Are intelligence and personality related to verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive styles?

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 201–213

Are intelligence and personality related to verbal-imageryand wholistic-analytic cognitive styles?

Elizabeth R. Peterson a,*, Ian J. Deary b,1, Elizabeth J. Austin b,2

a Department of Education, University of Auckland, RCITL, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealandb University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, UK

Received 19 December 2003; received in revised form 14 June 2004; accepted 17 January 2005

Available online 25 March 2005

Abstract

A frequent criticism of cognitive style tests is that often they are not distinguished from mental abilities

and personality traits. In a sample of 100 subjects, this study investigated the relationship of two perfor-

mance-based cognitive style tests (Verbal-Imagery Cognitive Style [VICS] test and Extended Cognitive

Style Analysis Wholistic-Analytic test [Extended CSA-WA]) with eight tests of mental ability (chosen from

the validated kit of factor Referenced Tests for their relevance to the styles being tested) and three estab-lished personality tests (EPQ-R, IPIP, and IVE). The cognitive style tests were administered twice, more

than a week apart. No mental ability test score or personality trait score correlated more than .33 with

the cognitive style differences and none of the correlations were consistent across the two occasions of cog-

nitive styles measurement. These results suggest that individual differences on the VICS and the Extended-

CSA-WA cognitive style tests are independent from ability and personality. Most style tests have not

empirically demonstrated this dissociation. These results provide further evidence that the VICS and the

extended CSA-WA can further enhance our understanding of individual differences.

� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.009

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 9 373 7599x89693; fax: +64 9 367 7191.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.R. Peterson), [email protected] (I.J. Deary), elizabeth.austin@

ed.ac.uk (E.J. Austin).1 Tel.: +0131 650 3452; fax: +0131 650 3461.2 Tel.: +0131 6511 305; fax: +0131 650 3461.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:elizabeth.austin@ ed.ac.uk

mailto:elizabeth.austin@ ed.ac.uk

202 E.R. Peterson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 201–213

Keywords: Cognitive style; Personality; Intelligence; Verbal-imagery; Wholistic-analytic

1. Introduction

The way in which individuals prefer to process and organise information is known as their cog-nitive style. The importance of styles is reflected in the claim that styles may be the missing elementin the study of individual differences (Riding & Rayner, 1998). To test this idea, we need to find outwhether cognitive styles contribute something more to our understanding of the self than existingand established individual differences measures such as abilities and personality traits.

Historically there has been little empirical research into the overlap between cognitive styles,personality and ability. Furnham (1995) notes that ‘‘it is usually only after a CLS (CognitiveLearning Style) has been well established and researched that investigators relate it to major the-oretical systems in either personality or intelligence, but rarely both’’ (p. 399).

1.1. Style and ability

Several attempts have been made to distinguish style conceptually from ability. Guilford (1980)suggested that cognitive styles relate to abilities in that they act as executive functions controllingintellectual functioning. In contrast, Kogan (1973) and Messick (1976, 1984) argued that authen-tic cognitive styles are unrelated to ability. Messick argued that abilities measure maximal perfor-mance, are unipolar, value directional, domain specific, enabling variables that are interested inthe question of �how much� and �what� is done; but cognitive styles measure typical performance,are bipolar or bifurcated, no value is placed on having one particular cognitive style, they cutacross domains and are organising variables that focus on �how� something is done. While concep-tually cognitive style and ability may be quite distinct, empirical verification of the distinction hasbeen largely ignored.

1.2. Style and personality

The relationship between style and personality is less clear. Cognitive styles are often concep-tually placed within the general family of personality traits (Eysenck, 1978; Furnham, 1995; Guil-ford, 1980; Messick, 1984); however, opinion differs as to how closely they are empirically relatedand what degree of overlap is acceptable before one of the measures, typically the less establishedcognitive style measure, becomes redundant. Furnham (2001) has argued that many style mea-sures explain no more than established personality tests and that therefore their additive valueis questionable.

