1. Introduction: Individual differences

While the people who make up a film's audience certainly share some characteristics (for example, a preference for a film genre, for a particular director and/or performer, or for a particular theme), they undoubtedly show, as in any other area of experience, individual differences. Viewers differ more or less markedly in their previous knowledge of the film genre, their personal experiences and their beliefs and attitudes - all elements that influence expectations, reactions and judgments about the film.

Individual differences, however, are also a fascinating field of exploration with respect to the concept of personality. After all, what makes people unique individuals depends on a variety of factors, some of which are biological and innate, while others are the result of the experiences we have gone through since the day we were born, including our socialization processes in the context of our culture. The "innate" and the "learned" are not two separate domains, but are inextricably linked in forging our special way of being unique (though this should not make us forget what makes individuals similar to each other).

Individual differences can be described and have been studied with reference to a variety of concepts (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

People are different in terms of a range of variables, from the basic biological facts of age and sex to more subtle psychological constructs like aptitudes, motivations, beliefs and attitudes to sociocultural aspects like social/economic background and ethnic origin. As can be seen, this "map" includes terms which could be considered of a more general nature: personality, for instance, could justifiably be meant to include some or most of the other variables. However, there are two classes of variables which, while still very much identifiable as descriptors of personality, deserve to be dealt with in more detail since they are not so often taken into consideration: learning styles and (multiple) intelligences. The present work concentrates on these two basic constructs, while most of the other ones appearing in Fig. 1 are explored, in relation to cinema audiences and their movie preferences, in another paper (Note 1). Styles and intelligences have never been used in the exploration of movie preferences (neither in terms of how styles and intelligences can predict individual movie preferences nor in terms of what movie preferences can tells us about viewers' styles and intelligences) and this paper is meant to provide some preliminary observations as well as to point to some possible pathways for future research.

2. "Learning", "thinking", "cognitive" styles

A word of warning about the nature of "styles" is in order, since various terms are used in the literature, sometimes with partially overlapping meanings. The term "learning style" is perhaps the most general one, and it refers to the different ways in which people perceive and process information. Although "learning" could be used to describe any kind of information processing (i.e. most, if not all, of our mental activity), learning styles have mostly been studied in relation to pedagogical contexts, as descriptors of how learners (in the stricter sense of "students") approach tasks in a more or less formal educational situation. In this wider sense, learning styles have sometimes been made to include, not just cognitive/thinking styles, but other measures of individual differences impacting on learning. Thus, for example, people have been found to differ in their preferences for sensory modalities (some may be more visual, some more auditory, still others may prefer a kinesthetic approach, i.e. based on the use of the body and its movements); and people also show different social attitudes (e.g. being more or less introverts rather than extroverts).

In most other cases, though, styles have been explored in relation to the individual ways of processing information - i.e. as thinking styles, or, by reference to the workings of the human mind, as cognitive styles. Boscolo (1981: 68) defines a thinking style as “A way of processing information which the subject adopts predominantly, which is consistent over time and extends to different tasks”. This definition points to the prevailing (thus not exclusive) way of information processing, to its stable nature (which could even be taken as a personality trait) and to its use in a variety of tasks and contexts.

Cognitive styles refer to the typical ways each individual processes information in his or her mind - summarizing in the term "process" a series of operations variously described as acquiring, storing, retrieving, and reusing information. In this cognitive perspective, which considers the person actively involved in processing new information (information which in turn functions as a catalyst for continuous restructuring of knowledge), cognitive styles emphasize the different ways in which this restructuring can take place in the mind.

Most of the models proposed to describe cognitive styles are based on bipolar oppositions in which two terms are assumed to be the extremes of an ideal continuum on which individual people actually position themselves: one of the classic models of cognitive styles had been proposed in the 1940s, i.e. the opposition field dependent vs field/independent(Note 2). While those who are field dependent have more difficulty and/or take longer to separate a figure from the context in which it appears, those who are field independent can perceive elements as more or less separate from the surrounding context more easily and quickly: this has led to the hypothesis that there could be people "who see the forest but not the trees", and vice versa, with obvious consequences for a more global rather than analytical processing of information. Thus some people may tend towards an analytical style: they prefer to start from the parts to get to the whole, like to consider details, reason logically, willingly focus on the differences between things. Others, on the other hand, may tend towards a global style: they start from an overall vision and from the general context, organize the information more simultaneously, find it easy to make a synthesis, focus more willingly on the similarities between things.

