Running head: NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
Overview of Theories of Cognitive Style: Neurotypical and Autistic
A Research Paper
Presented to
The Faculty of the Adler Graduate School
_________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Master of Arts in
Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy
_________________________________
By
Cory D. Hermann
Adler Graduate School
1
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
2
Abstract
The prevalence of diagnoses of autism has been steadily increasing since first being studied in
the 1960’s. The most recent data found related to increased prevalence of diagnoses of ASD can
be found in information gathered by The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring
Network which shows a rate of 14.7 per 1,000 or one in 68. As the prevalence of individuals
with an ASD diagnosis increases, knowledge of differences in cognition must also increase.
Differences in style of communication, cognition and information processing, as well as decision
making strategies all have an impact on how individuals with ASD interact within the
neurotypical world and misinterpretation can have negative impacts and cause distress in
relationships. This review provides a broad overview of multiple theories of cognition; both
neurotypical and autistic. Neurotypical theories covered are; Reflection-Impulsivity, Field
Dependence-Independence, Theory of Types, Gregorc’s Energic Model, VARK Learning Styles,
and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory. Autistic Theories covered are; Theory of Mind,
Executive Function, Central Coherence, and Intense World Theory. Discussed are examples of
assessment tools to assist in understanding personal style accepting other styles of processing.
The author provides suggestions for utilizing tools and assessments in order to increase personal
self-awareness and suggests both neurotypical and autistic cognition share similar traits. The
assertion of the review is that just as autism is considered a spectrum so is cognition and each
individual falls somewhere on the cognitive spectrum. Additional related information and
application of the material in this review can be found in the accompanying manual developed in
conjunction with this review titled, How do you think?: Creating a Cognitive Profile.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
3
Overview of Theories of Cognitive Style: Neurotypical and Autistic
The prevalence of diagnoses of autism has been steadily increasing since first being
studied in the 1960’s. In 1966, the estimated occurrence of autism was 4.5 per 10,000 (Lotter,
1966, p. 124), a rate that remained consistent in studies published prior to 1990 (Rates of autism,
2010). In an article published in 2003, Lingam, Simmons, Andrews, Miller, Stowe, and Taylor
surveyed London families with children having been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) and found that between 1979 and 2000, the rate of ASD diagnoses had been rising
(Lingam et al, 2003, p. 668). Based on their findings, the rate of diagnoses in 2000 was roughly
19.3 per 10,000 or 2.6 per 1,000 births (Lingam et al, 2003, p. 666). The most recent data found
related to increased prevalence of diagnoses of ASD can be found in information gathered by
The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM). In 2010, ADDM
collected data of diagnoses of ASD from 11 network sites across the United States which shows
the rate of ASD diagnoses being currently 14.7 per 1,000 or one in 68, broken down by gender,
the rates are roughly one in 42 males and one in 189 females having been diagnosed with ASD
(Baio, 2014). With the recent 2013 adoption of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM 5), and changes in both diagnostic criteria and consolidation of
related disorders, the prevalence of ASD diagnoses may possibly see a dramatic increase.
As the prevalence of individuals with an ASD diagnosis increases, more children enter
educational systems with earlier diagnoses, transition from high school to higher education or the
work force, knowledge of differences must also increase. Differences in style of communication,
cognition and information processing, as well as decision making strategies to name a few, all
have an impact on how individuals with ASD interact within the neurotypical, non-autistic world
and misinterpretation can have negative impacts and cause distress in relationships. The intent of
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
4
this review is to provide a broad overview of multiple theories of cognition; both neurotypical as
well as autistic perspectives as well as provide a few examples of assessment tools that may
assist in understanding one’s own style as well as considerations of other style of processing. It is
this writers’ belief that having an understanding of this type of material will promote better
working relationships in personal as well as professional pursuits.
Cognitive Styles
Cognitive styles, as defined by Robert Sternberg and Elena Grigorenko are, “people’s
characteristic and typically preferred modes of processing information” (Sternberg &
Grigorenko, 1997, p. 700), or “A method of cognitive involvement that an individual is likely to
select among others available to them, therefore, the one that they spontaneously most frequently
use” (Ledzinska, Battala, & Stolarski, 2014, p. 135). Cognitive style can also be termed as an
individuals’ thinking style and refers to the organizing, processing, and interpreting of
information, based on perception, memory, thought, and judgment (Messick, 1984, 1996). It is
important to keep in mind that though there may be similarities between individuals, each person
makes sense of the world in their own unique way, (Cross, 1976) focusing on different details of
interactions, environments, and problems, to make decisions based on a unique interpretation of
information. Cognitive style should not be confused with learning style, which more involves the
various ways an individual best gathers information.
