Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T02:32:59.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Dependence and Characteristics of Conceptualization in Identical Twins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

C. Del Miglio ,
S. Paluzzi ,
M. Falanga  and
M. Talli
C. Del Miglio
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study falls in the areas of both differential psychology and twin psychology. Using the EFT and the WCST (computerized version), we examined 11 MZFF pairs between 18 and 35 years of age. The aim was to establish the genetic and/or environmental determination of global-analytical cognitive style as well as some characteristics of conceptualization linked to field dependence. The research strategy consisted of introducing three other groups of the same size to control the weight of environmental factors different from those determined by subject selection. The results seem to support the hypothesis of genetic determination of field dependence of the MZFFs, probably linked to the XX chromosome combination. The “couple effect” and the attitude of parents and others toward two identical female subjects may contribute to full expression of the genome. The characteristics of conceptualization revealed by the WCST show that MZFFs persevere in errors typical of a global approach to experience.

Keywords

Field dependenceConceptualizationCouple effect
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 449 - 460
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1996

References

REFERENCES

1. Ancona, L (1970): Dinamica della percezione. Milano: Mondadori.Google Scholar
2. Changeaux, JP (1983): L'homme neuronal – L'uomo neuronale. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
3. Del Miglio, C (1993): Processi di dedifferenziazione nell'invecchiamento. Polarità 2: 275–290.Google Scholar
4. Del Miglio, C (1995): Il sé gemellare. Roma: Borla.Google Scholar
5. Del Miglio, C, Posa, MF (1995): Indagine su alcuni aspetti significativi della relazione gemellare. In C Del Miglio: Il sé gemellare 113–127. Roma: Borla.Google Scholar
6. Edelman, MG (1992): Bright Air, Brillant Fire – On the matter of mind. Basic Books. New York. (Milano: Adelphi 1993).Google Scholar
7. Egorova, MS (1987): Genetic Factors in Interpersonal Variance of Field Dependence – Independence Indicators. Activ Nerv Sup 1: 19–22.Google Scholar
8. Ercolani, P (1979): Metodi speciali di correlazione per la ricerca psicologica. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
9. Falanga, M (1994–1995): Le differenze interindividuali indagate con metodo gemellare. Facoltà di Psicologia Roma “La Sapienza”.Google Scholar
10. Fedeli, L (1990): Individuazione e identità. Roma: Borla.Google Scholar
11. Galimberti, U (1992): Dizionario di Psicologia. Psicologia Differenziale. Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
12. Gedda, L (1948): Psicologia della società intrageminale. Rivista di Psicologia 4: 169–77.Google Scholar
13. Gesell, A, Thomson, H (1941): Twins, T and C from infancy to adolescence: a biogenetic study of individual differences by method of co-twin control. Mass.: Provincetown.Google Scholar
14. Harris, ME (1990): Wisconsin card sorting test: computer version. Manual for Apple computers. Odessa USA.Google Scholar
15. Heaton, RK (1981): Wisconsin card sorting test manual. USA: P.A.R. Google Scholar
16. Huteau, M (1995): Manuel de psychologie differentielle – La prospettiva differenziale in psicologia. Roma: Borla.Google Scholar
17. Kelly, GA (1955): The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Northon.Google Scholar
18. Larmat, G (1979): La génétique de l'intelligence. Paris: Presse Universitarie Française.Google Scholar
19. Levy, J (1974): Psychobiological implications of bilateral asymmetry. In Dimond, SJ, Beaumont, G (Eds) Hemisphere function in the human brain. New York: Halsteads Press.Google Scholar
20. Messina, TM, Fogliani, AM, Di Nuovo, S (1984): Dipendenza dal campo e stile cognitivo. Firenze: OS.Google Scholar
21. Mucaria, S, Paluzzi, S, Paolillo, V (1995): Mente e intelligenza. Wisconsin – computer version e matrici progressive di Raven – P.M. 47: due test cognitivi a confronto. In Del Miglio, C, Paluzzi, S. Psicodiagnostica computerizzata, 23–64. Roma: Borla.Google Scholar
22. Paluzzi, S, Ferracuti, S, Guariglia, G, Paolillo, V, Santoro, MA (1991): Moments préliminaires de validation et de standardization de la version computerisée du WCST-CV. In Belardinelli Olivetti M Scientific Contribution to General Psychology: Self Organizing Systems 5: 37–38.Google Scholar
23. Pire, G (1966): Application des techniques sociométriques à l'étude des jumeaux. Enfance 1: 23–48.Google Scholar
24. Pizzamiglio, L, Zoccolotti, P (1986): Individual differences: cerebral structure and cognitive characteristics. In Bertini, M, Pizzamiglio, L, Wapner, S. Field dependence in psychologial theory, research and application, 27–43. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
25. Talli, M (1994–1995): Le differenze interindividuali di stile cognitivo in gemelli e mononati. Facoltà di Psicologia. Roma ” La Sapienza”.Google Scholar
26. Willerman, L (1979): The psychology of individual and group differences. S. Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
27. Witkin, HA, Dyk, RB, Faterson, HF, Goodenough, DR, Karp, SA (1962): Psychological differentiation: studies of development – La differenziazione psicologica. Roma: Bulzoni.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Witkin, HA, Goodenough, DR, Oltman, PK (1979): Psychological differentiation: Current Status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7:1127–1145.Google Scholar
29. Witkin, HA, Oltman, PK, Raskin, E, Karp, S (1971): Manual for Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto California: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
30. Zazzo, R (1960): Les jumeaux, le couple et la personne. Paris: Presse Universitaire Française.Google Scholar
31. Zazzo, R (1984): Le paradoxe des jumeaux – Il paradosso dei gemelli. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar