Field differentiation, that is, the influence of differences in the external environment on a person’s decision-making, can be described in terms of “field dependence—field independence.” Initially, field dependence was understood as a function of differentiation of perception or as an analytical (global way of perception), field-dependent people perceive stimulation of perception as a whole, without isolating its parts. In recent years, the interpretation of this phenomenon has become somewhat more complicated. Field independence began to be understood as the ability of a subject to overcome the influence of context, or to depend on the stimulus field, or as the ability of the subject to focus on his own sensations, and not on the context of presentation of stimulation (if one roughly focuses on the coordinates of his body or on external conditions). It is measured using methods developed by G. Vitkin and his colleagues: the “built-in figures” test, the “rod and frame” test, etc. People with field dependence are much more socially effective. In contrast, people with field independence are much more intellectually effective. Therefore, field-dependent people in the learning process are more dependent on negative external reinforcement. Non-field dependent people depend more on internal motivation. In general, academic performance is higher among people who are field independent; they have a stronger tendency to choose the most rational strategies for memorizing and reproducing material; generalization and transfer of knowledge occur more clearly. According to Witkin and Goodenow, field-dependent individuals who, in general, rely more on external circumstances are much more socially oriented. They are more likely to be attentive to social influences, susceptible to social sources of information, sensitive to other people, and usually maintain a shorter physical distance when communicating in real life. Field dependent people rely on the help and support of others. It is much easier for them to answer questions when they hear approving assessments of their answers. They prefer collective forms of action; in the presence of other people, they improve their performance. Since these people are much more interpersonally oriented, they can receive much more information in the process of communicating with others, participate less in conflicts, and tend to change their views in accordance with the position of authorities. On the other hand, the ability of field-dependent individuals to resort to the opinions of others can be perceived as a necessity, a need to search for information in order to use the latter in structuring an uncertain situation, because they are less able to do this themselves. That is, for a person with field dependence, another object becomes both a storehouse of information and a method, an instrument for processing it, which is why they need all their socially useful qualities. Thus, the social effectiveness of field-dependent individuals can serve as compensation for their weak competence in cognition. M.A. Kholodnaya reports that according to some data, the reason for field dependence/independence may lie in differences in the functioning of the cerebral hemispheres. According to her data, field independence implies greater severity of cerebral lateralization, more on the part of the left hemisphere. Field-independent people are based on the analysis of details, the reason for which is the dominance of the left hemisphere, and field-dependent people use a globally holistic approach to solving a problem, which involves more work of the right hemisphere. Some authors report greater interest in the right hemisphere in the information processing style of field-independent people. Greater integration of interhemispheric functioning has been reported in field-independent individuals. Some authors associate the individual differentiation of field-dependent and field-independent people with the formation of control strategies, which should be responsible for inhibiting the influence of the visible field or, alternatively,.