Keeping the individual aspect in mind, and acknowledging the availability of research
and theory related to non-autistic or neurotypical cognitive styles, an attempt will be made to
cover common styles and theories for both neurotypical and autistic cognition.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
5
Theories of Neurotypical Cognition
Due to the vast number of theories of cognitive style, the theories covered within the
neurotypical section will be largely based on Sternberg and Grigorenko’s 1997 article, Are
Cognitive Styles Still in Style? The rational for use of this article is based on criteria set by the
authors, mainly that each theory has been “operationalized”, which according to the authors
means, “there is at least one measure of the style or styles posited by a given theory” (Sternberg
& Grigorenko, 1997, p.703). The authors provide three specific categories for cognitive style; the
cognition-centered approach, which includes reflection – impulsivity and field dependence –
independence, the personality-centered approach which includes the theory of types and
Gregorc’s Energic Model, and finally the activity-centered approach, which focuses more on
individual learning style.
Cognitive-Centered Approach
The cognitive-centered approach perspective and research of cognitive styles can be
defined as, “the characteristic, self-consistent modes of functioning which individuals show in
their perceptual and intellectual activities” (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971, p. 3).
Research and other theories of cognition related to a cognitive-centered approach can also be
recognized as cognitive abilities, which can also appear to be a black or white type of
assessment. An individual may poses one aspect of the theory or the other, this is also the
perspective taken by tools assessing the theories where there is seemingly a right and a wrong
answer (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). The two theories to be covered here will be reflectionimpulsivity and field-dependence-independence.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
6
Reflection-Impulsivity
The reflection-impulsivity theory of cognition, also referred to as conceptual tempo,
focuses on the difference in approach between what can be describe as really two extremes of a
continuum. Two indicators used and recognized in evaluation of reflection-impulsivity are speed
and correctness of solutions (Ledzinska, Battala, & Stolarski, 2014). In this theory, reflection can
be defined as pausing prior to approaching a task or choosing a plan of action to consider and
evaluate other options. Impulsivity can be defined as a tendency to react or respond instinctively
without taking much time for contemplation (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Individuals
determined to be high in reflection are viewed as being more methodical and taking more time in
their approach to tasks and making decisions as well as making fewer mistakes. On the opposite
end of the continuum, individuals determined to be high in impulsivity are viewed as having a
tendency for impulsive decisions and responding quickly as well as making many mistakes
(Ledzinska, Battala, & Stolarski, 2014).
Jean-Pierre Ancillotti hypothesized that reflective individuals tend to take a more
analytical approach in processing and display what he termed cognitive maturity and impulsive
individuals process in a more holistic way and are lacking in cognitive maturity (Ancillotti,
1984). A test of this hypothesis and of the principles of reflection-impulsivity theory by
Rozencwajg and Corroyer (2005), set to develop more understanding of cognitive process of the
theory. In their research study, Rozencwajg and Corroyer identified two additional possibilities
for the reflection-impulsivity cognition theory; individuals who process in a fast and accurate
way, impulsive and accurate results, and individuals who process slow and inaccurately,
reflective and inaccurate results. They identified individuals who were capable of using both the
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
7
analytic style of processing used by reflective individuals as well as the holistic style of
processing used by more impulsive individuals (Rozencwajg & Corroyer, 2005).
The most commonly used tool for assessing the reflection-impulsivity is the Matching
Familiar Figures Test (MFFT). The MFFT involves an individual being presented with a
standard figure and then a series of eight similar figures with which to compare. The individual
is timed and assessed for accuracy in correctly selecting and identifying the identical figure
(Kagan, Rosman, Day, and Phillips, 1964). The benefit of an understanding of where an
individual falls on a reflection-impulsivity continuum can be useful in how questions and
communication are approached. An individual with a more reflective approach may need more
time to process questions and information where as an individual with a more impulsive
approach could benefit from a more rapid approach to questioning and presentation of
information.
