J Adult Dev
DOI 10.1007/s10804-009-9055-1
Reliability and Validity of the Complex Postformal Thought
Questionnaire: Assessing Adults’ Cognitive Development
Kelly B. Cartwright Æ M. Paz Galupo Æ
Seth D. Tyree Æ Jennifer Gavin Jennings
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract Three studies investigated the psychometric
properties of the complex postformal thought (PFT) questionnaire (Sinnott, unpublished scale, 1998; Sinnott and
Johnson 1997), which is a measure of adult cognitive
development. The scale was found to be moderately reliable (a = .63). To assess construct validity, a comparison
of participants’ performance on the PFT scale to their
performance on the Need for Cognition scale was conducted, which indicated the PFT scale is valid measure of
complex thought. Factor analysis reduced the scale to three
factors, which correspond to important components of
PFT: Multiple Elements, Subjective Choice, and Underlying Complexities. Implications for understanding the
nature of adult cognitive development and the usefulness of
this new measure for research in this area are discussed.
Keywords Postformal thought Complex thought Cognitive development Adult development Scale development
Traditional Piagetian notions of cognitive development
described a series of qualitatively different, progressively
more complex stages of thinking—from sensorimotor to
formal operational—that occur between infancy and adolescence (Piaget and Inhelder 1969). Recent work has led to
K. B. Cartwright (&) S. D. Tyree
Christopher Newport University, Newport News, VA, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
M. P. Galupo J. G. Jennings
Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
M. P. Galupo
e-mail: [email protected]
updates in understanding of this classic position. For
example, we now understand that cognitive development
occurs gradually (rather than in discrete stages), is variable
across individuals of a given age, and is dependent upon
personal, domain specific experiences, rather than occurring
uniformly across all domains of thinking (Bidell and Fisher
1992; Bigler and Liben 1992; Cartwright 2002; Case 1992;
Case and Okamoto 1996; Karmiloff-Smith 1991; Piaget
1972; Sinnott 1998). With respect to adult development,
Piaget’s classic description of cognitive development suggested the pinnacle of human reasoning, formal operational
reasoning, was achieved in adolescence, neglecting to
address mechanisms and descriptions of cognitive change in
adulthood. Piaget (1972) did eventually acknowledge that
cognitive change may continue into adulthood, and recent
work in adult development has demonstrated this to be the
case (Andrews and Halford 2002; Blackburn and Papalia
1992; Kuhn and Pease 2006; Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992;
Luna et al. 2004; Sinnott 1998).
These findings have led theorists to suggest that postformal thought, a more complex form of thinking that
develops beyond formal operational thought, be added to
theoretical conceptions of lifespan cognitive development
(Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1984, 1998; Sinnott
and Johnson 1997). Traditional Piagetian notions suggested
that the greatest sophistication in cognitive development
was evidenced by an increasing reliance on objective, scientific reasoning within a logical system, which Piaget
called formal operational reasoning (Piaget and Inhelder
1969). However, more recent work on adults’ thinking
suggests a more advanced type of cognition, postformal
reasoning, is evidenced by the addition of subjective
experience such as social, interpersonal, and contextual
information to formal, logical reasoning. This work proposes that adults learn to step outside a single logical system
123
K. B. Cartwright et al.
of thought to consider multiple, logical systems, and recognize that they must choose to apply a particular system of
thought in any given situation, thus creating the ‘‘truth’’ of
that particular experience (Sinnott 1998). For example, this
kind of subjectivity might occur when reasoning in the
domain of physics because light can be regarded as both a
wave and a particle simultaneously. In this case, the scientist must choose the way in which she will view the
concept, thus choosing the system of reasoning for that
situation (Sinnott 1998). Finally, recent work in adults’
cognitive development suggests personal, subjective experience, especially experience, which requires that one
consider multiple perspectives, such as in the negotiation of
relationships or conflicts, produces cognitive change in
adulthood (Bidell and Fisher 1992; Blackburn and Papalia
1992; Case 1992; Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1998).