Other distinctions, however, have been explored. For example, people also differ in their tendency towards reflectivity: more reflective people carefully consider facts and possible options, make more objective judgments, require longer processing times. Others are more impulsive: they make decisions based on sensations and essential information, prefer to provide more immediate answers, make more subjective judgments. And again, some people can be more systematic: they organize information in a linear, sequential and cumulative way, don't like excessive or too varied inputs, are activated even by low intensity stimuli. Others, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive: they love even complex and simultaneous inputs, are activated by more intense stimuli, which they manage in real time. Finally, there are people who are more cautious, who tolerate less risks and the ambiguity of situations, compared to others who are more willing to take risks and who tolerate any ambiguity of contexts better. (Notice that the tolerance of ambiguity construct points to important connections between purely cognitive descriptors and a wider affective dimension.)

There is no general theory of thinking/cognitive styles, as investigations over the years have focussed on various dimensions of styles, only partially correlated with each other (Note 3). It is therefore not easy to hypothesize direct correlations between dimensions of cognitive styles: in other words, a certain caution is needed in directly and automatically associating, for example, analytical/systematic/reflective, on the one hand, and global/intuitive/impulsive on the other, even if we could intuitively suppose that a person with an analytical tendency may also exhibit traits of a person with a systematic and/or reflective tendency (Note 4) (Note 5)

3. Some important considerations

The terms we have used to identify individual differences in thinking styles are absolutely neutral: there are no "better" or "worse" styles, let alone "ideal" styles. In fact, all styles can be effective depending on the situations, the contexts, the type of task one has to carry out. And knowing how to use different styles, that is, being more flexible in the ways of processing information, can in many cases be advantageous.

Not all people show extreme thinking styles: it is not common to find people who are extremely analytical, or, on the contrary, extremely global. Indeed, many tend to be in an intermediate position between the extremes we have identified above, or to be more balanced than others. It is important to recognize the uniqueness of each profile of thinking styles: each person is in fact the bearer of personality dimensions that make him a unique individual.

Becoming more aware of one's thinking styles, as well as other dimensions of one's personality, can enable us to get to know ourselves better, to understand the reasons for some of our choices and behaviours, to identify our strengths and weaknesses. This self-knowledge allows us to respond less automatically and more consciously to the problems and challenges we face, increasing our flexibility and our resilience.

4. Can movie preferences help us to learn more about our thinking styles? An experimental questionnaire

Cinematic habits and attitudes, just like any other area of activity, can be a source of information about an individual profile of thinking styles. Just as personality traits, needs/motivations and beliefs/attitudes can affect the uses we can put a film to (with particular reference to the choice of particular film genres)(Note 6), our preferences in choosing a film, our reactions during viewing and our interpretations and evaluations after viewing can point to individual differences in terms of our own personal cluster of thinking styles.

A preliminary experimental questionnaire is offered below as a first step in surveying an area which has so far received no attention in the discussion of how movie preferences and individual differences interact. The questionnaire is structured in three parts. Part 1 is a collection of personal data on movie preferences, based on the responses to 40 items ("statements") that describe ways of interacting with and reacting to the cinematic experience. Part 2 is the data processing stage, linking the given responses to four continua of thinking styles dimensions (analytical vs global, reflective vs impulsive, systematic vs intuitive, and tolerant vs intolerant of ambiguity and risk). Finally, Part 3 asks the respondents to evaluate the results of the questionnaire by relating them to their own perceptions and opinions, thus inviting them to use such results not as ultimate answers but as a starting point for further reflection and discussion. This final part is important as the questionnaire is conceived as a springboard to a progressively more finely tuned description of one's own personal profile.

N.B. To answer the questionnaire you can use a pdf version that you can download and/or print here.

QUESTIONNAIRE ON MOVIE PREFERENCES AND THINKING STYLES

The following questionnaire will explore our thinking styles, i.e. the ways in which we process information in our minds. These styles vary from person to person to a greater or lesser extent, and have important consequences for the decisions we make and the ways we behave.

