Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Thinking styles and the big five personality traits revisited
Li-fang Zhang *
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
Received 15 August 2005; received in revised form 10 October 2005; accepted 11 October 2005
Available online 31 January 2006
Abstract
This article had two objectives. The first was to further explore the utility of measuring intellectual styles
(a general term encompassing such style constructs as cognitive, learning, and thinking styles) in addition to
measuring personality. The second was to verify Sternberg’s (1988) claim that the theory of mental self-gov-
ernment is applicable to non-academic settings as well as to academic settings. The Thinking Styles Inven-
tory (Sternberg & Wagner, 1992) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) were
administered to 199 parents of secondary school students in mainland China. Findings suggest that it is
meaningful to investigate intellectual styles in addition to examining personality. In addition, results sup-
ported Sternberg’s assertion regarding the validity of the theory of mental self-government in both aca-
demic and non-academic settings.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Thinking styles; Personality traits
1. Introduction
Intellectual styles refer to people’s preferences in using their abilities (Sternberg, 1988, 1997).
Motivated by the repeated research finding that ability and personality do not tell the whole story
about human performance, scholars have been using intellectual styles as an additional factor to
explain variations in human performance for more than half a century. The argument about the
* Tel./fax: +852 2859 2522.
E-mail address: ifzhang@hkucc.hku.hk
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.011

---

1178
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
utility of studying intellectual styles in addition to investigating personality has as long a history
as does the field of intellectual styles. In trying to resolving this argument, scholars have engaged
in examining the relationship between personality and intellectual styles at both the conceptual
level (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Eysenck, 1978; Messick,
1996) and the empirical level (e.g., Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 1999; Furnham, Jackson,
& Miller, 1999; Jackson & Lawty-Jones, 1996; Riding & Wigley, 1997).
In the realm of empirical research, two different conclusions have been drawn regarding the
necessity of assessing styles. Some scholars (e.g., Busato et al., 1999; Riding & Wigley, 1997) have
concluded that although there was some systematic overlap between intellectual styles and person-
ality, it certainly makes sense to mention intellectual styles and personality separately in educa-
tional settings. Conversely, other scholars (e.g., Furnham et al., 1999; Jackson & Lawty-Jones,
1996) argued that since cognitive/learning style is a sub-set of personality, there is no need to mea-
sure intellectual styles independently, unless intellectual style is of interest in its own right.
In an attempt to join the debate, Zhang and her colleague (Zhang, 2002a, 2002b; Zhang &
Huang, 2001) investigated the relationships between thinking styles as defined in Sternberg’s
(1988, 1997) theory of mental self-government and the big five personality traits (Costa & McC-
rae, 1985, 1992). These studies concluded consistently that although significant relationships were
identified between thinking styles and personality traits, it is premature to claim that a personality
measure such as the NEO Five-Factor Inventory can be used to measure thinking styles. One lim-
itation with the studies of Zhang and her colleague is that they were conducted on the university
student population. Accordingly, it is pertinent to enquire whether the same conclusion would be
reached if the study were replicated in a sample from a non-academic setting. The primary aim of
the current study is to explore the relationships between thinking styles and personality traits in a
typically non-academic section of the population.
1.1. Sternberg’s theory of mental self-government
Using the word ‘‘government’’ metaphorically, Sternberg contended that just as there are dif-
ferent ways of governing a society, there are different ways that people use their abilities. These
preferred ways of using one’s abilities are construed as ‘‘thinking styles.’’ According to Sternberg,
there are 13 thinking styles which fall along 5 dimensions: (1) functions (including the legislative,
executive, and judicial styles), (2) forms (hierarchical, monarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic styles),
(3) levels (global and local styles), (4) scopes (internal and external styles), and (5) leanings (liberal
and conservative styles). These 13 styles have been reconceptualized into three types based on
empirical data (e.g., Zhang & Sternberg, 2005), and the following introduces the three types of
styles. Meanwhile, one characteristic for each of the 13 styles can be found in the bracket next
to each corresponding style.
Type I thinking styles are the ones that tend to be more creativity-generating and that denote
higher levels of cognitive complexity, including the legislative (being creative), judicial (evaluative
of other people or products), hierarchical (prioritizing one’s tasks), global (focusing on the wholis-
tic picture), and liberal (taking a new approach to tasks) styles. Type II thinking styles are styles
that suggest a norm-favoring tendency and that denote lower levels of cognitive complexity, includ-
ing the executive (implementing tasks with given orders), local (focusing on details), monarchic
(working on one task at a time), and conservative (using traditional approaches to tasks) styles.