Advocates of cognitive styles have argued that they are the link between personality and cog-nition (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997) in that they develop around underlying personality trends(Messick, 1984), but they do not measure the same thing. For example, Riding and Wigley (1997)argue that cognitive styles affect personality but the low correlations between them suggest a dif-ferent source of action.

E.R. Peterson et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 39 (2005) 201–213 203

Several empirical studies have shown that tests that purport to measure style often show somedegree of association with personality traits. Measures of style such as Witkin and Asch�s (1948a,1948b) field Independence–Dependence, Kagan�s (1965) Impulsivity and Reflectivity, Honey andMumford�s (1982) Learning Style Questionnaire, Whetten and Cameron�s (1984) Cognitive StylesInstrument, Kolb�s (1976) Learning Style Inventory, and Sternberg�s (1997) Thinking Styles, haveall been shown to have multiple correlations with established trait personality tests (Furnham,1992, 1996; Furnham, Jackson, Forde, & Cotter, 2001; Messick, 1984; Sternberg & Grigorenko,2001). For example Sternberg�s Thinking Styles was found to have more than 24 out of a possible55 statistically significant correlations with the NEO five factor Inventory (Zhang, 2002; Zhang &Huang, 2001) and Furnham, Jackson, and Miller (1999) found that Honey and Mumford�s Learn-ing Style Questionnaire had six significant correlations out of a possible 16 correlations with Ey-senck�s Personality Inventory. Reported significant correlations between personality and styletend to range between .2 and .4 (Furnham, 2001) but correlations above .5 have been reported.For example, Zhang and Huang (2001) and Zhang (2002) found conscientiousness correlated withSternberg�s Hierarchical style at r = .51, p < .01, and Furnham et al. (1999) found extraversioncorrelated with Honey and Mumford�s Activist style at r = .64, p < .01.

In summary, for measures of cognitive style to add value to our understanding of individualdifferences, it is important that the number of overlaps with ability and personality are few andthe strength of these associations are weak and clearly documented. The new Verbal-ImageryCognitive Styles (VICS) test (Peterson, 2003; Peterson, Deary, & Austin, 2005) and the extendedWholistic-Analytic dimension of the CSA (Extended CSA-WA) (Peterson, Deary, & Austin,2003a, 2003b) are two promising measures of cognitive style, but they have not yet been comparedwith established personality and ability measures.

1.3. The VICS test and the Extended CSA-WA test

The VICS test is designed to measure verbal versus imagery preferences for the way informationis represented, and the Extended CSA-WA test is designed to measure preferences for structuringinformation in a wholistic versus an analytic way. These two higher order cognitive style dimen-sions (verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic) were suggested by Riding and Cheema (1991) fol-lowing their review of the styles literature. Riding (1991) subsequently designed the CognitiveStyle Analysis (CSA) test which measured these dimensions by comparing how fast, on average,individuals respond on a verbal task compared to an imagery task and how fast they respond, onaverage, on a wholistic task compared to an analytic task. Peterson et al. (2005, 2003a, 2003b)found that, despite some empirical evidence for the validity of the CSA, the verbal-imagery stylepreference ratios and wholistic-analytic style preference ratios (which are used to determine a per-son�s cognitive style preference) have poor test re-test reliability (r�s < .32). Peterson et al. (2003a,2003b) showed that an extended version of the CSA�s wholistic-analytic dimension (ExtendedCSA-WA) improved the test�s reliability to a satisfactory level (internal consistency r = .72; testre-test reliability r = .55) and they designed a new test of verbal-imagery cognitive style (VICS)with acceptable internal consistency (r > .72) and test re-test reliability (r = .56) (Peterson et al.,2005).