Field dependence-independence. Field dependence-independence theory refers to, “the
extent a person is dependant versus independent of the organization from the surrounding
perceptual field” (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p.703). Field dependence suggests a tendency
to be influenced strongly by the background or the whole, which causes difficulty separating
detail from the contextual whole. Conversely, field independence is an ability to separate and
restructure details of the whole (Davis, 1982). More simply put, field dependant individuals rely
on external, surrounding information to guide their cognitive processes. This causes them to be
more socially oriented and interested in other people as well as more socially skilled yet tend to
also be limited in their personal autonomy. Field independent individuals rely more on internal
knowing or experiences to guide their cognitive processes. This creates development of a greater
level of autonomy, yet less likely to be socially oriented and less skilled in personal interactions
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
8
(Witkin, Moore, Oltman, Goodenough, Friedman, Owen, & Raskin, 1977). One major difference
between field dependant and field independent individuals is what each is able to identify and
pick out within as similar situation. Field independent individuals have an ability to see what
field independent individuals do not (Matthes, Wirth, Schemer, & Kissling, 2011).
The most common tool for assessing field dependence-independence is the Embedded
Figures Test (EFT). EFT involves the use of pictures of complex geometric figures that are
presented to an individual and their task is to identify a simple figure within the complex field of
information. Individuals high in a field-independent processing tend to have the ability to
separate the simple from the field more rapidly than those high in field dependent processing
(Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). In utilizing the information gained from an
assessment of field dependant-independent cognitive preference, one could develop an approach
that best suits individual style of gathering information as well as assessment of surroundings.
Such knowledge would also assist in understanding and individuals need for and willingness to
ask for and benefit from external assistance as well as recognition of the need.
Personality-Centered Approach
The personality-centered approach of cognitive styles can be more simply described as
variations in personality or personality types. Within this perspective can be found Jung’s theory
of Psychological Types and Gregorc’s Energic Model, though Gregorc model may appear to be
more learning style than personality, elements of personality type trait can be identified within it.
Theory of types. In 1923, based on studies and research into human behavior, Jung
suggested that individuals can be divided into two distinct groups or attitudes; introvert and
extravert (Barger & Hoover, 1984; McCaulley, 2000). The basis and justification for these two
groups was developed by identifying where individual places their focus within the environment
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
9
or in relation to an object and their general approach to cognitive processing. Introverts are
thought to be concerned first with themselves and then with the environment or object, where as
the extravert is more concerned first with the environment or object and then with themselves
(Malamud, 1923). Jung also suggested that each individual possesses and relies on four basic
psychological modes of function or mental ways of processing; thinking, feeling, perception, and
intuition (Malamud, 1923). The four functions are broken down further into rational judging
functions and irrational perceiving functions; thinking and feeling being rational judging
functions and sensation and intuition being irrational perceiving functions (Malamud, 1923;
McCaulley, 2000). Sensation refers to information that can be gathered or experientially via the
five senses and processing of this information is more subjective based on the individuals’
experience. Gathering and processing information through the function of intuition is described
as being based more on hidden meaning, abstract possibilities or imagined perception as well as
being a attributed to the unconscious. Though Jung used the concept of irrational to describe
these perceiving functions, the intent was not to view them from a negative connotation, but as
how an individual draws conclusions based without relying on reasoning or logic (McCaulley,
2000). Rational functions of judging; thinking and feeling are described as the use mental
processing and the mind to draw conclusions about what has been perceived. Thinking relies on
impersonal logic and analysis of information to make decisions or judgment and reaching
conclusions by a feeling process weighs what is perceived against what an individual values
(Malamud, 1923; McCaulley, 2000; Barger & Hoover, 1984).
Perhaps the most well known and utilized assessment and identification of Jungian type
is the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).The MBTI has been applied and found to be useful
in numerous contexts; organizational development, education, counseling, employment, and
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
10
career development just to name a few. Use of the MBTI helps to identify the primary modes of
function and preference identified by Jung and can be useful in both developing self awareness
and understanding into an individual’s preferred mode of interaction with the world in a variety
of contexts (Hall, 2012).
