Psychological Reports, 1995, 76, 623-626. O Psychological Reports 1995

A NEW MEASURE OF COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY '

MATTHEW M. MARTIN AND REBECCA B. RUBIN

Department of Communicotion Studies School of Communication Studies West Virginia University Kent Stale University

Summary.-This paper contains a description of a scale to measure cognitive Oex- ibllity. In Study 1, 247 participants completed the Cognitive Flexibility Scale, the Communication Flexibility Scale, and the Rigidity of Attitudes Regarding Personal Habits Scale. In Study 2 , 275 participants completed the Cognitive Flexibility Scale, the Interacuon Involvement Scale, the Self-monitoring Scale, and the Unw~llingness to Communicate Scale. Analysis showed the Cognitive Flexibility Scale to be internally reliable and supported its construct and concurrent validity.

Flexibhty is an integral component of competence in communication (3, 8, 15). Several researchers have developed measures for being flexible in social situations (8, 11); however, before indviduals can display flexibility, they must first be cognitively flexible (10). This report contains a description of a measure of cognitive flexibhty.

Cognitive flexibiht~ refers to a person's (a) awareness that in any given situation there are options and alternatives available, (b) willingness to be flexible and adapt to the situation, and (c) self-efficacy in being flexible. In any given situation, a person has a choice about how to behave.

Before they decide to adapt their behavior, people undergo processes of social cognition in which they become aware of choices and alternatives (13). People who can acknowledge possible adjustments based on situational fac- tors are more cognitively flexible than those who see only one proper or correct behavioral response. Cognitive flexibility also consists of a person's wihgness to be flexible. Lippard-Justice (7) argued that people's w h g - ness to be flexible is the best example of how intrapersonal responding af- fects the qu&ty of interpersonal communication. kchmond and McCroskey (12) claimed that an internal motivational state often influences whether people wdl become w i h g to communicate. Before people are w h g to make a change, they need a reason or motive to adapt or change. Cogni- tively flexible people are also confident of their own ability to behave effec- tively (2). Although people may be aware that there are alternative choices of behavior in a given situation and are also willing to be flexible, they also need to believe that these are self-efficacious in bringing out the desired behavior.

'Address enquiries to M. M. Martin, Department of Communication Studies, 130 Armstrong Hall, POB 6293, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6293.

624 M. M. MARTIN & R. B. RUBIN

A 12-item 6-point scale in Likert format, the Cognitive Flexibhty Scale, was constructed to tap the three components of cognitive flexibllity; see Table 1. Respondents (247 midwestern college students in an introductory communication course, 142 women, 105 men, M =20.2 yr., SD=2.9) com- pleted this scale, the 14-item Communication Flexibility Scale (8) which measures behavioral flexibhty, and the 20-item Rigidity of Attitudes Regard- ing Personal Habits Scale (9) which addresses opposition to adapting and intolerance of ambiguity. As expected, scores on cognitive flexibhty were positively related to ratings of communication flexibdity and negatively re- lated to rated rigidity. Scores on communication flexibllity were also nega- tively related to rated rigidity. There was no significant ddference between scores of women and men on cognitive flexibhty (t = 1.16, p > .05).

TABLE 1 COGNITIVE FLWBILITY SCALE: ITEMS AND RESPONSE FORMAT

lnstrucfions: The following statements deal with your beliefs and feelings about your own be- havior. Read each statement and respond by circling the number that best represents your agreement with each statement.

Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

1. I can communicate an idea in many different ways. 2. I avoid new and unusual situations. (R) 3. I feel like I never get to make decisions. (R) 4. I can find workable solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems. 5. I seldom have choices when deciding how to behave. (R) 6. I am willing to work at creative solutions to problems. 7. In any given situauon, I am able to act appropriately. 8. My behavior is a result of conscious decisions that I make. 9. I have many possible ways of behaving in any given situation.

10. I have d h c u l t y using my knowledge on a given topic in real life situations. (R) 11. I am willing to listen and consider alternatives for handling a problem. 12. I have the self-confidence necessarv to trv difFerent ways of behavinn.

Note.-Items marked (R) are reverse scored.

To test concurrent validity, a similar sample of 275 college students (158 women, 117 men, M =20.1 yr., SD=2.6) completed the Cognitive Flex- ibility Scale, Cegala's (6) 18-item Interaction Involvement Scale which mea- sures interpersonal attentiveness, perceptiveness, and responsiveness, a 20-item version (1) of Burgoon's (5 ) Unwillingness to Communicate Scale which measures avoidance and value of communication, and a 25-item version of Snyder's (14) Self-monitoring Scale which includes the three dunensions of Extraversion, Other-drectedness, and Acting (cf. 4).