This study examines the relationship that the new, reliable VICS test and Extended CSA-WA test have with ability and personality. It was hypothesised that individual differences in


verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive styles measured by these tests will be largely inde-pendent of personality and ability measures. This hypothesis is in keeping with previous researchwhich found that verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive styles (measured on the CSA)were relatively independent of personality (Riding & Wigley, 1997) and ability (Riding & Agrell,1997; Riding & Pearson, 1994).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

One hundred participants (24 males and 76 females) took part in the study (age M = 20 years,SD = 4.1, range 18–57). The disproportionately high number of female participants was argued tobe acceptable because no significant gender differences have been found with respect to cognitivestyle (Riding, Burton, Rees, & Sharratt, 1995). All participants were students at the University ofEdinburgh. Some participants did not complete all ability tasks in this study due to timeconstraints.

2.2. Tests

2.2.1. The VICS test

The VICS test (Peterson et al., 2005) was presented using the E-PRIME computer program.The VICS test contains 116 verbal stimuli (58 picture items and the same 58 items in words)and 116 imagery stimuli (58 picture items and the same 58 items in words) and takes approxi-mately 20 min to complete. The VICS measures style preferences by making the assumption thatindividuals respond faster to their preferred domain or style of processing. For example, it is as-sumed that a verbaliser will, on average, respond faster to verbal-format questions about the cat-

Fig. 1. Example of an item from the verbal section of the VICS test. In this example the correct answer to this question

is �yes� because cat and mushroom do naturally occur in the environment.

ig. 2. Example of an imagery item on the VICS test. In this example the correct answer is �yes� because in real life a cat

s bigger than a mushroom.


F

i

egory to which two items belong (see Fig. 1) than they will to an imagery-format question aboutthe relative sizes of two objects (see Fig. 2). By comparing the participants� relative average re-sponse time on each task (verbal and imagery), the experimenter generates a verbal-imagery stylepreference ratio that places each individual on a verbal-imagery style preference continuum.

2.2.2. The extended-CSA-WA

The extended-CSA-WA (Peterson et al., 2003a) was also presented using the E-PRIME com-puter programme. This test contains 80 items (40 wholistic, 40 analytic) and takes approximately15 min to complete. To assess the participant�s wholistic-analytic style preference, the participant�srelative average response time on a wholistic task is compared to their relative average responsetime on an analytic task, resulting in a wholistic-analytic style preference ratio. On this task awholist is assumed to respond faster, on average, to questions comparing the overall similarityof two objects (see Fig. 3) and an analytic is expected to respond faster, on average, to questionsabout whether one object is embedded within a larger object (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Example of a wholistic item from the extended CSA-WA. In this case the correct answer is �no� because the

shape on the left is not the same as the shape on the right.

Fig. 4. Example of an analytic item on the extended CSA-WA. In this example the correct answer is �no� because the

hexagon on the left is not embedded in the shape on the right.


Importantly, on both the VICS and the Extended CSA-WA participants were told that the testwas not a test of ability, to work at their own pace and to try to respond accurately. Feedback, asto whether their response was correct or not, was given after each response. This encouraged par-ticipants to respond correctly rather than quickly.

2.2.3. EPQ-R short scaleThe EPQ-R Short Scale measures Extraversion, Psychoticism, Neuroticism and contains a lie

scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991). Each sub-scale consists of 12 items on a yes/no dichotomousscale.

2.2.4. Impulsiveness (IVE) scale

The Impulsiveness (IVE) Scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) measures Impulsiveness, Venture-someness and Empathy also on a dichotomous Yes/No scale. The impulsiveness and empathyscales consist of 19 items and the venturesomeness scale contains 16.

2.2.5. International Personality Item Pool scaleGoldberg�s (1999) lexical �Big Five� International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) scale measures

Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and Intellect/Imagination.Each scale is measured by 10 items on a Likert five-point scale, ranging from very inaccurate(1) to very accurate (5).

The first two personality tests were chosen because we wanted to replicate the Riding and Wig-ley (1997) study which also compared verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive style withperformance on the EPQ and the IVE. We also included the IPIP because it measures a widelyrecognised set of personality traits.