Gregorc’s energic model. Energic is defined as, “in a state of action; acting; or
operating” (Energic - definition of energic by the free dictionary, n.d.). Gregorc identified
cognitive styles based on students’ preference of college instructor teaching styles; instructors
who taught in an ordered, step by step process, and instructors who taught less form the text and
used a more personalized approach to instruction (Gregorc, 1985; O’Brien, 1991). These two
dimensions can be described as the use of time (temporal) and use of space (spatial). The spatial
or space dimension is separated into two additional components that describe an individuals’
preferential mode of acquiring and expressing or perceiving information; concrete or abstract.
Concrete is relatable to physical experience, “here and now” focused presentation of information
and acquisition, and abstract is more of a metaphorical, intuitive, and imaginative perspective.
The time or temporal dimension is separated into the two components of sequential and random,
which refers to a preference in how events, facts, and information are ordered. An individual
with a preference for sequential ordering prefers a more step by step, linear, planned, and
organized form, where as an individual with a preference for random may prefer no particular
order, skip steps of a plan, and be somewhat impulsive in approach (Gregorc, 1985; Tendy &
Geiser, 1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). While each individual has a certain level of ability
and capacity for each of the four elements, they have a preference to approach and their
cognitive style is the preference of perceptual quality; concrete or abstract, and ordering ability:
sequential or random (Gregorc, 1985; Seidel & England, 1997).
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
11
The Gregorc Style Delineator (GSD) is the primary tool used to assess Gregorc’s model
of cognitive processing. The results given identify an individual’s preferences of perceptual
quality and ordering ability and the combination of styles (Gregorc, 1999). The tool identifies
four combinations; concrete sequential, abstract random, abstract sequential, and concrete
random as well as provides descriptions of strengths, abilities, preferences, and challenges of
each combination (Gregorc, n.d.& Gregorc, 1999). Utilization of the Gregorc Style Delineator
and identification of a preferred mode of perception and ordering can be beneficial in
approaching tasks and decision making. Taking or following a sequential approach to a task or
process with an individual with a preference for random ordering may create the opposite of
desired effect and outcome. This has the potential to cause essentially a paralysis of movement
toward a goal and difficulty in meeting guidelines that appear rigid. Conversely, taking a more
random approach to a task with a more sequentially leaning individual may have the affect of
creating a high level of confusion.
Activity-Centered Approach
The activity-activity centered approach of cognitive styles theories essential focus on
aspects of both cognition and personality (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Thus, there is an
overlap of theories and related tools of assessment within this approach. There is also a blending
of terminology, for example: previous approaches have used a definition of cognitive style as
being, “people’s characteristic and typically preferred modes of processing information”
(Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997, p. 700). Theories of cognition within this approach come from a
perspective more of leaning style, where a learning style can be defined as, “an individual’s
unique way of interacting with the environment” (Sewall, 1986). This definition differs from that
of cognitive style in that cognitive style refers more to the processing of information, yet at the
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
12
same time quite similar to Gregorc’s theory of individual preferences for gathering and intake of
information. Discussed in this section will be two theories related the activity-centered approach
of cognition and styles of learning: the VARK Learning Styles and the Kolb Experiential
Learning Theory.
VARK learning styles. Developed by Fleming and Mills, VARK stands for; visual,
aural, read/write, and kinesthetic preferences or style of learning (Fleming & Mills, 1992). An
individual with a preference for visual learning have a preference for symbolic representations of
information as well as a need to visually observe and instructor. Preference of aural or auditory
learning need to hear information spoken as well as to speak it themselves in their own words,
they may need to process information through speaking rather than contemplation and then
presentation. Individuals with a preference for reading and writing learn by taking information in
text or written form through any related material. Kinesthetic learners do best when they
experience the reality of information and do things themselves physically or hands on, this type
of learner does best with specific examples where information can be applied (Fleming & Mills,
1992; Fleming & Bonwell, 2006; Narayanan, 2012). The VARK Questionnaire is selfassessment tool developed by Fleming and Mills to identify an individual’s preferred mode of
learning. Results given are number rankings based on answering 18 situation based task
questions where a higher number represents the preferred mode of learning as well as strategies
based on the preference. The benefit to utilization of the VARK assessment can be found in
determining how an individual best learns or their preference. By identifying this preference, the
presentation of information as well as development of learning tasks and skills can be tailored to
the specific individual needs.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
13
Kolb experiential learning theory. Kolb’s experiential model of learning suggests that
learning is, “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of
experience” (as cited by Hawk & Shah, 2007). Kolb presents learning as a four stage cycle;
experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and doing and completion of this process results in effective
learning (McCleod, 2010). Within the cycle are four modes of processing; concrete experience
(CE), reflective observation (RO), abstract conceptualization (AC), and active experimentation
(AE) (Hawk & Shah, 2007). As suggested by Kolb (1984), the experiential learning process is
non-linear and an individual may have a preference to begin at any point in the cycle. This
preference is where Kolb develop four basic learning styles which are a combination of two
adjacent points in the cycle; Diverger (CE & RO), Assimilator (RO & AC), Converger, and
Accommodator (AE & CE) (Kolb, 1984; Hawk & Shah, 2007). Possibly the most useful aspect
of Kolb’s learning theory is the suggestion that learning is not necessarily a linear process and
more of a cycle where that individuals may approach an process information from any of the four
points.