The recognition that cognitive development continues into
adulthood is a great step forward in developing a complete
picture of lifespan intellectual development. Research in this
area must necessarily rely on assessments of complex postformal thought to further elucidate the nature of adults’
thinking. However, few such published measures exist. Sinnott (1984, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997), for example, has
assessed adults’ capability for postformal thought using
individual, problem-based reasoning tasks in which participants think aloud while solving complex problems. This
assessment method is, however, time consuming and difficult
to administer to large numbers of research participants. Thus,
Sinnott (unpublished measure, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson
1997) also developed a 10-item Complex Postformal Thought
(PFT) Questionnaire to assess the degree to which adults use
complex postformal thought. Both assessments tap individuals’ ability to engage in several dimensions of complex
thought, including metatheory shift, problem definition, process/product shift, parameter setting, pragmatism, multiple
solutions, multiple goals, multiple methods, and paradox (see
Sinnott 1998, 2008; Sinnott and Johnson 1997 for descriptions of these features of complex postformal thought).
Sinnott and Johnson (1997) demonstrated that participants’
responses on the individual, problem-based measurement
were consistent with their responses on the 10-item PFT
questionnaire that was adapted for use with participants in that
study, providing some indication of construct validity for the
scale. However, no studies have examined the psychometric
properties of the PFT scale beyond that first look at construct
validity. Thus, the purpose of the current studies was to
examine the reliability and validity of the PFT scale to provide a basis for future use of this measure in work on adult
cognitive development.
To assess construct validity, we sought an assessment
that indicated adults’ tendency to engage in complex
thought. One such measure is the Need for Cognition
(NFC) scale, which assesses the inclination to engage in
123
and enjoy effortful cognitive activities (Cacioppo and Petty
1982). According to Cacioppo and Petty (1982), individuals vary in their levels of intrinsic motivation for cognitive
activity. Individuals high in NFC seek opportunities to
engage in effortful cognitive activities and derive enjoyment from thinking deliberately and for extended periods.
Individuals low in NFC, however, avoid effortful cognitive
activity, and find such cognitively complex activities
aversive. NFC can be measured with an 18-item scale
(Cacioppo et al. 1984), and has been positively associated
with such things as education, intrinsic motivation, curiosity, openness to ideas, and the tendency to seek
information when making judgments or decisions. Conversely, NFC is negatively related to such attributes as
authoritarianism, dogmatism, the tendency to oversimplify
or distort new information, and closed-mindedness (see
Cacioppo et al. 1996, for a review). Further, Tanaka et al.
(1988) suggested that NFC involves at least three components,
including cognitive persistence, cognitive complexity, and
cognitive competence. Because cognitive competence and
complexity appear to be important components of both
NFC and complex postformal thought, we expected individuals’ scores on the NFC scale and the PFT scale to be
significantly, positively correlated, providing additional
evidence of construct validity of the PFT scale. Moreover,
we expected participants high in PFT to demonstrate significantly higher levels of NFC than individuals low in
PFT, further confirming construct validity.
Statement of the Problem
In sum, the purpose of this research was to describe the
psychometric properties of a 10-item research instrument for
measuring complex postformal thought (PFT; Sinnott,
unpublished scale, 1998; Sinnott and Johnson 1997), the
Complex Postformal Thought (PFT) Questionnaire. Sinnott’s
general scale is assessed here (Sinnott, unpublished scale),
which she adapted for use with skilled research administrators
in Sinnott and Johnson (1997). The objectives of the research
were threefold: (1) to assess the reliability of the scale; (2) to
establish the construct validity of the scale by examining
correlations between PFT and NFC and by comparing NFC
scores for participants high and low on PFT; and (3) to
establish the factor structure of the scale.
General Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants in all studies included adult women and men. All
participants completed the 10-item PFT questionnaire
Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire
(Sinnott, unpublished scale), the 18-item NFC scale (Cacioppo
et al. 1984), and a basic demographic questionnaire. Participation was individual, voluntary, and required approximately
15–20 min. Upon completing the study, participants were
free to ask any questions generated by the research. All participants were treated in accordance with the ethical standards
of the American Psychological Association (2002).
Measures
Complex Postformal Thought (PFT) Questionnaire
The PFT questionnaire measured participants’ levels of
postformal thought. Developed by Sinnott (unpublished
scale) and adapted by Sinnott and Johnson (1997), the
questionnaire included 10 items, which assessed individual
postformal thinking skills (see Table 1). Each question was
intended to tap a different operation of postformal thinking,
including paradox, multiple methods, parameter setting,
problem definition, process/product shift, metatheory shift,
multiple causality, multiple solutions, multiple goals, and
pragmatism as described by Sinnott (1984, 1998, 2008).
Participants responded to each statement by choosing a
number on a seven-point Likert scale (where 7 = very true
to 1 = not true) to indicate the degree to which each of the
ten statements characterized their own thinking. Possible
scores ranged from 10 (indicating low levels of complex
postformal thought) to 70 (indicating high levels of complex postformal thought).
Need for Cognition (NFC) Scale
Cacioppo et al.’s (1984) 18-item NFC Scale measures an
individual’s inclination to engage in and enjoy effortful
cognitive activities. The scale includes 18 statements (e.g.,
‘‘I would prefer complex to simple tasks.’’), nine of which
are reverse scored. Participants indicated the degree to
which the statements described themselves with a ninepoint Likert scale ranging from -4 (disagree) to 4 (agree).
The potential range of scores is thus -72 (low NFC) to
?72 (high NFC). The NFC scale has an established reliability of a = .90 (Cacioppo et al. 1984).
Study 1
Method
Purpose
The purpose of Study 1 was to examine the psychometric
properties of the 10-item PFT scale developed by Sinnott.
Reliability and construct validity were considered.
Participants
The sample consisted of 302 undergraduate students (251
women, 49 men, 2 not reported) from two Mid-Atlantic
universities. Participants identified themselves as African
American/Black (15.6%, n = 47), Asian American (1.0%,
Table 1 Means (and standard deviations) for individual items on the Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire in Study 1 and Study 2
Item
Study 1
(n = 302)
Study 2
(n = 218)
1. I see the paradoxes in life (Paradox)
4.74 (1.40)
4.58 (1.55)
2. I see more than one method that can be used to reach a goal (Multiple Methods)
5.52 (1.37)
5.72 (1.37)
3. I am aware that I can decide which reality to experience at a particular time; but I know that reality
is really multi-level and more complicated (Parameter Setting)
4.80 (1.61)
4.93 (1.70)
4. There are many ‘‘right’’ ways to define any life experience; I must make a final decision on how
I define the problems of life (Problem definition)
3.74 (1.97)
3.97 (2.08)
5. I am aware that sometimes ‘‘succeeding’’ in the everyday world means finding a concrete answer
to one of life’s problems; but sometimes it means finding a correct path that would carry me through
any problems of this type (Process/product shift)
4.81 (1.57)
4.60 (1.83)
6. Almost all problems can be solved by logic, but this may require different types of ‘‘logics’’
(Metatheory shift)
4.62 (1.68)
4.54 (1.81)
7. I tend to see several causes connected with any event (Multiple causality)
5.18 (1.56)
5.38 (1.46)
8. I see that a given dilemma always has several good solutions (Multiple solutions)
4.56 (1.63)
4.63 (1.69)
9. I realize that I often have several goals in mind, or that life seems to have several goals in mind for me.
So I go toward more than one in following my path in life (Multiple goals)
5.29 (1.73)
5.33 (1.69)
10. I can see the hidden logic in others’ solutions to the problem of life, even if I don’t agree with their
solutions and follow my own path (Pragmatism)
4.89 (1.60)
5.09 (1.45)
Note: Participants responded to each item on a Likert scale where 1 = Not True (of self) and 7 = Very True (of self). Actual responses ranged
from 1 to 7 for all items in both studies
123
K. B. Cartwright et al.
n = 3), White/non-Hispanic (76.5%, n = 231), Hispanic/
Latino/a (3.6%, n = 11), Native American (0.7%, n = 2),
or not identified (2.0%, n = 8). Participants were recruited
on a volunteer basis from psychology courses and may
have received extra credit for their participation.
