Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-zzvtc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-06T04:28:47.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning and information-processing styles: An individual differences study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2015

GISELA GRANENA
GISELA GRANENA*
Affiliation:
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Gisela Granena, School of Languages, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Av. Tibidabo 39–43, Barcelona 08035, Spain; ggranena@uoc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent proposals on language aptitude have distinguished between cognitive aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning (e.g., Doughty et al., 2010; Linck et al., 2013). This methodological study extends recent work on aptitude by investigating whether aptitudes for implicit and explicit learning are differentially related to the two main information-processing cognitive styles proposed by dual-process theories in cognitive psychology: rational–analytical and experiential–intuitive (Pacini & Epstein, 1999). A relationship was found between a rational–analytical profile and explicit aptitude, as well as between an experiential–intuitive profile and implicit aptitude. Structural equation modeling further showed that the proposed model had acceptable fit. These results were interpreted as support for the qualitatively different types of cognitive processes underlying the two hypothesized types of aptitude.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 577 - 600
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bylund, E., Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2010). The role of language aptitude in first language attrition: The case of pre-pubescent attriters. Applied Linguistics, 31, 443–464.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1964). Language and thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research in foreign language aptitude. In Diller, K. (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 83–118). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Carroll, J., & Sapon, S. (1959). Modern Language Aptitude Test: Form A. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Cedrus. (2003). SuperLab 3.0.7 [Computer software]. San Pedro, CA: Author.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1995). Field independence/dependence in the L2 classroom. In Reid, J. (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 158–168). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second-language acquisition research. Language Learning, 42, 47–83.Google Scholar
Cherry, K. E., & Stadler, M. A. (1995). Implicit learning of a nonverbal sequence in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 10, 379–394.Google Scholar
Conway, C., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S., & Pisoni, D. (2010). Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key. Cognition, 114, 356–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: The revised NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). The eXperanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 395–406). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New evidence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 343–350.Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73, 825–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeYoung, C., Shamosh, N., Green, A., Braver, T., & Gray, J. (2009). Intellect as distinct from openness: Differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883–892.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (1992). Connectionist and memory-array models of artificial grammar learning. Cognitive Science, 16, 41–79.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z., & Scott, R. (2005). Measuring unconscious knowledge: Distinguishing structural knowledge and judgment knowledge. Psychological Research, 69, 338–351.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Doughty, C., Campbell, S., Mislevy, M., Bunting, M., Bowles, A., & Koeth, J. (2010). Predicting near-native ability: The factor structure and reliability of Hi-LAB. In Prior, M., Watanabe, Y., & Lee, S. (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 10–31). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1990). Cognitive–experiential self-theory. In Pervin, L. (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 165–192). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (2008). Intuition from the perspective of cognitive–experiential self-theory. In Plessner, H., Betsch, C., & Betsch, T. (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 23–37). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.Google Scholar
Erlam, R. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 27, 464–491.Google Scholar
Evans, J., & Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013a). Individual differences in sequence learning ability and SLA in early childhood and adulthood. Language Learning, 63, 665–703.Google Scholar
Granena, G. (2013b). Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning and the LLAMA Language Aptitude Test. In Granena, G. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Sensitive periods, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment (pp. 105–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, aptitude and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29, 311–343.Google Scholar
Hamrick, P., & Rebuschat, P. (2012). How implicit is statistical learning? In Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. N. (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Jiménez, L. (2002). Attention in probabilistic sequence learning. In Jiménez, L. (Ed.), Attention and implicit learning (pp. 43–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johnson, J., Prior, S., & Artuso, M. (2000). Field dependence as a factor in second language communicative production. Language Learning, 50, 529–567.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kuntsi, J., Eley, T., Taylor, A., Hughes, C., Asherson, P., Caspi, A., et al. (2004). Co-occurrence of ADHD and low IQ has genetic origins. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 124, 41–47.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. D. (2003). Reflective and reflexive judgment processes: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. In Forgas, J. P., Williams, K. R., & von Hippel, W. (Eds.), Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes (pp. 44–67). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linck, J., Hughes, M., Campbell, S., Silbert, N., Tare, M., Jackson, S., et al. (2013). Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency. Language Learning, 63, 530–566.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests. Swansea: Lognostics.Google Scholar
Misyak, J., & Christiansen, M. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62, 302–331.Google Scholar
Myers, I., McCaulley, M., Quenk, N., & Hammer, A. (1998). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers–Briggs type indicator (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 988–1010.Google Scholar
Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 972–987.Google Scholar
Pimsleur, P. (1966). Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB). New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Pretz, J., Totz, K., & Kaufman, S. (2010). The effects of mood, cognitive style, and cognitive ability on implicit learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 215–219.Google Scholar
Reber, A., Walkenfeld, F., & Hernstadt, R. (1991). Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 888–896.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63, 595–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, J., & Johnson, P. (1994). Assessing implicit learning with indirect tests: Determining what is learned about sequence structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 585–594.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning, 47, 45–99.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. (2002). Individual differences in intelligence, aptitude and working memory during adult incidental second language learning: A replication and extension of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991). In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 211–266). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Scovel, T. (2001). Learning new languages: A guide to second language acquisition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
Shamosh, N., DeYoung, C., Green, A., Reis, D., Johnson, M., Conway, A., et al. (2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: Relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 19, 904–911.Google Scholar
Shamosh, N., & Gray, J. (2007). Delay discounting and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 36, 289–305.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007a). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007b). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301–322). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In Cook, V. (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 81–94). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to learning language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700–712.Google Scholar
Tomblin, J., Mainela-Arnold, E., & Zhang, X. (2007). Procedural learning in adolescents with and without specific language impairment. Language Learning and Development, 3, 269–293.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 144–171). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, 37–69.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J. E., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the first-noun principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. Modern Language Journal, 97, 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 1–48.Google Scholar
Witkin, H. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Witteman, C., van den Bercken, J., Claes, L., & Godoy, A. (2009). Assessing rational and intuitive thinking styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 39–47.Google Scholar
Woltz, D. J. (2003). Implicit cognitive processes as aptitudes for learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 95–104.Google Scholar
Woolhouse, L., & Bayne, R. (2000). Personality and the use of intuition: Individual differences in strategy and performance on an implicit learning task. European Journal of Personality, 14, 157–169.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). Relative effects of explicit and implicit feedback: The role of working memory capacity and language analytic ability. Applied Linguistics, 34, 344–368.Google Scholar