Theories of Cognition in Autism
Theories of cognition and cognitive processes of individuals with autism attempt to
explain both the primary challenges; communication, social interaction and behavioral flexibility
as well as if autism is caused by one or multiple factors in development (Burnette, Mundy,
Meyer, Sutton, Vaughan, & Charak, 2005; Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007). Difficulty in
developing an all encompassing and unifying theory of autism can be directly related to the
uneven and unique cognitive and behavioral profiles, challenges and development found in
individual on the spectrum (Tonn & Obrzut, 2005). The concept of a spectrum may possibly the
best descriptor of autism and lead to the comment of if you have met one person with autism;
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
14
you have met one person with autism. Another key aspect related to spectrum is that of working
with individuals with ASD, due to the broad and unique spectrum of abilities individuals affected
with one challenge may be helped by one approach where the same approach in working with
another may have no benefit (Teunisse, Cools, van Spaendonck, Aerts, & Berger, 2001).
Theories covered with in the autistic portion will be; Theory of Mind, Executive
Function, Central Coherence theory, and Intense World Theory. It is interesting to note that aside
from Intense World Theory, each of these cognitive theories of autism appears to focus more on
deficits than differences in cognitive style. Though there are such theories of cognition specific
to autism, this does not suggest that individuals with ASD do not share traits of the traditional
and neurotypical cognitive styles.
Theory of Mind
The Theory of Mind (ToM) perspective of autism focuses on the challenges individuals
with ASD may face when reasoning about the intentions and beliefs of others (Sheinkopf, 2005).
ToM suggests an intuitive ability in understanding one’s own mental state and mind as well as
the mental state and minds of others. Mental state and mind includes; thoughts, knowledge,
motivation, beliefs, emotions, intentions, and desires and that such things influence an
individual’s behaviors (Alic, 2009). More simply stated, ToM suggests that due to individuals
with ASD diagnoses challenges in social and communicative interactions are a result of limited
ability to understand and interpret the minds of others (Joseph, 1999) or to take on the
perspective of other’s mental states (Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith, 1985). A common
assessment for ToM is a test of false-belief also referred to as the Sally-Anne test, developed by
Wimmer and Perner (1983) (Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007).
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
15
Having an understanding of how an individual with ASD functions within the ToM
theory can assist in understanding current and potentially future difficulties they me have in
social interaction as well as understanding interpreting their own feeling s and emotions. There
may also be a benefit to understanding one’s own perspective of ToM and how assumptions of
normal or acceptable behavior are influenced by an individual with ASDs’ mental state. In other
words, if an individual with ASD has challenges with understanding others, can it be assumed
that others have a similar experience with understanding an individual with ASD.
Executive Functioning Theory
Executive Function (EF) refers to a set of cognitive abilities that regulate thoughts and
actions. These abilities are related to functionality in; strategic planning, flexibility in thought or
shifting of attention and action, control of impulse, initiation of tasks, working memory, and
organization (Sheinkopf, 2005). The initial connection between challenges of EF was similarities
observed in individuals who had suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI), specifically individuals
who had experienced damage to the frontal lobes. Observations and comparisons identified
similar challenges and characteristics of behavior in individuals with ASD ((Tonn & Obrzut,
2005; Rajendran & Mitchell, 2007). While the theory of EF identifies limitations and challenges
in tasks, the benefits of EF can be seen in the ability of individuals with ASD to focus on task
involving areas of interest for extended periods of time.