Results and Discussion
The 10-item PFT questionnaire yielded a moderate level of
internal consistency, where a = .63. Mean scores and
standard deviations for each item are provided in Table 1.
These were comparable to the means reported by Sinnott
and Johnson (1997). In order to examine construct validity
for the scale, a Pearson’s correlation coefficient was
computed between participants’ PFT and NFC scores. As
predicted, a significant, positive correlation emerged from
this analysis, r(300) = 0.36, p \ .01. As a further assessment of construct validity, participants were divided into
two groups, via a median split, based on their PFT scale
scores. Then, NFC scores were compared for participants
high in PFT (n = 150) and participants low in PFT
(n = 152). Participants high in PFT demonstrated significantly higher levels of NFC (M = 21.25, SD = 19.76)
than participants low in PFT (M = 7.54, SD = 21.66), as
predicted, t(300) = 5.74, p \ .001. Taken together, these
results indicate the PFT scale is a moderately reliable and
valid measure of complex postformal thought that can be
used in future research.
Study 2
Method
Purpose
The purpose of Study 2 was to address an issue that presented during data collection for Study 1. During data
collection it became clear that a number of participants did
not know how to respond to the first statement (‘‘I see the
paradoxes in life’’) because they did not know the meaning
of the word paradox, which may have affected reliability of
the scale. Thus, Study 1 was replicated with a second
sample. Procedures for Study 2 were identical to those of
Study 1 with the exception that the first statement was
followed by ‘‘paradox = a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true,’’ adapted from Harper
Collins Webster’s dictionary (2002).
Participants
The sample consisted of 218 undergraduate students (168
women, 49 men, 1 not reported) from two Mid-Atlantic
123
universities. Participants identified themselves as African
American/Black (12.4%, n = 27), Asian American (1.4%,
n = 3), White/Non-Hispanic (79.8%, n = 174), Hispanic/
Latino/a (5.0%, n = 11), Native American (0.5%, n = 1),
or not identified (0.9%, n = 2). Participants were recruited
on a volunteer basis from psychology courses and may
have received extra credit for their participation.
Results and Discussion
Results for Study 2 provided a successful replication of
Study 1. In this sample, the PFT scale yielded a moderate
level of internal consistency, where a = .63, consistent
with the value obtained in Study 1. Because internal consistency was the same across Studies 1 and 2, we concluded
the provision of a definition for paradox was not necessary
and did not affect reliability in Study 1. Further, because
Sinnott’s original work with this scale (1998; Sinnott and
Johnson 1997) did not provide such a definition, we recommend that a definition not be included in future work.
Means and standard deviations for each of the items are
listed in Table 1, and these appear to be consistent with
those obtained in Study 1 and by Sinnott and Johnson
(1997).
To examine construct validity a Pearson’s correlation
coefficient was computed between participants NFC and
PFT scores; and as predicted, a significant, positive correlation emerged between these scores, r(216) = 0.29,
p \ .01. As a further assessment of construct validity,
participants were divided into two groups, via a median
split, based on their PFT scale scores. Then, NFC scores
were compared for participants high in PFT (n = 103) and
participants low in PFT (n = 115). Participants high in
PFT demonstrated significantly higher levels of NFC
(M = 28.40, SD = 23.76) than participants low in PFT
(M = 14.85, SD = 23.86), as predicted, t(216) = 4.19,
p \ .001. Taken together, these results confirm the findings
of Study 1 and indicate the PFT scale is a moderately
reliable and valid measure of complex postformal thought
that can be used in future work.