2.2.6. Kit of factor referenced cognitive testsA selection of eight cognitive ability tests was chosen from the validated kit of factor Refer-

enced Cognitive Tests (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen, 1976). The ability tests were chosento cover a range of abilities that were relevant to the dimensions of the four styles. A brief descrip-

Table 1

Description of the ability tests selected from Ekstrom et al.�s (1976) kit of factor referenced cognitive tests

Group* Test Duration

(min)

Description of test

Verbal Extended vocabulary 8 Requires identification of the correct meaning of a word given

four options

Advanced vocabulary 12 Requires identification of the correct meaning of a word given

four options

Imagery Card rotation 6 Subject mentally rotates a shape to identify if it is the

mirror image or the same as its partner

Paper folding 6 The subject is presented with pictures of paper folded with a hole

in and asked to identify the unfolded paper from several options

Wholistic Gestalt completion 6 Incomplete pictures of objects are presented and participants are

required to name the objects

Controlled association 12 Participants are given eight words and required to think of as many

related words as possible to the eight given

Analytic Finding A�s 4 A list of words is given and participants are required to identify the

words which contain the letter �a�Hidden Figures test 6 Participants are presented with a simple shape which they are

required to identify within more complex shapes

The proposed relevant style group is also identified.* These groupings were derived by inspection of the tests� contents and the placement of the test in the kit, and are not

the result of any formal multivariate analysis.


tion of each test, the length of each test and the proposed associated style dimension are given inTable 1.

2.3. Power

In this study we were interested in seeing whether personality and ability explained more than10% of the style variance. With alpha set at .05 (2 tailed) this study (N = 100) had 92% power todetect a correlation of r = .33.

2.4. Procedure

Participants were tested individually in a quiet room. At session 1, each participant completedthe VICS first followed by the IPIP questionnaire, the extended CSA-WA and four of the timedability tests (the Finding A�s test, the Controlled Association test, the Card Rotation test and theAdvanced Vocabulary test). At session 2 participants were given the VICS again, followed by theEPQ-R, the IVE questionnaires, and a repeat of the extended CSA-WA. Following this, four newtimed ability tests were given (the Gestalt Completion test, the Hidden Patterns test, the PaperFolding test and the Extended Vocabulary test). Participants were given 3–5 min breaks betweeneach task. Sessions 1 and 2 were conducted at least a week apart (M = 25 days, SD = 30).


3. Results

3.1. Style and ability

The numbers of subjects who completed each ability test and the mean and standard deviation ofthe scores on each ability test are given in Table 2 below. Parts 1 and 2 ability test scores were com-bined to give one total for each ability test. These scores were then correlated with participants�cognitive style ratios (Table 3). Note that a positive correlation with the style ratios indicates a pref-erence for an imagery or analytic style and a negative correlation indicates a preference for a verbalor wholistic style. There were only three out of a possible 24 significant correlations between styleand ability, and no ability measure correlated more than .27 with any style measure. Furthermore,there were no consistent, significant correlations between ability and cognitive styles over time (i.e.,at both sessions 1 and 2). The significant correlations that were found were arguably in expecteddirections. Gestalt completion correlated with a wholistic style preference at session 1 only (r =�.27, p = .008), Card Rotation correlated with an imagery style preference at session 2 only(r = .25 p = .014) and Paper Folding correlated with an imagery style preference at session 2 only(r = .22, p = .027).