The benefits of understanding how an individual with ASD experiences EF can be useful
in approaching of tasks. Being able to identify areas that may be challenging for initiation and
subsequent accomplishment of tasks can assist in developing a plan or routine for similar future
related situations or tasks.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
16
Central Coherence Theory
Central coherence can be described as the ability to process information and apply it
within its context. As central coherence applies to autism and ASD, Frith (1989) suggested that
individuals with ASD have a tendency for weak central coherence; this is the basic premise of
the Weak Central Coherence Theory (WCC) of autism (Happe, 1999). WCC also attempts to
explain the challenges with routine and repetitious behavior as well as the tendency of
individuals with ASD to focus on and become preoccupied with single parts of objects,
environments, and interactions (Joseph, 1999). Due to these challenges for individuals with
ASD, WCC suggests that processing information in a detailed way; individuals do not reach state
of integration of details into a whole or global concept and thus the information remains
fragmented and meaningless (Teunisse et al., 2001). As such WCC presents In addition to what
may be seen as challenges, WCC in a way addresses the splinter skills and increased abilities
exhibited by individuals with ASD including; savant skills, musical or artistic abilities, hyper
focus, and attention to detail (Joseph, 1999; Tonn & Obrzut, 2005). Utilizing the perspective of
central coherence, it is beneficial in understanding the global versus local focuses individuals
with ASD may have, and grasping the concept that seeing the trees in the forest is just as useful
as seeing the forest itself.
Intense World Theory
Intense World Theory is a relatively recent attempt to explain autism from a
neurobiological perspective. The basic idea behind Intense World Theory is described as a
hyper-functioning of neural circuitry and brain function, which is characterized by hyperreactivity and hyper-plasticity (Markram & Markram, 2010). The theory goes on to suggest that
the development of autism may be based on overly strong reactions to experiences causing the
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
17
brain to develop a preference to be overly selective in interpretation of new experiences. This
may lead to development of an excessive processing of detailed fragments of information,
causing an individual with ASD to become, “trapped in a painfully intense world, potentially
explaining a broad range of common autistic symptoms such as sensory sensitivity, repetitive
behavior, idiosyncrasies and even exceptional talents” (Markram & Markram, 2010, p. 1).
Markram and Makram ((2010) suggest that Intense World Theory offers an explanation for
cognitive traits common in individuals with ASD; hyper-perception, hyper-attention, and hypermemory as well as possible affects on the limbic system creating a hyper-emotionality.
Essentially the assertion of Intense World Theory is an over development of neural
circuitry creating a supercharged brain, resulting in supercharged processing and function. The
benefit of the perspective taken by Intense World Theory in understanding how over function
and development may be able to help in understanding behaviors and challenges faced by
individuals with ASD.
Summary – Conclusion
The material covered here was not meant to be an exhaustive review of cognitive
styles, yet brief snap shot of theoretical explanations and useful tools in assessing cognitive
styles. It is believed that personal and professional utilization of these tools as well as
developing one’s own cognitive profile, and becoming more highly self-aware professional. A
highly self-aware professional is one who understands their own way of thinking, processing,
learning, and bias as well as their own limitations and incorporates such knowledge into day to
day interactions and practice. Development of such a level of self-awareness allows these
professionals to focus more on how their clients function best as well as to meet them where they
are at and see the world from their unique perspective.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
18
One approach to developing such knowledge and self- awareness would be to utilize
some of the assessments and theories presented in this review then developing a personal
cognitive profile then review the theories to gain a personal perspective on where it fits within
the various continuums. Identifying where an individual falls on a reflection-impulsivity
continuum will help with communication; understanding a more reflective person may need
more time to process where more impulsive individuals work best with little time to think.
Differences in field dependant-independent persons can help to identify preferred level of
independence and therefore affect need for and willingness to ask for and benefit from external
assistance as well as recognition of the need. Understanding the specifics of one’s own MBTI
can have a great influence on acceptance of other perspectives most notably the level of need and
tolerance for human interaction. Knowledge found with the Gregorc Style Delineator and
identification of a preferred mode of perception and approach to decision making can benefit in
planning. Sequential approach to a random thinker may seem almost paralyzing, and random
thinking to a sequential individual may be viewed as confusing, illogical and lacking direction.