Study 3
Method
Purpose
Results from Studies 1 and 2 revealed the PFT scale to be a
moderately reliable and valid measure of complex postformal thought. Study 3 used a combined sample (from
Study 1 and Study 2) to investigate the factor structure of
the scale.
Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire
Participants
Data from participants in Study 1 and Study 2 were combined for these analyses. Participants thus included a total
of 520 individuals (419 women, 98 men, 3 not reported).
Participants identified themselves as African American/
Black (14.2%, n = 74), Asian American (1.2%, n = 6),
White/Non-Hispanic (77.9%, n = 405), Hispanic/Latino/a
(4.2%, n = 22), Native American (0.6%, n = 3), or not
identified (1.9%, n = 10). Participants were recruited on a
volunteer basis from psychology courses and may have
received extra credit for their participation.
Results and Discussion
A Principal Components Analysis with oblimin rotation
reduced the 10 items into three factors, which accounted
for 46.18% of the variance in the data (see Table 2). The
first factor accounted for 24.12% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.41) followed by factor two with 12.03 %
Table 2 Factor loadings for the Postformal Complex Thought
Questionnaire
Item
Subscale Mean (and
Standard Deviation)
Factor 1
Multiple
Elements
5.03 (1.07)
Subscale Percent Variance 24.12%
Accounted For
Factor 2
Subjective
Choice
4.38 (1.21)
12.03%
Item 1
Factor 3
Underlying
Complexities
5.04 (1.02)
10.04%
.750
Paradox
Item 2
.602
Multiple Methods
Item 3
.608
Parameter Setting
Item 4
.631
Problem Definition
Item 5
.716
Process/Product Shift
Item 6
.554
Metatheory Shift
Item 7
.655
Multiple Causality
Item 8
.762
Multiple Solutions
Item 9
.585
Multiple Goals
Item 10
Pragmatism
.482
Note: Variance accounted for was 46.19% for the total sample
(eigenvalue = 1.20) and factor three with 10.03% (eigenvalue = 1.00). Four of the items (items 7, 8, 9, and 10)
loaded on the first factor, which seemed to represent an
ability to consider multiple elements of a problem or situation, an essential component of complex postformal
thought (LaBouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1998). The
following operations were clustered to comprise the Multiple
Elements factor: multiple causality, multiple solutions,
multiple goals, and pragmatism. Three items (items 4, 5, and
6) loaded primarily on the second factor, which seemed to
represent the ability to make a subjective choice of a particular logical system to use in a given problem situation. The
combination of subjectivity with logical operations is a
hallmark of complex postformal thought (Labouvie-Vief
1990, 1992; Sinnott 1998), as it demonstrates progress
beyond basic logical reasoning evidenced in formal operational thought. Operations included in the Subjective Choice
factor were problem definition, process/product shift, and
metatheory shift. Finally, three items (items 1, 2, and 3)
loaded primarily on the third factor, which seemed to represent the ability to see the underlying complexities in a
situation. The Underlying Complexities factor included the
following operations: paradox, multiple methods, and
parameter setting.
To explore participants’ relative performance on the three
factors and the possible developmental track of the processes represented by the three factors, a 3 (Subscale Score:
Multiple Elements, Subjective Choice, and Underlying
Complexities) 9 2 (Level of PFT: High or Low) repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted
with the three subscale mean scores as the repeated (within
subjects) factor and level of PFT as the between subjects
factor. This analysis revealed that as would be expected,
participants with high PFT scored significantly higher on the
subscales than participants low on PFT, F(1, 218) = 934.11,
p \ .001. Post hoc analyses confirmed this difference for
each of the scales. Furthermore, the analysis revealed a
significant effect of subscale, F(1, 518) = 136.10, p \ .001.