As expected, significant correlations were found among ability test scores. Principal compo-nents analysis of the ability tests was conducted to see if they were measuring any higher ordermental ability factors. Examination of the scree slope suggested the existence of two components

Table 2

The number of participants (N) who completed each ability task and the means and standard deviations (SD) of the

participant scores on each cognitive ability test

Ability Test and session N Mean SD

Verbal Advanced vocab, Part 1 99 10.7 3.6

Advanced vocab, Part 2 99 10.2 4.4

Extended vocab, Part 1 96 9.4 2.9

Extended vocab, Part 2 96 8.1 3.0

Imagery Mental rotation, Part 1 100 58.3 15.4

Mental rotation, Part 2 100 55.9 13.1

Paper folding, Part 1 100 6.5 2.4

Paper folding, Part 2 100 7.0 1.9

Wholistic Controlled association, Part 1 95 9.9 4.2

Controlled association, Part 2 95 11.1 5.0

Gestalt completion, Part 1 100 7.3 1.5

Gestalt completion, Part 2 100 6.8 1.9

Analytic Find A�s, Part 1 100 28.4 8.4

Find A�s, Part 2 100 28.1 8.4

Hidden pattern, Part 1 99 115.9 24.4

Hidden pattern, Part 2 99 114.4 23.8

Table 3

Pearson�s correlations between the style ratios (VICS verbal-imagery style ratio and extended CSA-wholistic-analytic

style ratio) and the total ability scores for eight ability measures and the rotated ability factors

1 2 3 4

1 VICS verbal-imagery (S1)

2 VICS verbal-imagery (S2) .549***

3 E CSA wholistic-analytic (S1) .037 �.085

4 E CSA wholistic-analytic (S2) .024 .094 .554***

5 Total vocabulary �.026 .119 �.034 �.001

6 Total card rotation .079 .245* �.052 �.114

7 Total paper folding �.026 .221* �.061 .050

8 Total controlled association .054 .134 �.004 �.078

9 Total Gestalt completion �.035 .160 �.265** �.075

10 Total find A�s �.131 �.050 .048 .054

11 Total hidden figures �.038 .004 .006 �.001

12 Spatial/speed ability factor �.014 .243* �.084 �.018

13 Verbal ability factor .048 .180 .023 �.042

The correlations in bold show the significant correlations between style and the ability scores and ability factors.* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.


both with an eigenvalue greater than 1, which together explained 50% of the variance. After ob-lique rotation, the two component solution gave two clear categories of ability. The first compo-nent was a spatial ability or speed component consisting of the Rotation, Paper Folding, GestaltCompletion, Hidden Figures and Finding A�s tests. The second component was a verbal abilitycomponent consisting of the vocabulary and controlled word association tests.

The two obliquely-rotated ability components (spatial/speed and verbal), which were found tobe almost unrelated (r = .2, p = .049), were then correlated with the VICS and extended CSA-WAcognitive style ratios at sessions 1 and 2 (see Table 3). One significant correlation was found be-tween an imagery preference on the VICS at session 2 and the spatial/speed ability component,however this correlation was small (r = .243, p = .018) and not consistent across the two testingsessions.

The ratio of the total verbal ability scores to imagery ability scores and wholistic ability scoresto analytic ability scores were also calculated to see whether ratios calculated from the abilityscores correlated with the corresponding style test reaction time ratios (from the VICS and theextended CSA-WA). None of the correlations between the ability ratios and the style ratios werestatistically significant (p > .05).

3.2. Style and personality

Correlations between participants� verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive style ratiosand the EPQ-R, IVE and IPIP can be found in Table 4. This table shows that five out of a possible48 correlations with style were statistically significant and no personality measure correlatedabove .33 with any of the style ratios. This indicates that the three personality measures have very

Table 4

Pearson�s correlations verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic style ratios and IPIP, EPQ-R and IVE personality scales

1 2 3 4

1 VICS verbal-imagery (S1)

2 VICS verbal-imagery (S2) .549***

3 Extended CSA-WA (S1) .037 �.085

4 Extended CSA-WA (S2) .024 .094 .554***

5 Extraversion (IPIP) �.050 �.040 �.126 �.045

6 Agreeableness (IPIP) �.189 �.226* �.028 �.005

7 Conscientiousness (IPIP) �.071 �.119 .126 .077

8 Emotional stability (IPIP) .043 �.119 �.276** �.083

9 Intellect/imagination (IPIP) �.081 .004 �.011 .033

10 Strong mindedness (EPQ-R) .039 .039 �.323** �.121

11 Extraversion (EPQ-R) .038 .096 �.104 �.076

12 Emotional stability (EPQ-R) �.017 .017 .176 .057

13 Lie scale (EPQ-R) �.069 �.064 �.017 �.040

14 Impulsiveness (IVE)4 .002 .151 �192 �.049

15 Venturesomeness (IVE) .041 .139 �.154 �.081

16 Empathy (IVE) �.322** �.195 .232* .188

Correlations in bold show the significant correlations between the traits and cognitive style preference ratios.* p < .05.

