moderating effects of personality traits on emotional intelligence and cognitive styles of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
MODERATING EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY TRAITS ON
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND COGNITIVE STYLES OF
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Summaira Naz
PhD
2
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR
2015
LIST OF CONTENTS
Contents P. No
List of Abbreviations i
List of Tables of Pilot Study ii
List of Tables of Main Study iv
List of Figures vii
List of Appendixes viii
Acknowledgement ix
Abstract x
Chapter-1: Introduction 1
Cognitive Styles 4
Models of Cognitive Styles 12
3
1. Kolb’s Model 13
2. Honey-Mamford’S Model 14
3. Gregoric Model 15
4. Howard Gardener’s Model 16
5. Kirton’s Model 18
6. Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model 20
Relationship between Personality Traits and Cognitive Styles 21
Personality 23
Trait Theory of Personality 27
Five Factor Model of Personality 28
Emotional Intelligence 34
Models of Emotional Intelligence 36
1. Ability Model 37
2. Trait EI Model 39
3. Mix Model 40
1) Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence 40
2) Goleman Model of Emotional Intelligence 41
Personality Trait and Emotional Intelligence 42
Rationale of the Study 45
Conceptual Mode of the Current Study 48
Statement of the Problem 49
Chapter-2: Method 50
4
Objectives 50
Hypotheses 50
Operational Definitions of Variables 51
Phasing of the study 55
Participants of the study 55
Instruments 56
Procedure 58
Chapter-3: Pilot Study 60
Objectives 60
Sample 60
Instruments 60
Procedure 62
Results 62
Discussion 73
Chapter-4: Main Study 80
Objectives 80
Hypotheses 80
Sample 81
Instruments 82
Procedure 83
Results 85
Chapter-5: Discussion 134
5
Conclusion 165
Limitations and Suggestions 167
Implications of the Study 169
References 172
Appendixes 200
APPROVAL CERTIFICATE
It is certified that Miss. Summaira Naz, PhD scholar, has successfully completed her
research study entitled, “moderating effects of personality traits on emotional
intelligence and cognitive styles of university students” under my supervision. Her thesis
meets the scholarly standard of PhD Psychology as set by University of Peshawar.
Supervisor
_________________________________
Prof. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan, PhD
6
“Moderating effects of personality traits on emotional
intelligence and cognitive styles of university students”
BY
Summaira Naz
Approved By
_______________________
Supervisor
_______________________
7
Chairperson
_______________________
External Examiner
8
LIST OF CONTENTS
Contents P. No
List of Abbreviations i
List of Tables of Pilot Study ii
List of Tables of Main Study iv
List of Figures vii
List of Appendixes viii
Acknowledgement ix
Abstract x
Chapter-1: Introduction 1
Cognitive Styles 4
Models of Cognitive Styles 12
7. Kolb’s Model 13
8. Honey-Mamford’S Model 14
9. Gregoric Model 15
10. Howard Gardener’s Model 16
11. Kirton’s Model 18
12. Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model 20
9
Relationship between Personality Traits and Cognitive Styles 21
Personality 23
Trait Theory of Personality 27
Five Factor Model of Personality 28
Emotional Intelligence 34
Models of Emotional Intelligence 36
4. Ability Model 37
5. Trait EI Model 39
6. Mix Model 40
3) Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence 40
2) Goleman Model of Emotional Intelligence
41
Personality Trait and Emotional Intelligence 42
Rationale of the Study 45
Conceptual Mode of the Current Study 48
Statement of the Problem 49
Chapter-2: Method 50
Objectives 50
Hypotheses 50
Operational Definitions of Variables 51
10
Phasing of the study 55
Participants of the study 55
Instruments 56
Procedure 58
Chapter-3: Pilot Study 60
Objectives 60
Sample 60
Instruments 60
Procedure 62
Results 62
Discussion 73
Chapter-4: Main Study 80
Objectives 80
Hypotheses 80
Sample 81
Instruments 82
Procedure 83
Results 85
134
11
Chapter-5: Discussion
Conclusion 165
Limitations and Suggestions 167
Implications of the Study 169
References 172
Appendixes 200
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Sr. No Abbreviations Titles
1 M Mean
2 SD Standard Deviation
3 ANOVA Analysis of Variance
4 TIPI Ten Item Personality Inventory
5 SRMEI Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
6 OSIVQ Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
7 ESRS Emotional Self-Regulation Scale
8 ESAS Emotional Self-Awareness Scale
9 ISS Interpersonal Skill Scale
10 SS Social Science AR (n = 681) MS (n = 655) IT (n = 678)
13
11 NS Natural Science
12 IT Informational Technology
13 MS Management Science
14 AR Arts
14
LIST OF TABLES OF PILOT STUDY
Table
No.
