PubMed PMC

Milne E, Szczerbinski M. Global and local perceptual style, field-independence, and central coherence: An attempt at concept validation. Adv Cogn psychol. 2009. Jan 1;5(-1):1–26. doi: 10.2478/v10053-008-0062-8 PubMed DOI PMC

Choi I, Dalal R, Kim-Prieto C, Park H. Culture and judgement of causal relevance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(1):46–59. PubMed

Choi I, Koo M, Choi J. Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007;33(5):691–705. doi: 10.1177/0146167206298568 PubMed DOI

Koo M, Choi J, Choi I. Analytic versus holistic cognition: Constructs and measurement. In: Spencer-Rodgers J, Peng K, editors. The psychological and cultural foundations of East Asian cognition: Contradiction, change, and holism. Oxford University Press; 2018: pp. 105–134.

Norenzayan A, Smith EE, Kim BJ, Nisbett RE. Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cogn Sci. 2002. Sep;26(5):653–84.

Martín-Fernández M, Requero B, Zhou X, Gonçalves D, Santos D. Refinement of the Analysis-Holism Scale: A cross-cultural adaptation and validation of two shortened measures of analytic versus holistic thinking in Spain and the United States. Pers Individ Differ. 2022;186(111322):111322.

Lux AA, Grover SL, Teo STT. Development and Validation of the Holistic Cognition Scale. Front Psychol. 2021. Sep 30;12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.551623 PubMed DOI PMC

Chua HF, Boland JE, Nisbett RE. Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005. Aug 30;102(35):12629–33. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506162102 PubMed DOI PMC

Masuda T, Nisbett RE. Attending holistically versus analytically: comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81(5):922–934. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.922 PubMed DOI

Masuda T, Nisbett RE. Culture and Change Blindness. Cogn Sci. 2006. Mar 4;30(2):381–99. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_63 PubMed DOI

Na J, Grossmann I, Varnum MEW, Kitayama S, Gonzalez R, Nisbett RE. Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010. Apr 6;107(14):6192–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1001911107 PubMed DOI PMC

Huygelier H, Van der Hallen R, Wagemans J, de-Wit L, Chamberlain R. The Leuven Embedded Figures Test (L-EFT): measuring perception, intelligence or executive function?. PeerJ. 2018. Mar 26;6:e4524. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4524 PubMed DOI PMC

Poirel N, Pineau A, Jobard G, Mellet E. Seeing the Forest Before the Trees Depends on Individual Field-Dependency Characteristics. Exp Psychol. 2008. Jan;55(5):328–33. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.55.5.328 PubMed DOI

Sadler-Smith E, Spicer DP, Tsang F. Validity of the Cognitive Style Index: Replication and Extension. Br J Management. 2000. Jun;11(2):175–81.

Lacko D, Čeněk J, Točík J, Avsec A, Đorđević V, Genc A, et al.. The Necessity of Testing Measurement Invariance in Cross-Cultural Research: Potential Bias in Cross-Cultural Comparisons With Individualism–Collectivism Self-Report Scales. Cross Cult Res. 2022. Apr;56(2–3):228–67.

Balota DA, Yap MJ. Moving Beyond the Mean in Studies of Mental Chronometry. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011. Jun;20(3):160–6.

Van Zandt T. Analysis of Response Time Distributions. In: Pashler E, Wixted J, editors. Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology: Methodology in experimental psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2002: pp. 461–516.

Whelan R. Effective Analysis of Reaction Time Data. Psychol Rec. 2008. Jul;58(3):475–82.

Lo S, Andrews S. To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Front Psychol. 2015. Aug 7;6. PubMed PMC

De Boeck P, Jeon M. An Overview of Models for Response Times and Processes in Cognitive Tests. Front Psychol. 2019. Feb 6;10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00102 PubMed DOI PMC

Kyllonen P, Zu J. Use of Response Time for Measuring Cognitive Ability. J Intell. 2016. Nov 1;4(4):14.

Molenaar D, Tuerlinckx F, van der Maas HLJ. Fitting Diffusion Item Response Theory Models for Responses and Response Times Using the R Package diffIRT. J. Stat. Soft. 2015;66(4):1–34.