** p < .01.*** p < .001.


little overlap with the style ratios. Furthermore, the five significant correlations that were foundbetween personality and style were not consistent with the style ratios at both sessions 1 and 2 (seeTable 4).

4. Discussion

This study found no consistent, significant correlations between the style ratios and eight mea-sures of ability. Only three out of 24 correlations between style and ability were statistically sig-nificant, and although these were in the expected direction, the correlations were not consistentover time.

Similarly, little sizeable or significant correlation was found between the style ratios and person-ality measured by the EPQ-R, IPIP and IVE. Only five out of 48 correlations between personalityand style were statistically significant, none of the correlations were consistent over time, and nonecorrelated more than .33 with any cognitive style measure.

The lack of consistency in the associations suggests that these correlations may have been TypeI errors. In addition, the low number of correlations found between any one personality test andstyle are in stark contrast to other studies that have investigated this relationship using other stylemeasures. For example, taking the big five personality test, nine significant correlations have beenfound between the big five and style measured by the LSQ (range .15–.28), nine with the Myers–Briggs type indicator (range .17–.70) and 22 with Thinking Styles (range .16–.51) (see Furnhamet al., 2001; Zhang, 2002 for more details). This study only found two with the big five


(r = .23–.28) and they were not found at both sessions 1 and 2. Note however that it is easier toobtain correlations between two self-report measures as the content is more likely to overlap.

Overall, these findings provide necessary evidence for the potential incremental validity of thereliable VICS test and extended CSA-WA as style measures; the VICS and the extended CSA-WAare not measuring established abilities or established personality traits. The majority of style testshave not satisfactorily investigated these relationships empirically (Furnham, 1995).

4.1. Limitations and conclusions

This study involved the calculation of a large number of correlations. As mentioned above, thisprocess increases the chance of generating Type 1 errors. It is therefore possible that some of thesignificant correlations we found between personality, ability and style were spurious.

Another limitation of our study is that we did not have enough power to detect correlations ofless than r = .25. The significant correlations we detected between personality, ability and styleranged from r = .22 to r = .32. However, as the correlations explained no more than 10% ofthe style variance, we are confident that cognitive style, as measured by the VICS and the extendedCSA-WA, contributes something beyond personality and ability to the measurement of individualdifferences.

To date, the VICS test and the extended CSA-WA have not yet been tested for predictive valid-ity. The first half of the extended CSA-WA however consists of Riding�s original CSA test of thewholistic-analytic dimension and this test has some evidence of predictive validity (e.g., Riding &Douglas, 1993; Riding & Watts, 1997). Establishing the reliability and relative independence ofverbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive style preferences over personality traits and abil-ity are important tasks preceding closer examination of predictive validity for these two new tests.

In conclusion this study has outlined some of the key psychometric properties of the VICS andextended CSA-WA (Peterson et al., 2005, 2003a, 2003b) and shown that they might contributesomething beyond ability and personality traits to our understanding of individual differences.Future research can now begin to look more closely at the tests� applications, especially in thefields of education and business management where style tests with less established psychometricproperties are often used. In addition, future research can start to investigate the cognitive andbiological bases of cognitive styles, which could parallel the work done on personality and abilitytraits.

Acknowledgement

This research project was supported by the New Zealand Foundation for Research in Scienceand Technology and the United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council.

