{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02454642475987193, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016008537886872999, 'mean_word_length': 5.443298969072165, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Theoretical Note on Reflection-Impulsivity

The dimension of reflection-impulsivity has been one of the most intensively studied cognitive styles in developmental research ( I ) . In recent reviews (2, 3). some of the emerging methodological problems have been discussed. The controversies have focused on the relative importance of latencies vs errors on the Matching Familiar Figures Test and on the adequacy of dichotomizing subjects into groups. The critical aspect of the definition of a cognitive style is the distinction between abilities and the manner and form of cognitive performance (4) . The former refers to the traditional, product-oriented psychometric approach to individual differences, and the Ianer to the process-oriented cognitive style research. This statement is discrepant with the fact that reflection-impulsivity is measured by product variables, i.e., latencies and errors on the Matching Familiar Figures. I t has been shown that reflective and impulsive groups differ qualitatively at the process-level across various tasks. There is no reason to assume, however, that within the groups no qualitative process-level differences across tasks could not be found. Similar matching latency/error scores can in principle be achieved by qualitatively different strategies. For example, some reflective children might immediately start to diminish the number of alternatives while other reflective subjects might typically check all possible alternatives several times. These speculations could be tested by analyzing the problem-solving processes of reflective and impulsive subjects within groups, e.g., using eye-movement recordings during the matching test and other multiple-choice tasks. The present theoretical argument would be supported if qualitatively different, individual problem-solving strategies within groups and across tasks emerged.