Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pontius, A. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Spatial Representation, Modified by Ecology

From Hunter-Gatherers to City Dwellers in Indonesia

Anneliese A. Pontius

Harvard Medical School

Performance with the Kohs Block Design and Face Drawing Tests were assessed in two ecologically distinct groups of healthy Indonesians: 196 urbanized subjects and 130 near "hunter-gatherers" (Dani and Asmat from inland West New Guinea). Analysis of subjects' error patterns on the block design construction tasks revealed disproportionally and significantly higher percentages of "nonrandom" configuration-preserving errors by Dani and Asmat subjects (22.18%) than by urbanized subjects, whose errors were fewer but significantly more random and unrelated to the target design. Relations, ratios, and orientation among features within a design pattern tended to be neglected by the Dani and Asmat but rarely by the urbanized subjects (9.78%). On the face drawing task, 81% of Asmat and Dani subjects drew schematized versions (the "neolithic" face pattern), whereas only 39% of urbanized subjects did so. Results suggest that the impact of ecological context on neuropsychologic functioning is profound, influencing even basic visuospatial cognitive processing.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, 399-413 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0022022193244002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyHome page
A. A. Pontius
No Gender Difference in Spatial Representation by Schoolchildren in Northwest Pakistan
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, November 1, 1997; 28(6): 779 - 786.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Culture PsychologyHome page
J. W. Berry
The Descendants of a Model: Comments on Jahoda (1995)
Culture Psychology, September 1, 1995; 1(3): 373 - 380.
[Abstract]