Fox JP, Klotzke K, Simsek AS. LNIRT: An R Package for Joint Modeling of Response Accuracy and Times. arXiv:2106.10144 [preprint]; 2021. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.10144 PubMed PMC

Apanovich V, Bezdenezhnykh B N, Sams M, Jääskeläinen I P, Alexandrov Y. Event-related potentials during individual, cooperative, and competitive task performance differ in subjects with analytic vs. holistic thinking. Int J Psychophysiol. 2018. Jan;123:136–142. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.10.001 PubMed DOI

Аpanovich V, Аramyan E, Dol’nikova M, Аleksandrov Y. Differences in brain support for solving analytical and holistic problems. Psikholog Zh. 2021;42(2):45–60.

Peterson ER. Verbal Imagery Cognitive Styles Test & Extended Cognitive Style Analysis-Wholistic Analytic Test: Administration Guide. University of Edinburgh, 2005.

McKone E, Aimola Davies A, Fernando D, Aalders R, Leung H, Wickramariyaratne T, et al.. Asia has the global advantage: Race and visual attention. Vis Res. 2010. Jul;50(16):1540–9. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.05.010 PubMed DOI

Istomin KV, Panáková J, Heady P. Culture, Perception, and Artistic Visualization: A Comparative Study of Children’s Drawings in Three Siberian Cultural Groups. Cogn Sci. 2014. Jan;38(1):76–100. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12051 PubMed DOI

Gerlach C, Krumborg JR. Same, same—but different: On the use of Navon derived measures of global/local processing in studies of face processing. Acta Psychol. 2014. Nov;153:28–38. PubMed

Draheim C, Mashburn CA, Martin JD, Engle RW. Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives. Psychol Bull. 2019;145(5):508–535. doi: 10.1037/bul0000192 PubMed DOI

Hakim N, Simons DJ, Zhao H, Wan X. Do Easterners and Westerners Differ in Visual Cognition? A Preregistered Examination of Three Visual Cognition Tasks. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017. Mar;8(2):142–52.

Lacko D, Šašinka Č, Stachoň Z, Lu W, Čeněk J. Cross-Cultural Differences in Cognitive Style, Individualism/Collectivism and Map Reading between Central European and East Asian University Students. Stud Psychol. 2020. Mar 4;62(1).

Ahmed L, de Fockert JW. Working memory load can both improve and impair selective attention: Evidence from the Navon paradigm. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012. Oct;74(7):1397–405. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0357-1 PubMed DOI

Davidoff J, Fonteneau E, Fagot J. Local and global processing: Observations from a remote culture. Cognition. 2008. Sep;108(3):702–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.004 PubMed DOI

Oishi S, Jaswal VK, Lillard AS, Mizokawa A, Hitokoto H, Tsutsui Y. Cultural variations in global versus local processing: A developmental perspective. Dev Psychol. 2014;50(12):2654–65. doi: 10.1037/a0038272 PubMed DOI

Soto CJ, John OP. The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017. Jul;113(1):117–43. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000096 PubMed DOI

John O, Naumann L, Soto C. Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. In: John O, Robins R, Pervin L, editors. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 2008: pp. 114–158.

Hřebíčková M, Jelínek M, Květon P, Benkovič A, Botek M, Sudzina F, et al.. Big Five Inventory 2 (BFI-2): Hierarchický model s 15 subškálami. Cesk Psychol. 2020;64(4):437–460.

Condon DM, Revelle W. The international cognitive ability resource: Development and initial validation of a public-domain measure. Intelligence. 2014. Mar;43:52–64.

Loe B, Sun L, Simonfy F, Doebler P. Evaluating an Automated Number Series Item Generator Using Linear Logistic Test Models. J Intell. 2018. Apr 2;6(2):20. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence6020020 PubMed DOI PMC

Young SR, Keith TZ, Bond MA. Age and sex invariance of the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR). Intelligence. 2019. Nov;77:101399.

Douglas SP, Craig CS. Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. J Int Mark. 2007; 15(1):30–43.

Van De Vijver F, Leung K. Equivalence and bias: A review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures. In Matsumoto D, Van De Vijver F, editors. Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. Cambridge University Press; 2011: pp. 17–45.

Van De Vijver F, Hambleton RK. Translating tests. Eur Psychol. 1996;1:89–99.

Czech Statistical Office. Population structure by sex, age and educational attainment. 2019. Available from: https://www.czso.cz/documents/10180/120583268/300002200102.pdf/ef2fb63c-7a0f-424f-b5f2-e5360ab32d57?version=1.1

Šašinka Č, Morong K, Stachoň Z. The Hypothesis Platform: An Online Tool for Experimental Research into Work with Maps and Behavior in Electronic Environments. IJGI. 2017. Dec 20;6(12):407.