---

L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
1179
The anarchic (working on whatever tasks that come along), oligarchic (working on multiple
tasks with no priority), internal (working on one’s own), and external (working with others) styles
are Type III styles. They may manifest the characteristics of the styles from both Type I and Type
II groups, depending on the stylistic demands of a specific task. For example, one could use the
anarchic style in a sophisticated way (characteristic of Type I styles)—such as dealing with differ-
ent tasks as they arise, but without losing one’s sight of the whole picture of the central issue. By
contrast, one also could use the anarchic style in a more simple-minded way (characteristic of
Type II styles)—such as dealing with tasks as they come along without knowing how each task
contributes to his/her ultimate goal.
According to Sternberg, the thinking style construct is a broad intellectual style construct. As
such, his theory of mental self-government applies to both academic and non-academic settings.
Since its publication in 1988, the theory has guided much research in academic settings in sev-
eral cultures, including Hong Kong, mainland China, India, the Philippines, and the United States
(e.g., Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng, 2002; Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1997). Much empirical
evidence has supported both internal and external validity of the theory when tested among pop-
ulations in academic settings (e.g., Zhang & Sternberg, 2005; Verma, 2001). However, in non-
academic settings, only internal validity of the theory has been obtained (Hommerding, 2003;
Zhang, 2005). The second aim of the present study was to investigate the external validity of
the theory by testing the thinking style construct against personality traits. External validity of
the theory would further support Sternberg’s argument that the theory of mental self-government
is applicable to both academic and non-academic settings.
1.2. The big five personality traits
Neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are
known as the big five personality traits in psychology. The five-factor personality traits model
(FFM) resulted from several decades of factor analytic research focusing on trait personality
(see Antonioni, 1998). The FFM has piqued the interest of many personality psychologists,
and indeed the work of Costa and McCrae (1985, 1992) is one of the most noteworthy. They de-
scribe the five personality traits as follows:
Neuroticism (N) is the opposite of emotional stability. People high on the N scale tend to expe-
rience such negative feelings as emotional instability, embarrassment, guilt, pessimism, and low
self-esteem. People scoring high on the extraversion (E) scale tend to be sociable and assertive,
and they prefer to work with other people. Openness to experience (O) is characterized by such
attributes as open-mindedness, active imagination, preference for variety, and independence of
judgment. People high on the agreeableness (A) scale tend to be tolerant, trusting, accepting,
and they value and respect other people’s beliefs and conventions. Finally, people high on the con-
scientiousness (C) scale tend to distinguish themselves for their trustworthiness and their sense of
purposefulness and of responsibility. They tend to be strong-willed, task-focused, and achieve-
ment-oriented.
The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI, Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992) measures the five per-
sonality traits. According to Taylor and MacDonald’s (1999) review, the NEO-PI has not only
demonstrated good psychometric properties, but also been successful in accommodating
constructs that are already measured by existing tests of personality traits, for example, the