Some people may tend towards an analytical style: they prefer to start from the parts to get to the whole, like to consider details, reason logically, willingly focus on the differences between things. Others, on the other hand, may tend towards a global style: they start from an overall vision and from the general context, organize the information more simultaneously, find it easy to make a synthesis, focus more willingly on the similarities between things.

People also differ in their tendency towards reflectivity: more reflective people carefully consider facts and possible options, make more objective judgments, require longer processing times. Others are more impulsive: they make decisions based on sensations and essential information, prefer to provide more immediate answers, make more subjective judgments.

And again, some can be more systematic: they organize information in a linear, sequential and cumulative way, don't like excessive or too varied inputs, are activated even by low intensity stimuli. Others, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive: they love even complex and simultaneous inputs, are activated by more intense stimuli, which they manage in real time.

Finally, there are people who are more cautious, who tolerate less risks and the ambiguity of situations, compared to others who are more willing to take risks and who tolerate any ambiguity of contexts better.

Cinematic habits and attitudes, just like any other area of activity, can be a source of information about an individual profile of thinking styles. Keep in mind that any questionnaire of this type can only give you a general indication of your profile and should not be taken as a rigid and definitive "portrait" of some dimension of your personality - in other words, not a point of arrival but a starting point for further explorations. At the end of the questionnaire you will therefore be asked to observe the results critically and to use your knowledge of your behaviours, habits, attitudes, etc., to change or refine what appears to be your own personal profile. Sharing and discussing the questionnaire and its results with others is also highly recommended.

Choose the answer that best represents you. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers!

PART 1

Decide how each of the following statements applies to you personally. Circle the number in the appropriate column.

PART 2

For each statement fill in one or two squares depending on your answers, always starting from the centre. Don't fill in any squares if you chose "0" as an answer.

For example:

- if for the analytical style in statement 12 you have circled number 1, fill in the first square on the relevant line.

- if for the global style in statement 6 you have circled number 2, fill in the first two squares on the relevant line.

PART 3

Think about the results and, if you can, discuss them with someone: do you agree with the results of the questionnaire?

□ YES, because (give examples of your behaviors, habits, preferences, attitudes ...)
...……………………………………………………………….…………………………………..................................

□ NO, because (give examples of your behaviors, habits, preferences, attitudes ...)
..…………………….………………………………………………………………………………..……………............

□ Did you find this questionnaire useful? Do you think you have discovered something new or interesting?

............................................................................................................................................................................

5. Multiple intelligences

A particular way of describing individual differences takes into account the concept of intelligence. Intelligence has often been considered (and is still very much is) as

• innate, i.e. something "given" at birth, and therefore not subject to the influences of cultural contexts;

• stable, i.e. unchangeable through time;

• general, i.e. made up of just one single factor which remains basically the same when applied to different domains;

• measurable, i.e. quantifiable on the basis of tests (the well-known IQ (or "intelligence quotient"), which refers to the "norm" or the "average" level of a population, usually assigned the value of 100 - implying that people are more or less intelligent than the "average" if they score, respectively, more or less than 100 on an intelligence test).

This "traditional" view of intelligence has been severely criticized in the past few decades, and other concepts of "intelligence" have been put forward. The most famous of the "new" models is probably due to psychologist Howard Gardner (1983, 1999), who rejects intelligence as a single factor and identifies a number of different intelligences. According to this view, each individual carries a different combination of intelligences, which are not just the result of inborn, genetic potential, but are also affected by the cultural contexts in which people grow up - different cultures may value different intelligences and thus affect the individual "profile" of each of their members.

Gardner has identified a number of intelligences, which are best described in his own words (Note 7):