Steingroever H, Wabersich D, Wagenmakers E. Modeling across-trial variability in the Wald drift rate parameter. Behav Res. 2021. Jun;53(3):1060–76. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01448-7 PubMed DOI PMC

Brown SD, Heathcote A. The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn Psychol. 2008. Nov;57(3):153–78. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002 PubMed DOI

Annis J, Miller BJ, Palmeri TJ. Bayesian inference with Stan: A tutorial on adding custom distributions. Behav Res. 2017. Jun;49(3):863–86. PubMed PMC

Lakens D. Equivalence Tests. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2017. May;8(4):355–62. PubMed PMC

Finney S J, DiStefano C. Non-normal and Categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock G R, Mueller R O, editors. Structural equation modeling: A second course. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing; 2006: pp. 269–314.

Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard P E, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012;17(3):354–373. doi: 10.1037/a0029315 PubMed DOI

Hu L-T, Bentler P M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria; 2021. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J. Stat. Soft. 2012. May;48(2):1–36.

Jorgensen T, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann A, Rosseel Y. semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.5–4. 2021. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=semTools.

Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. R package version 2.1.3. 2021. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=psych.

Mair P, Hatzinger R. Extended Rasch Modeling: The eRm Package for the Application of IRT Models in R. J Stat Soft. 2007;20(9).

Gamer M, Lemon J, Singh I. irr: Various Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement. R package version 0.84.1. 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/irr/index.html.

Grossmann I, Varnum MEW. Social Class, Culture, and Cognition. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2011. Jan;2(1):81–9.

von Mühlenen A, Bellaera L, Singh A, Srinivasan N. The effect of sadness on global-local processing. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018. Jul;80(5):1072–82. doi: 10.3758/s13414-018-1534-7 PubMed DOI

Anders R, Alario F, Van Maanen L. The shifted Wald distribution for response time data analysis. Psychol Methods. 2016. Sep;21(3):309–27. doi: 10.1037/met0000066 PubMed DOI

McCrae RR, Terracciano A. Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005. Sep;89(3):407–25. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.407 PubMed DOI

de Fockert JW, Cooper A. Higher levels of depression are associated with reduced global bias in visual processing. Cogn Emot. 2014. Apr 3;28(3):541–9. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2013.839939 PubMed DOI

Ji L, Yap S, Best MW, McGeorge K. Global Processing Makes People Happier Than Local Processing. Front Psychol. 2019. Mar 26;10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00670 PubMed DOI PMC

Niaz M. Mobility-Fixity Dimension in Witkin’s Theory of Field-Dependence/Independence and its Implications for Problem Solving in Science. Percept Mot Skills. 1987. Dec;65(3):755–64.

Varnum ME, Grossmann I, Kitayama S, Nisbett RE. The Origin of Cultural Differences in Cognition: Evidence for the Social Orientation Hypothesis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2010;19(1):9–13. doi: 10.1177/0963721409359301 PubMed DOI PMC

Wong VC, Wyer RS, Wyer NA, Adaval R. Dimensions of holistic thinking: Implications for nonsocial information processing across cultures. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021. Dec;150(12):2636–58. doi: 10.1037/xge0001060 PubMed DOI

Evans K, Rotello CM, Li X, Rayner K. Scene perception and memory revealed by eye movements and receiver-operating characteristic analyses: Does a cultural difference truly exist?. Q J Exp Psychol. 2009. Feb;62(2):276–85. doi: 10.1080/17470210802373720 PubMed DOI PMC

Rayner K, Li X, Williams CC, Cave KR, Well AD. Eye movements during information processing tasks: Individual differences and cultural effects. Vis Res. 2007. Sep;47(21):2714–26. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.05.007 PubMed DOI PMC

Stachoň Z, Šašinka Č, Čeněk J, Štěrba Z, Angsuesser S, Fabrikant SI, et al.. Cross-cultural differences in figure–ground perception of cartographic stimuli. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci. 2019. Jan 2;46(1):82–94.

Lee LY, Talhelm T, Zhang X, Hu B, Lv X. Holistic thinkers process divided-attention tasks faster: from the global/local perspective. Curr Psychol. 2021. May 26.