---

1180
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Briggs & Myers, 1987). Furthermore, the NEO-PI also has been
proved to be related to the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964) which is
one of the most widely used psychometric tools in research on personality. Moreover, the
NEO-PI has been successfully used in investigating the relationships of personality to other
important variables, including creativity and divergent thinking (e.g., McCrae, 1987) and achieve-
ment motivation (e.g., Busato et al., 1999). A brief version of the NEO Personality Inventory is
the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) that also has been successful in reliably
measuring the five personality dimensions (e.g., Courneya & Hellsten, 1998; Saucier, 1998).
1.3. The present research
The present research aimed at cross-validating the research findings obtained from university
students regarding the relationships between thinking styles and the big five personality traits
in a non-academic research sample. In previous research (Zhang, 2002a, 2002b; Zhang & Huang,
2001), predictable patterns of relationships have been found between specific scales in the two
inventories. For example, in all three studies, the openness personality trait is positively related
to Type I styles, while neuroticism is positively associated with Type II styles. The conscientious-
ness trait tends to be positively related to the majority of styles, whereas the agreeableness trait
tends to be negatively related to most styles. Finally, the extraversion trait tends to be positively
related to Type I styles and the external style, but negatively related to the internal style. The pres-
ent study intends to find out if similar results can be found in a non-academic sample. Such find-
ings would not only provide an answer to the question about the need for studying intellectual
styles in addition to examining personality traits, but also make available initial external validity
of the theory of mental self-government in a non-academic sample.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Research participants were parents of 199 secondary school students in Hangzhou, the People’s
Republic of China. Among these parents, 111 were fathers and 88 were mothers. The mean age
was 46 years, ranging from 40 to 59 years. Regarding the educational levels of the parents,
84% held a senior high school diploma or below, while the remaining 16% earned either a
Bachelor’s degree or a postgraduate degree. Furthermore, the participants’ occupations varied
from homemakers to government officials, and from artists to lawyers, totaling 71 different job
titles.
2.2. Procedure
Research participants were recruited through teachers in a secondary school. Six teachers had
199 students take home the questionnaires and a consent form (in which the purpose of the study
was also explained) to their parents. All parents approached agreed to participate in the research
and completed the questionnaires at home. All questionnaires were returned (again, through

---

L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
1181
students) one week after the questionnaires were distributed. Data from all 199 completed ques-
tionnaires were included for statistical analyses.
2.3. Measures
Apart from providing demographic information, the participants responded to two inventories.
The first is the Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI, Sternberg & Wagner, 1992), and the second is the
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1992).
2.3.1. Thinking Styles Inventory
The TSI is a 65-statement self-report inventory. It contains 13 scales, each corresponding to a
thinking style in Sternberg’s theory. Each of the five items in a scale is a statement that allows
respondents to rate themselves on a 7-point scale from 1 to 7, with 1 indicating that the statement
does not at all describe the way they normally carry out their tasks, and 7 denoting that the state-
ment characterizes extremely well the way they normally carry out tasks. Because no significant
relationship was predicted of the oligarchic and anarchic thinking styles to any of the five person-
ality traits, data on these two styles were not collected. The present study employed a Chinese ver-
sion of the inventory that was translated and back-translated between Chinese and English.
The Thinking Styles Inventory has been successful in obtaining good reliability data. Generally,
the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the 13 scales range from the mid .50s to the mid .80s, with
the majority of them being in the mid to upper .70s. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cients are .65 (legislative), .60 (executive), .77 (judicial), .59 (global), .48 (local), .80 (liberal), .68
(conservative), .80 (hierarchical), .59 (monarchic), .61 (internal), and .71 (external). The magni-
tude of these alpha coefficients is somewhat smaller than that in previous studies. Given the het-
erogeneity of both the research participants and the contents of the items in each scale, these alpha
coefficients were considered acceptable for further data analyses.
Internal validity of the inventory was obtained through a principal component factor analysis
with a direct Oblimin rotation. Four factors accounted for 73% of the variance in the data. The
first factor had high loadings on Type I styles (legislative, liberal, and judicial). The second factor
was dominated by Type II styles (executive, conservative, and monarchic). The third factor con-
trasted the two levels of mental self-government (global versus local). Finally, the fourth factor
contrasted the two scopes of mental self-government (internal versus external). These factorial re-
sults simultaneously supported Sternberg’s dimensions of thinking styles and Zhang and Stern-
berg’s notion of three types of thinking styles.
2.3.2. NEO Five-Factor Inventory
Composed of 60 statements, the NEO FFI is a brief measure of the five personality dimensions.
Each of the five dimensions is assessed by 12 statements. For each item, the participants rated
themselves on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4 (or from 4 to 0), with verbal anchors of strongly
disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The statements are scored in both directions.
The total score for each personality dimension is the summed score from the 12 statements of each
scale.
Reliability and validity data for the NEO-FFI are reported in the NEO PI-R Professional Man-
ual (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The present study used a Chinese version of the inventory. In the