As expected, scores on cognitive flexibility were positively correlated with those on the three dimensions of interaction involvement and the three

COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY 625

dimensions of self-monitoring, and negatively correlated with scores on the two dimensions of unwdhgness to communicate. Once again there was no difference by gender for scores on cognltlve flexibittty ( t= 1.78, p > .05).

TABLE 2 MEANS. STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND P ~ O N CORRELATIONS OF SCORES

ON COGNIT~VE FLEXIBILITY SCALE WITH OTHER MUSURES

Measures AU Respondents Women Men M S D r a M S D r M S D r

Study 1 (N=247) Cognitive Flexibility 54.1 6.9 .76 54.4 6.3 53.4 7.4 Rigidity 65.8 12.1 -.16* .81 65.5 12.8 -.13 66.2 11.1 -.20* Communication

Flexibhty Srudy 2 (N=275)

Cognitive Flexibility Attentiveness Responsiveness Perceptiveness Avoidance Reward Extraversion Acting Other-directedness

' p < .05.

To estimate the test-retest reliabhty, the Cognitive Flexibhty Scale was administered in two sessions one week apart to a sample of 50 students en- rolled in a communication course. The Pearson test-retest correlation be- tween the two administrations was .83.

Research findings show internal reliability and construct and concurrent validity for the Cognitive ~lexibhty ' Scale. If flexibility is an essential com- ponent of interpersonal communication competence as the literature sug- gests, researchers should focus on operationalizing and investigating this construct further.

REFERENCES

I. ARMSTRONG, C. B., & RUBIN, A. M. (1989) Talk radio as interpersonal communicarion. ]ourno/ of Communication, 39, 84-94.

2. BANDURA, k (1977) Self-efficacy: towards a unifymg theory of behavioral change. American Psychologist, 33, 344-358.

3. BOCHNER, A. I!, & KELLY. C. W. (1974) Interpersonal communication instruction-theory and practice, a symposium: I. Interpersonal com etence: rationale, philosophy, and implementation of a conceptual framework. Speech ohacher, 23. 279-301.

4. BRIGGS, S. R., CHEEK. J. M., &BUSS, A. H. (1980) An analysis of the Self-monitoring Scale. Journal o j Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679-686.

5. BURGOON, 1. K. (1976) Unwillingness to Communicate Scale: development and vddat ion. Central States Speech lournal, 28, 122- 133.

626 M. M. MARTIN & R. B. RUBIN

6. CEGALA, D. J. (1981) Interaction involvement: a cognitive dimension of communication competence. Communication Education, 30, 109-121.

7. LIPPARD-JUSTICE, I? (1989) The relationship between intrapersonal and interpersonal com- munication patterns. In C. V. Roberts, K. Watson, & L. L. Barker (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes: original essays. New Orleans, LA: SPECTRA. Pp. 444-455.

8. MARTIN, M. M., &RUBIN, R. B. (1994) Development of a Communication Flexibhty Scale. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 17 1- 178.

9. MERESKO, R., RUBIN, M., SHONTZ, F. C., &MORROW. W. R. (1954) Rigidity of attitudes re- garding personal habits and its ideological correlates. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 49, 89-93.

10. I'm. M. R. (1994) Communication competence and interpersonal control. In M. L. . Knap & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: gage. Pp. 589-620.

11. PAULHUS, D. L., &MARTIN, C. L. (1988) Functional flexibility: a new conception of inter- personal flexib~lit~. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88-101.

12. RICHMOND, V. I?, & MCCROSKEY, J. C. (1989) W h ness to communicate and dysfunc- cional communication processes. In C. V. Roberts, a. Watson, & L. L. Barker (Eds.), Intrapersonal commrinication processes: orjg~nal essays. New Orleans, LA: SPECTRA. Pp. 292-318.

13. ROLOFF, M. E., &BERGER, C. R (1982) Social cognition and communication: an introduc- tion. In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Sonal cognition and communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pp. 9-32.

14. SNYDER, M. (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and So&l Psychology, 30, 526-537.

15. WIEMANN, J. M. (1977) Explication and rest of a model of communication competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213.

Accepted March 7, 1995.