Using the VARK assessment to identify a preferred learning style can greatly affect
understanding of and acquisition of information, which also affects communication and
understanding. Though many of these theories and tools were developed to identify more
neurotypical forms of cognition, thinking, and learning styles they each suggest a spectrum in
some form; spectrum much like that of individuals with ASD. Differences may be that
individuals with ASD may experience the world, including thoughts and cognition more
intensely as suggested by Intense World Theory. Understanding this perspective can help
understand interactions and challenges within context or in lack of identifying differences in
context or even a need to as suggested by Central Coherence Theory. Executive Functioning can
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
19
also be viewed as a spectrum of cognitive process and ability in both ASD and neurotypical. One
difference may be that individuals with ASD are limited in their ability to hide or mask
challenges with organizing, planning, and completion of tasks.
With the increase in diagnoses of ASD as well as recent changes to diagnostic criteria to
include a broader, inclusive perspective or spectrum of autism, the importance of understanding
differences in thinking has increased. Understanding the differences in cognitive styles and
processes as well as unique traits of each individual is important for successful alignment,
communication, and attainment of goal, whatever the relationship may be. Earlier theories of
cognitive styles tended to focus more on one or the other type perspectives and did not appear to
allow for much of a gray area or spectrum between two extremes, this appears to have changed
over the years and with additional research and new perspectives as can be found in more
personality driven approaches. Though there are distinctly different concepts and theories of
ASD cognitive abilities, it important to keep in mind the idea of a spectrum of styles and the
uniqueness of individuals. Individuals with ASD share traits and similar processing and
cognitive styles found within traditional theories of cognition yet may be at the extremes with
their functioning. Viewing functioning as a valid and different type of processing as opposed to
disordered or dysfunctional will have an effect on interactions, completion of tasks, and
attainment of goals, thus making ASD a style not a disorder.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
20
References
Akinci, C., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2013). Assessing individual differences in experiential-intuitive
and rational-analytical cognitive styles. International Journal of Selection & Assessment,
21(2), 211-221. doi:10.1111/ijsa.12030
Alic, M. (2009, December 23). Theory of mind. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/theory-of-mind/
Ancillotti, J. (1985). Dimension réflexive–impulsive de la personnalité et fonctionnement
cognitif. = Reflection-impulsivity (conceptual tempo) and cognitive functioning. Cahiers
De Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 5(6), 667-686.
Are rates of autism spectrum disorders increasing? Expanded diagnostic criteria and greater
public awareness may explain why. (2010). The Harvard Mental Health Letter, 26(7), 6.
Baio, J. (2014). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years - autism
and developmental disabilities monitoring network, 11 sites, United States, 2010.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries, 63(2), 1-21. Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6302.pdf
Bargar, R. R., & Hoover, R. L. (1984). Psychological type and the matching of cognitive styles.
Theory into Practice, 23(1), 56-63.
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a 'theory of
mind'? Cognition, 21(1), 37-46. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90022-8
Bokoros, M. A., Goldstein, M. B., & Sweeney, M. M. (1992). Common factors in five measures
of cognitive styles. Current Psychology, 11(2), 99-109.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
21
Burnette, C., Mundy, P., Meyer, J., Sutton, S., Vaughan, A., & Charak, D. (2005). Weak central
coherence and its relations to theory of mind and anxiety in autism. Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders, 35(1), 63-73. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-1035-5
Davies, M. F. (1982). Field dependence-independence and the differentiation of self and others.
Journal of Psychology, 112, 109-112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1982.9923542
Energic - definition of energic by the free dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/energic
Evans, C., Richardson, J. E., & Waring, M. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 210-224. doi:10.1111/bjep.12015
Fleming, N., & Bonwell, C. (2006). VARK: Learning styles: Visual, auditory, read/write.
kinesthetic. Retrieved from
http://www.southwesterncc.edu/sites/default/files/Tutor_Program/Learning%20Styles%2
0-%20VARK.pdf
Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To
Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155.
Gregorc, A. (n.d.). Mind styles - Anthony Gregorc. Retrieved from
http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/Gregorc.htm
Gregorc, A. F. (1985). Inside styles: Beyond the basics: Questions and answers on style.
Maynard, MA: Gabriel Systems.
Gregorc, A. (1999). Gregorc style delineator - self-assessment instrument for adults. Retrieved
from http://gregorc.com/instrume.html
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
22
Hall, G. (2012). Applying psychological-type theory to faith: Spirituality, prayer, worship and
scripture. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(9), 849-862.
doi:10.1080/13674676.2012.685619
Happé, F. (1999). Autism: Cognitive deficit or cognitive style? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
3(6), 216-222. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01318-2
Hawk, T. F., & Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning.
Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 1-19. doi:10.1111/j.15404609.2007.00125.x
Joseph, R. M. (1999). Neuropsychological frameworks for understanding autism. International
Review of Psychiatry, 11(4), 309-324. doi:10.1080/09540269974195
Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in
the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 78(1), 1-37. doi:10.1037/h0093830
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Retrieved from http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/process-ofexperiential-learning.pdf! (31.05.2006)
Ledzinska, M., Battala, J., & Stolarski, M. (2014). Cognitive styles could be implicitly assessed
in the internet environment: Reflection-impulsivity is manifested in individual manner of
searching for information. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(1), 133-145.
Lotter, V. (1966). Epidemiology of autistic conditions in young children. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 1(3), 124-135. doi:10.1007/BF00584048
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
23
Malamud, W. (1923). Review of 'psychological types, or the psychology of individuation'. The
Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 18(2), 167-180.
doi:10.1037/h0066013
Matthes, J., Wirth, W., Schemer, C., & Kissling, A. (2011). I see what you don't see: The role of
individual differences in field dependence-independence as a predictor of product
placement recall and brand liking. Journal of Advertising, 40(4), 85-99.
McCaulley, M. H. (2000). Myers—Briggs type indicator: A bridge between counseling and
consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(2), 117-132.
doi:10.1037//1061-4087.52.2.117
McCleod, S. (2010). Kolb's learning styles and experiential learning cycle. Retrieved from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html
Markram, K., & Markram, H. (2010). The intense world theory—A unifying theory of the
neurobiology of autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 224.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00224
Narayanan, M. (2012). Assessment of learning using Fleming and Mills’ VARK learning styles
(AC2012-2949). Paper presented at the 8th annual meeting of the American Society for
Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from
http://search.asee.org/search/fetch;jsessionid=1a03ack9fbqka?url=file%3A%2F%2Flocal
host%2FE%3A%2Fsearch%2Fconference%2FAC2012%2F2949.pdf&index=conference
_papers&space=129746797203605791716676178&type=application%2Fpdf&charset=
O'Brien, T. P. (1991). Relationships among selected characteristics of college students and
cognitive style preferences. College Student Journal, 25(1), 492-500.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
24
Teunisse, J., Cools, A. R., van Spaendonck, K. M., Aerts, F. M., & Berger, H. C. (2001).
Cognitive styles in high-functioning adolescents with autistic disorder. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 55-66.
Tonn, R., & Obrzut, J. (2005). The neuropsychological perspective on autism. Journal of
Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 17(4), 409-419. doi:10.1007/s10882-005-6623-6
Rajendran, G., & Mitchell, P. (2007). Cognitive theories of autism. Developmental Review,
27(2), 224-260.
Rozencwajg, P., & Corroyer, D. (2005). Cognitive processes in the reflective-impulsive
cognitive style. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166(4), 451-463.
doi:10.3200/GNTP.166.4.451-466
Rutter, M. (2005). Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: Changes over time and their
meaning. Acta Paediatrica, 94(1), 2-15. doi:10.1080/08035250410023124
Sanders, P., & Conti, G. (2012). Identifying individual differences: A cognitive styles tool.
Journal of Adult Education, 41(2), 43-63.
Seidel, L. E., & England, E. M. (1997). Gregorc's cognitive styles: Preferences for instructional
and assessment techniques in college students. Poster presented at the annual convention
of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED414785.pdf
Sewall, T. (1986). The measurement of learning style: A critique of four assessment tools.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED267247.pdf
Sheinkopf, S. J. (2005). Hot topics in autism: Cognitive deficits, cognitive style, and joint
attention dysfunction. Medicine and Health, Rhode Island, 88(5), 152.
NEUROTYPICAL AND AUTISTIC COGNITION
25
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American
Psychologist, 52(7), 700-712. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.7.700
Tendy, S. M., & Geiser, W. F. (1997). The search for style: It all depends on where you look.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED410029.pdf
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and
field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of
Educational Research, 47(1), 1-64. doi:10.2307/1169967
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Friedman, F., Owen, D. R., &
Raskin, E. (1977). Role of the field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles in
academic evolution: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(3),
197-211. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.69.3.197