References

Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for the kit of factor referenced cognitive

tests. New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

Eysenck, H. J. (1978). The development of personality and its relation to learning. In S. Murray-Smith (Ed.),Melbourne

studies in education (pp. 134–181). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.


Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual of the eysenck personality scales (EPS adult). London: Hodder &

Stoughton.

Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: A study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Differences,

13(4), 429–438.

Furnham, A. (1995). The relationship of personality and intelligence to cognitive learning style and Achievement. In D.

H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 397–413). New York:

Plenum Press.

Furnham, A. (1996). The big five versus the big four: The relationship between the Myers–Briggs type indicator (MBTI)

and the NEO-PI five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 303–307.

Furnham, A. (2001). Test taking style, personality traits, and psychometric validity. In J. M. Collis & S. Messick (Eds.),

Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement (pp. 289–301). New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Furnham, A., Jackson, C. J., Forde, L., & Cotter, T. (2001). Correlates of the Eysenck personality profiler. Personality

and Individual Differences, 30, 587–594.

Furnham, A., Jackson, C. J., & Miller, T. (1999). Personality, learning style and work performance. Personality and

Individual Differences, 27, 113–1122.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of

several five factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in

Europe (pp. 7–28). Tilberg, The Netherlands: Tilberg University Press.

Guilford, J. (1980). Cognitive styles: What are they? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 715–735.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead: Honey Press.

Kagan, J. (1965). Individual differences in the resolution of response uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 2, 154–160.

Kogan, N. (1973). Creativity and cognitive style: A lifespan perspective. In Life-span developmental psychology:

Personality and socialisation (pp. 145–178). New York: Academic Press.

Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer.

Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educational

Psychologist, 19, 59–74.

Messick, S. A. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In Individual differences in learning

(pp. 4–22). London: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, E. R. (2003). Cognitive styles: the reliability and validity of verbal-imagery and wholistic–analytic cognitive

style. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2005). A new measure of verbal-imagery cognitive style: VICS. Personality

and Individual Differences, 38, 1269–1281.

Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2003a). The reliability of Riding�s cognitive styles analysis test. Personalityand Individual Differences, 34(5), 881–891.

Peterson, E. R., Deary, I. J., & Austin, E. J. (2003b). On the assessment of cognitive style: Four red herrings. Person-

ality and Individual Difference, 34(5), 893–897.

Riding, R. (1991). Cognitive style analysis—CSA administration. Birmingham: Learning & Training and Technology.

Riding, R., & Agrell, T. (1997). The effect of cognitive style and cognitive skill on school subject performance.

Educational Studies, 23, 311–323.

Riding, R., Burton, D., Rees, G., & Sharratt, M. (1995). Cognitive style and personality in 12-year-old children. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 113–124.

Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles—an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3 & 4),

193–215.

Riding, R. J., & Douglas, G. (1993). The effect of cognitive style and mode of presentation on learning performance.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 297–307.

Riding, R. J., & Pearson, F. (1994). The relationship between cognitive style and intelligence. Educational Psychology,

14, 413–425.

Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton.


Riding, R. J., & Watts, M. (1997). The effect of cognitive style on the preferred format of instructional material.

Educational Psychology, 17, 179–183.

Riding, R. J., & Wigley, S. (1997). The relationship between cognitive style and personality in further education

students. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 379–389.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52, 700–712.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg & L.

F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–21). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Whetten, D., & Cameron, K. (1984). Development management skills. London: Scott Foreman.

Witkin, H. A., & Asch, S. E. (1948a). Studies in space orientation. III. Perception of the upright in the absence of a

visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 603–614.

Witkin, H. A., & Asch, S. E. (1948b). Studies in space orientation. IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright

with displaced visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 762–782.

Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles and the big five personality traits. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 17–31.

Zhang, L. F., & Huang, J. (2001). Thinking styles and the five factor model of personality. European Journal of

Personality, 15, 465–476.

Documents

Are intelligence and personality related to verbal-imagery and wholistic-analytic cognitive styles?