ABSTRACT
The other chapters in this volume clearly attest to the rapid and consistent proliferation of research on the field dependence-independence (FDI) construct within most subfields of psychology. In contrast, this chapter must begin by acknowledging that the area of adult development and aging may be the one exception to the rule. For instance, an informal content analysis of a subset of the numerous textbooks in this subfield (e.g., Bee, 1987; Belsky, 1990; Berger, 1988; Birren & Schaie, 1977; Cavanaugh, 1990; Clark-Stewart, Perlmutter, & Friedman, 1988; Hayslip & Panek, 1989; Santrock, 1986; Woodruff-Pak, 1988) uncovered no references whatsoever to either cognitive styles in general or to the FDI cognitive style in particular. The one text in which a discussion of cognitive style did appear was that of Huyck and Hoyer (1982). However, this now out-of-print text devoted only a single paragraph to the general concept, noting that cognitive style appears to be one of the most stable of all individual characteristics (after Mischel, 1968). Given the state of affairs within the other subfields, how might one understand these seemingly glaring omissions? Is the issue of stability so clear that psychologists have been relatively unconcerned about the continuity versus discontinuity of cognitive style across the life span? But this does not actually appear to be the case. We propose three reasons for the omissions: As we see it, the first two reasons are theoretical, the third methodological.