Post hoc analyses indicated that overall, participants scored
significantly lower on Subjective Choice than they did on
Multiple Elements or Underlying Complexities. There was
no significant difference between Multiple Elements and
Underlying Complexities. Finally, a significant Subscale 9 Level of PFT interaction emerged, F(1, 518)
= 9.43, p \ .01. Post hoc analyses indicated that for individuals low in PFT, the following pattern of significant
differences emerged: Underlying Complexities [ Multiple
Elements [ Subjective Choice. For participants high on
PFT, however, a different pattern of significant differences
emerged, such that Multiple Elements [ Underlying Complexities [ Subjective Choice. Furthermore, despite the
different patterns of performance for the two groups, participants high on PFT scored significantly higher than
123
K. B. Cartwright et al.
Table 3 Mean subscale scores and (standard error) for individuals
high and low in PFT
Multiple Elements
Low PFT
High PFT
4.38 (0.05)
5.80 (0.05)
Subjective Choice
3.79 (0.06)
5.07 (0.07)
Underlying Complexities
4.54 (0.05)
5.64 (0.06)
participants low on PFT on all subscales. It should also be
noted that the difference between these groups is of practical
significance as well, given that the lowest score on any
subscale for those high in PFT is higher than the highest
subscale score for individuals low in PFT (see Table 3).
General Discussion
Reliability and Validity of the PFT Scale
The primary purpose of this series of studies was to
investigate the psychometric properties of Sinnott’s complex postformal thought questionnaire. Two studies found
the scale to be moderately reliable. Furthermore, assessments of construct validity that compared participants’ PFT
performance to performance on another measure of complex thought (NFC) indicated the PFT scale is a valid
measure of complex thought. Results of these studies
support the contention that the PFT is a psychometrically
robust measure of adults’ postformal cognitive development, as the reliability and validity of the scale were
consistent across both samples.
Factor Structure and Implications for Adult Cognitive
Development
A second purpose of this research was to examine the
factor structure of the PFT scale. This analysis revealed
three main factors—Multiple Elements, Subjective Choice,
and Underlying Complexities—which each represent an
important component of complex postformal thought
(Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1984, 1998, 2008).
Our analyses indicated that overall, there was no difference
in difficulty for Multiple Elements and Underlying Complexities, and that both of these processes were used more
frequently by participants than Subjective Choice. An
examination of performance by our least skilled postformal
thinkers, those who were lowest on PFT, showed that they
reported greater use of Underlying Complexities, followed
by Multiple Elements, and then Subjective Choice. This
pattern of performance suggests a developmental progression that is consistent with theories of postformal thought
(Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992; Sinnott 1984, 1998).
123
Postformal theory suggests that adults move beyond
logical reasoning within one logical system, what Piaget
and Inhelder (1969) characterized as formal operational
reasoning, to a new understanding that there are multiple
logical systems that can apply to any given situation. Thus,
the recognition that there are underlying complexities in a
given situation (the Underlying Complexities factor) seems
to precede the ability to consider the multiple elements
involved in that situation (the Multiple Elements factor),
and both of these processes are clearly important components of postformal thinking. Further, postformal theory
also suggests that postformal thought is characterized by
the integration of objective logic and subjective elements
(Labouvie-Vief 1990, 1992). That is, once adults recognize
the multiple complexities inherent in a situation, and they
are able to consider the multiple ‘‘logics’’ that can thus
apply in any given situation, they become aware that they
must make a subjective choice to apply one of those logics
to solve the problem at hand (the Subjective Choice factor).
Although this developmental progression is consistent with
theory and with our data on individuals low in PFT, further
cross-sectional and longitudinal research is necessary to
explore the developmental progression of these factors.