• Linguistic intelligence is the capacity to use language, your native language, and perhaps other languages, to express what's on your mind and to understand other people. Poets really specialize in linguistic intelligence, but any kind of writer, orator, speaker, lawyer, or a person for whom language is an important stock in trade highlights linguistic intelligence.
• People with a highly developed logical-mathematical intelligence understand the underlying principles of some kind of a causal system, the way a scientist or a logician does; or can manipulate numbers, quantities, and operations, the way a mathematician does.
• Spatial intelligence refers to the ability to represent the spatial world internally in your mind - the way a sailor or airplane pilot navigates the large spatial world, or the way a chess player or sculptor represents a more circumscribed spatial world. Spatial intelligence can be used in the arts or in the sciences. If you are spatially intelligent and oriented toward the arts, you are more likely to become a painter or a sculptor or an architect than, say, a musician or a writer. Similarly, certain sciences like anatomy or topology emphasize spatial intelligence.
• Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to use your whole body or parts of your body—your hand, your fingers, your arms—to solve a problem, make something, or put on some kind of a production. The most evident examples are people in athletics or the performing arts, particularly dance or acting.
• Musical intelligence is the capacity to think in music, to be able to hear patterns, recognize them, remember them, and perhaps manipulate them. People who have a strong musical intelligence don't just remember music easily—they can't get it out of their minds, it's so omnipresent. Now, some people will say, "Yes, music is important, but it's a talent, not an intelligence." And I say, "Fine, let's call it a talent." But, then we have to leave the word intelligent out of all discussions of human abilities. You know, Mozart was damned smart!
• Interpersonal intelligence is understanding other people. It's an ability we all need, but is at a premium if you are a teacher, clinician, salesperson, or politician. Anybody who deals with other people has to be skilled in the interpersonal sphere.
• Intrapersonal intelligence refers to having an understanding of yourself, of knowing who you are, what you can do, what you want to do, how you react to things, which things to avoid, and which things to gravitate toward. We are drawn to people who have a good understanding of themselves because those people tend not to screw up. They tend to know what they can do. They tend to know what they can't do. And they tend to know where to go if they need help.
• Naturalist intelligence designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations). This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef. I also speculate that much of our consumer society exploits the naturalist intelligences, which can be mobilized in the discrimination among cars, sneakers, kinds of makeup, and the like. The kind of pattern recognition valued in certain of the sciences may also draw upon naturalist intelligence.

So each person carries a different "combination" of intelligences - note that the following image (Fig. 2 - Note 8) gives "equal weight" to all intelligences, but this is clearly a theoretical illustration - the "pie" for each individual would show a unique combination.

Fig. 2

From this perspective, the evaluation of intelligence (or intelligences) should answer, more than the question "How intelligent are you?", the much more stimulating and productive question, "How intelligent are you?"

As was done with thinking styles, a preliminary experimental questionnaire is offered below as a first step in surveying how movie preferences can offer an insight into an individual's personal and unique cluster of intelligences. Like the questionnaire on thinking styles, the one below is structured in three parts. Part 1 is a collection of personal data on movie preferences, based on the responses to 64 items ("statements") that describe ways of interacting with and reacting to the cinematic experience. Part 2 is the data processing stage, linking the given responses to the eight kinds of intelligence described by Gardner. Finally, Part 3 asks the respondents to evaluate the results of the questionnaire by relating them to their own perceptions and opinions, thus inviting them to use such results as a starting point for further reflection and discussion. Once again, this final part is important as the questionnaire is conceived as a springboard to a progressively more finely tuned description of one's own personal profile.

N.B. To answer the questionnaire you can use a pdf version which you can download and/or print here.

QUESTIONNAIRE ON MOVIE PREFERENCES AND MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES

It has been argued that intelligence is not a general factor but rather a combination of different intelligences, each of them applying to different areas of human experience. Psychologist Howard Gardner has described such intelligences in the following way:

Our "movie watching" habits, just like any other area of activity, can be a source of information about our own "intelligence pie". The following questionnaire will help you do just this. Please note that any such a questionnaire can only give you a general indication of your own profile - it should not be taken as a rigid, definitive "portrait" of your intelligences or your personality. This is why, at the end of the questionnaire, you will be asked to look at the results in a critical way and to use your knowledge of your behaviours, habits, attitudes, etc., to change or better refine what appears to be your own personal profile. Sharing and discussing the questionnaire and its results with others is also highly recommended.

Choose the answer that you feel most comfortable with. There are no right or wrong answers!

PART 1

Decide how each of the following statements applies to you personally. Circle the number in the appropriate column.

PART 2

For each statement fill in one or two square(s) according to your answer, starting on each line from the first square on the left. Do not fill in any squares if your answer is “0”.

For example, if for the linguistic intelligence in statement No. 3 you circled “2”, fill in the first two squares:

PART 3

Look at the table above: do you agree with your results?

□ YES, because (try to mention any of your behaviours, habits, preferences …)

..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

and/or

□ NO, because (try to mention any of your behaviours, habits, preferences …)

..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………