---

1182
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
present study, the reliability estimates are .77, .69, .48, .68, and .74, respectively for the neuroti-
cism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness personality dimensions.
It should be pointed out that the alpha coefficient of the openness scale is noticeably lower than
the one reported in the NEO-FFI manual. Moreover, this lower alpha coefficient is consistent
with those obtained in the three studies conducted among Hong Kong and mainland Chinese stu-
dents. This consistent lower alpha coefficient for the openness scale in two different Chinese con-
texts may be explained in at least two ways. First, the openness personality trait might be defined
differently in Chinese cultures than it is in Western cultures. Second, the translations of the items
in the openness scale may not be faithful enough to the original meanings of the items in English.
Further revision of the openness scale needs to be made to increase the scale’s reliability in Chi-
nese contexts.
2.4. Data analysis
Preliminary statistical procedures were employed to examine possible significant group differ-
ences based on age, gender, and educational level. Results revealed significant group differences
in particular personality traits and thinking styles based on gender and educational level, but
not on age. Female participants scored higher on the agreeableness and conscientiousness scales
than did their male counterparts. Participants with higher educational levels scored higher on the
judicial, global, and liberal thinking styles, but lower on the neuroticism scale than did partici-
pants with lower educational levels. To eliminate the effects of gender and educational level, when
testing the predictive power of personality traits for thinking styles, we controlled gender and edu-
cational level by forcing the two variables into the regression models before the personality trait
scales were put in for analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Multiple-regression analysis
Results from hierarchical multiple-regression procedures indicated that each of the 11 thinking
style scales was significantly predicted by particular personality dimensions. The unique contribu-
tions of personality traits to thinking styles can be identified through the multiple R2Personality Traits
values resulting from each regression procedure. These multiple R2
values ranged from
Personality Traits
.03 (neuroticism contributing to the conservative style) to .32 (extraversion, conscientiousness,
and openness contributing to the external style). The nature of the prediction of thinking styles
from personality dimensions are shown by the b weight(s) for each significant predictive relation-
ship. For each thinking style, the number of personality traits proving to be significant predic-
tor(s) varied from 1 to 3 scales. For example, the executive, global, conservative, and
hierarchical styles were predicted by one of personality traits, respectively, while the judicial, local,
and external styles were predicted by three of the personality traits respectively. A summary of
these results is presented in Table 1.
These results are strikingly similar to those obtained in the previous studies conducted among
university students (Zhang, 2002a, 2002b; Zhang & Huang, 2001). For example, as in all previous

---

L.-f.
Zhang
Table 1
Predicting thinking styles from personality traits, with gender and education controlled (N = 199)
/
Personality
Thinking styles
Legislative
Executive
Judicial
Global
Local
Liberal
Conservative
Internal
External
Hierarchical
Monarchic
R2
.16
.13
.27
.08
.15
.23
.04
.09
.33
.26
.15
Total
R2
.00
.01
.07
.04
.01
.02
.01
.01
.01
.01
.00
GenderþEducation
R2
.16
.12
.20
.04
.14
.21
.03
.08
.32
.25
.15
and
Personality Traits
F
7.15***
7.61***
11.08***
4.42**
5.45***
11.21***
2.23
3.81**
14.93***
18.23***
6.46***
Individual
dfL
4, 153
3, 151
5, 151
3, 152
5, 150
4, 150
3, 154
4, 151
5, 153
3, 153
4, 152
bNeuroticism
.27**
.19*
.23**
bExtraversion
.31***
.21**
.29**
.36***
.35***
b
Differences
Openness
.19*
.23**
.20**
.15*
bAgreeableness
À.19*
À.23***
bConscientiousness
.32***
.36***
.19*
.32***
.24**
.53***
.40***
Notes: LListwise cases exclusion was used; R2
¼ contribution of gender and educational level as well as personality traits to thinking styles;
Total
40
R2
¼ contribution of gender and educational level to thinking styles; R2
¼ the unique contribution of personality traits
GenderþEducation
Personality Traits
(2006)
to thinking styles.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
1177–1187
*** p < .001.
1183