Limitations of Present Study and Directions for Future
Research
The development of the PFT scale represents an important
contribution to the study of postformal thought. Establishing the psychometric properties of the scale permits the
reliable measurement of postformal thinking in a field
where postformal thinking has been largely studied qualitatively. The 10-item PFT scale may provide a sensitive
quantitative measure for experimental researchers as the
potential range of scores extends between 10 and 70
(60 point spread) on an interval scale. Across the studies
reported here, actual participant scores fell within the entire
range where the minimum score was 26 and the maximum
was 70 (M = 48.40, SD = 7.90). However, despite the
range of scores on the measure, the current studies included
undergraduate students at public universities. Thus, future
research should include adults of varying ages, to determine whether the psychometric properties and factor
structure hold across multiple age groups, and to examine
the developmental progression of the components of
postformal thinking. Furthermore, the three factor structure
should be explored in future work to determine whether the
PFT scale might be usefully conceptualized and used as a
global measure of postformal thinking with three subscales
that tap different components of postformal thought.
The field of adult cognitive development includes many
possible directions for future work with this measure. The
relation of postformal thought to spiritual development,
Complex Postformal Thought Questionnaire
self development, relationship dynamics, friendship patterns, life satisfaction, reading comprehension, political
beliefs, and any number of other variables may further
elucidate the nature of the development of adults’ cognition
(see Sinnott 1998, 2008, for possible directions for this
work). Expanding understanding of the nature of adults’
thinking in multiple domains will bring us closer to having
a more complete picture of adults’ cognitive development
after adolescence, a significant step in moving the field
beyond classic conceptions of cognitive development (e.g.,
Piaget and Inhelder 1969), which neglected to address
changes in adults’ thinking.
References
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist,
57(12), 1060–1073.
Andrews, G., & Halford, G. S. (2002). A cognitive complexity metric
applied to cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 45,
153–219.
Bidell, T. R., & Fisher, K. W. (1992). Beyond the stage debate:
Action, structure, and variability in Piagetian theory and
research. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual
development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. (1992). Cognitive mechanisms in children’s
gender stereotyping: Theoretical and educational implications of
a cognitive-based intervention. Child Development, 63, 1351–
1363.
Blackburn, J. A., & Papalia, D. E. (1992). The study of adult
cognition from a Piagetian perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & C.
A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition scale.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G.
(1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The
life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient
assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48, 306–307.
Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: The
relation of multiple classification skill to reading comprehension
in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 56–63.
Case, R. (1992). Neo-Piagetian theories of child development. In R. J.
Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (Chap.
6) (pp. 161–196). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual
structures in the development of children’s thought. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1–2, Serial
No. 246).
Harper Collins Webster’s dictionary (2002/2003). New York: Harper
Collins Publishers.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1991). Innate constraints and developmental
change. In S. Carey & R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind:
Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 171–197). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, D., & Pease, M. (2006). Do children and adults learn
differently? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7, 279–293.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1990). Modes of knowledge and the organization
of development. In M. L. Commons, C. Armon, L. Kohlberg, F.
A. Richards, T. A. Grotzer, & J. D. Sinnott (Eds.), Adult
development, Vol. 2: Models and methods in the study of
adolescent and adult thought (Chap. 3) (pp. 43–62). New York:
Praeger.
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1992). A neo-Piagetian perspective on adult
cognitive development. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.),
Intellectual development. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Luna, B., Garver, K. E., Urban, T. A., Lazar, N. A., & Sweeney, J. A.
(2004). Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to
adulthood. Child Development, 75, 1357–1372.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1–12.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (Helen
Weaver, Trans.). New York: Basic Books. (Original work
published 1966).
Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage. In
M. Commons, F. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal
operations (pp. 298–325). New York: Praeger.
Sinnott, J. D. (1998). The development of logic in adulthood:
Postformal thought and its applications. New York: Plenum
Press.
Sinnott, J. D. (2008). Cognitive and representational development in
adults. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.), Literacy processes: Cognitive
flexibility in learning and teaching. NY: Guilford Press.
Sinnott, J. D., & Johnson, L. (1997). Brief report: Complex
postformal thought in skilled research administrators. Journal
of Adult Development, 4(1), 45–53.
Tanaka, J. S., Panter, A. T., & Winborne, W. C. (1988). Dimensions
of the need for cognition: Subscales and gender differences.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 35–50.
123