Search

When spatial information is depicted on univariate or multivariate maps, different visualization designs should be considered to fit the designs to suit the target audience and define the map's general purpose and therefore also the map user's expected cognitive processes. Although multivariate maps have attracted research for decades, only several studies have compared the effectiveness of maps that use extrinsic and intrinsic encoding styles, and even fewer have tried to incorporate other map-related factors that could significantly affect the user's performance and clarify the relationship between the selected encoding style's efficiency and the user's cognitive processes. In this paper, we report on an empirical replication study focused on the performance differences of experienced map users solving a task using a map and the possible effect of their cognitive styles on the efficiency of bivariate map encoding styles and the map task type. For the experiment, we recruited 77 spatial planning and geography university students in China considered as experienced map users. The study indicated that extrinsic visualizations outperformed intrinsic visualizations in the main observed variables of correctness and response time but not always significantly. A detailed analysis of the tasks, which involved the use of either one variable or two variables concurrently, confirmed our hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article investigates cross-cultural differences in analytic/holistic cognitive styles among participants from 11 countries: Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Ghana, Philippines, Slovakia, Taiwan, and Türkiye. Using a preregistered design, 993 university students were assessed with three perceptual tasks based on Navon's hierarchical figures and Gottschaldt's embedded figures. Analytic and holistic cognitive styles were estimated using reaction time modeling, specifically a Bayesian four-parameter shifted Wald distribution and a hierarchical linear ballistic accumulator model. The results revealed notable cross-cultural variations in cognitive styles, though these differences did not align with predictions from analytic/holistic cognitive style theory. Countries traditionally characterized as more holistic or analytic did not consistently show the expected cognitive style patterns. Multilevel modeling examined the influence of country-level variables, such as Hofstede's and Schwartz's cultural dimensions. While some dimensions, like individualism and long-term orientation, were associated with both analytic and holistic thinking, many cultural predictors had no significant impact on cognitive styles. Additionally, exploratory latent profile analysis assessed cognitive metastyles, such as flexibility and rigidity, but the findings do not support the presence of a rigidity metastyle. No profiles exhibited a strong preference for one cognitive dimension while showing a low preference for the other. These findings challenge the straightforward application of analytic/holistic theory across diverse cultural contexts and suggest a need for reevaluation of its generalizability. Public Significance Statement: The study investigates cross-cultural differences in the thinking styles of people from 11 countries and challenges the prevailing theory of analytic versus holistic thinking proposed by Nisbett et al. (2001). The study found significant differences that did not align with the theoretical predictions, shedding new light on how thinking styles vary across cultures. These unexpected results have important implications for our understanding of thinking processes and emphasize the need to reconsider existing theories in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]