---

1184
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
Table 2
Summary of significant relationships between thinking styles and personality traits for four studies
Thinking style
Personality traits
Zhang (2002a)a
Zhang and Huang (2001)a
Zhang (2002b)b
Present studya
(N = 267)
(N = 408)
(N = 154)
(N = 199)
Legislative
O, C
O, C
O, C
O, C
Executive
N, A, C, (-O)
N, C, (-O)
N, C
C
Judicial
E, O
O, C, (-A)
E, O, C
E, O, (-A)
Global
O, (-A)
E, O, (-A)
E, C
E
Local
N, C, (-O)
N, C
N, C
N, C, E
Liberal
E, O, (-A)
O
E, O, (-A)
E, O
Conservative
N, A, C, (-O)
N, C, (-O)
N, (-O)
N
Internal
C (-N, -E, -E, -A)
C, O, (-A)
O, (-E)
C, (-A)
External
E, A, N,
E, A, C
E, A, C
E, C, O
Hierarchical
C
C, (-A)
C, E
C
Monarchic
C, (A-)
C
C
C, N
Note: N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, C = Conscientiousness, A = Agreeableness.
a Significant relationships were obtained by multiple regressions.
b Significant relationship were obtained by zero-order correlations.
studies, the present study found that the openness personality trait predicted the legislative, judi-
cial, and liberal styles (all being Type I styles). Likewise, in all four studies, the neuroticism and
conscientiousness personality traits predicted the local style, the neuroticism scale predicted the
conservative style, and the extraversion scale predicted the external style. In all four studies,
the conscientiousness personality trait significantly contributed to a large number of thinking
styles, regardless of their style types. The agreeableness personality trait tended to have negative
effects on several thinking styles. For easy comparison, Table 2 provides information about the
significant relationships between thinking styles and personality traits identified in the present
study as well as those obtained in the past three studies.
It should be pointed out, however, that there are also three salient differences between the re-
sults in the present study and those in the three previous studies. First, the present study found no
correlation between neuroticism and the executive style, whereas the three previous studies found
this association. Second, the present study found no correlation between agreeableness and the
external style, whereas the three previous studies did. Finally, in the present study, extraversion
was significantly correlated with both the global style and the local style, with the latter being
unexpected. The three previous studies did not find such an unexpected relationship. There could
be many reasons why such differences were observed. One reason could be that the present sample
is too heterogeneous. For this reason, future studies are recommended to use research samples
that are more homogenous.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test the external validity of Sternberg’s theory of mental self-
government as operationalized by the Thinking Styles Inventory and to cross-validate the re-

---

L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
1185
search findings obtained from university students regarding the relationships between thinking
styles and the big five personality traits in a non-academic sample. Data obtained from a group
of secondary school students’ parents indicated that Sternberg’s theory possesses external validity
because the thinking styles in his theory were related to personality traits in expected ways.
Furthermore, results from multiple-regression analyses lent strong support to those of the exist-
ing three studies in the university student population. Not only was the general trend of the find-
ing consistent with that found in previous studies, but also the overall strength of the association
between thinking styles and personality traits was similar across all studies. Two of the three pre-
vious studies reported the predictive power of personality traits for thinking styles. In a first study
(Zhang, 2002a), the five personality dimensions accounted for 5–27% of the variance in the think-
ing style scales. In a second study (Zhang & Huang, 2001), personality traits accounted for 5–29%
of the variance in thinking styles. In the present study, personality traits explained 3–32% of the
variance in thinking styles. Moreover, a number of identical findings were obtained in the four
studies (see Section 3).
In previous studies (Zhang, 2002a, 2002b; Zhang & Huang, 2001), we have discussed exten-
sively the substantive sense made by the relationships between thinking styles and personality
traits. In this article, two key examples are recapitulated, followed by two new examples. The sig-
nificant relationships mentioned in the following have been found in all four studies.
The first is the relationship of openness with the legislative, judicial, and liberal thinking styles.
Openness is featured by such attributes as active imagination, open-mindedness, and a strong
preference for variety. Likewise, people who have a predilection for using the legislative, judicial,
and liberal thinking styles also tend to be imaginative, open-minded, and perceptive, as well as
enjoy dealing with the complexity involved in tasks and situations.
The second example is the relationship of neuroticism to the conservative and local styles. A
person high on neuroticism tends to experience such negative affects as emotional instability,
embarrassment, and low self-esteem. By the same token, people who tend to find comfort in work-
ing on tasks that merely require them to focus on concrete and minor details (local style) and that
require them to follow established rules (conservative style) may also be perceived as not having
enough confidence in themselves, a manifestation of having low self-esteem.
The third example is the relationship of conscientiousness to the legislative, local, hierarchical,
and monarchic styles. People who are high on conscientiousness are noted for being organized,
purposeful, responsible, strong-willed, and trustworthy. They also tend to be task-oriented and
achievement-oriented. Likewise, people who have a propensity for using the legislative, local, hier-
archical, and monarchic styles tend to have similar attributes of a conscientious person. For exam-
ple, an individual creative in his/her thinking (legislative style) tends to be risk-taking and
ambitious. He/she is clear about what he/she wants to achieve (purposeful). He/she tends to
use all possible means in pursuing his/her goal (strong-willed). Like a conscientious person, a hier-
archical person is also organized. He/she also tends to be task-oriented. Moreover, similar to a
conscientious individual, both monarchic and local individuals tend to be driven to complete their
tasks at hand.
Finally, the relationship between extraversion and the external thinking style makes sense. An
extraverted person prefers to work with people, and so does a person with an external thinking
style. While the two scales share the common characteristic of preferring to work with others,
extraversion also entails sociability and assertiveness.

---

1186
L.-f. Zhang / Personality and Individual Differences 40 (2006) 1177–1187
5. Significance and conclusion
Being the first study that investigates the relationship between thinking styles and personality
traits in non-academic participants, the present study has made two contributions. First, being
tested against the NEO-FFI, the Thinking Styles Inventory has demonstrated its external validity
for assessing thinking styles among a non-academic sample for the first time. These findings lend
further support to Sternberg’s claim for the wide utility of his theory. Second, although there are
several noticeable differences between the results in the present study and those in the three pre-
vious studies, the present findings largely confirmed those in the three previous studies of univer-
sity students. Unanimously, all four studies suggest that thinking styles and personality traits
significantly overlap. More importantly, not only are the various relationships between the two
constructs similar across the studies, but also many are identical to one another. Furthermore,
the significant relationship between the two constructs support the findings of other scholars
who tested the relationship between styles and personality based on other theoretical frameworks
(e.g., Busato et al., 1999; Furnham et al., 1999; Jackson & Lawty-Jones, 1996; Riding & Wigley,
1997).
However, existing studies of the relationships between personality and intellectual styles adopt-
ing various theoretical concepts have so far found varying degrees of associations between the two
constructs. The maximum amount of variance shared by the two constructs is in the low .30s. As
such, a large portion of variance in the data was left unexplained. This indicates that personality
and intellectual styles are not the same thing. Hence, in non-academic settings, it is certainly
meaningful to understand intellectual styles in addition to studying personality, as it is in educa-
tional settings.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the Wu Jieh-Yee Education Research Fund as administered by The University
of Hong Kong for supporting this project. My very special thanks go to the research participants.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E. F., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict management styles.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4), 336–355.
Bernardo, A. B., Zhang, L. F., & Callueng, C. M. (2002). Thinking styles and academic achievement among Filipino
students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(2), 149–163.
Briggs, K. C., & Myers, I. B. (1987). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Form G. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1999). The relation between learning styles, the big five
personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1),
129–140.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.

---

Document Outline

• Thinking styles and the big five personality traits revisited
  • Introduction
    • Sternberg rsquo s theory of mental self-government
    • The big five personality traits
    • The present research
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Procedure
    • Measures
      • Thinking Styles Inventory
      • NEO Five-Factor Inventory
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Multiple-regression analysis
  • Discussion
  • Significance and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References

---