Title Page
No.
1 Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Self-Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI), and its Subscales
63
2 Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Ten-Item Personality
Inventory (TIPI) and its Subscales
64
3 Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Object–Spatial Imagery and
Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ) and its Subscales
65
4 Item total correlation matrix of Object–Spatial Imagery and
Verbal Questionnaire
66
5 Item total correlation matrix of Self Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence
67
6 Item total correlation matrix of Ten Item Personality Inventory 68
7 Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of
Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
68
8 Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscale of Ten
Item Personality Inventory
69
9 Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of Self
Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
69
10 Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of TIPI and
Subscales of SRMEI
70
11 Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of TIPI and
Subscales of OSIVQ
71
12 Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of SRMEI and
Subscales of OSIVQ
72
15
LIST OF TABLES OF MAIN STUDY
Table
No.
Title Page
No.
13 Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Self-Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI), and its Subscales
85
14 Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Ten-Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI) and its Subscales
86
15 Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Object–Spatial Imagery and
Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ) and its Subscales
87
16 Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of OSIVQ 88
17 Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscale of TIPI 89
18 Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of SRMEI 90
19 Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of TIPI and
Subscales of SRMEI
91
20 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Emotional
Self-Regulation from Object Cognitive Style and Emotional
Stability Personality Trait
92
21 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional
Self-Regulation from Object Cognitive Style and Extroversion
Personality Trait
94
22 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional
Self-Regulation from Object Cognitive Style and Agreeableness
Personality Trait
96
23 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional
Self-Regulation from Object Cognitive Style and
Conscientiousness Personality Trait
98
24 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Emotional
Self-Regulation from Object Cognitive Style and Openness to
Experience Personality Trait
100
25 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional 102
16
Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and Emotional
Stability Personality Trait
26 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional
Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and Agreeableness
Personality Trait
104
27 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional
Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and Extroversion
Personality Trait
106
28 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional
Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and
Conscientiousness Personality Trait
108
29 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional
Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and Openness to
Experience Personality Trait
110
30 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting
Interpersonal Skill Scale from Spatial Cognitive Style and
Emotional Stability Personality Trait
112
31 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting
Interpersonal Skill Scale from Spatial Cognitive Style and
Extroversion Personality Trait
114
32 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting
Interpersonal Skill Scale from Spatial Cognitive Style and
Agreeableness Personality Trait
116
33 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting
Interpersonal Skill Scale from Spatial Cognitive Style and
Conscientiousness Personality Trait
118
34 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting
Interpersonal Skill Scale from Spatial Cognitive Style and
Openness to Experience Personality Trait
120
35 Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of TIPI and
Subscales of OSIVQ
122
36 Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of SRMEI and 123
17
Subscales of OSIVQ
37 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Men and Women
University Students on Subscales of SRMEI
124
38 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Men and Women
University Students on Subscales of TIPI
125
39 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Men and Women
University Students on Subscales OSIVQ
126
40 One-way Analysis of Variance for the Effect of Academic
Discipline on SRMEI and OSIVQ
127
41 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Low and High
Educated University Students on Subscales of SRMEI
128
42 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Low and High
Educated University Students on Subscales of TIPI
129
43 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of low and high
educated university students on subscales OSIVQ
130
44 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Younger and Older
University Students on Subscales of SRMEI
131
45 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Younger and Older
University Students on Subscales of TIPI
132
46 Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Younger and Older
University Students on Subscales OSIVQ
133
18
LIST OF FIGURES OF MAIN STUDY
Figure
No.
Titles Page
No.
1 Moderating effect of emotional stability personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style
93
2 Moderating effect of extroversion personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style.
95
3 Moderating effect of agreeableness personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style
97
4 Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style
99
5 Moderating effect of openness to experience personality trait in
relationship between emotional self-regulation and object cognitive
style
101
6 Moderating effect of emotional stability personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
103
105
7 Moderating effect of agreeableness personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style
107
8 Moderating effect of extroversion personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
109
9 Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in relationship
between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
110
10 Moderating effect of openness to experience personality trait in
relationship between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive
style.
113
11 Moderating effect of emotional stability personality trait in relationship
between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
115
12 Moderating effect of extroversion personality trait in the relationship
between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
117
13 Moderating effect of agreeableness personality trait in the relationship 119
19
between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
14 Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in the
relationship between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
121
15 Moderating effect of openness to experience personality trait in the
relationship between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
123
20
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Sr. No. Title P. No.
Appendix A Informed consent form 200
Appendix B Demographic sheet 201
Appendix C Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI) 202
Appendix D Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) 205
Appendix E Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ) 206
Appendix F Permission Letter of SRMEI 209
Appendix G Permission Letter of OSIVQ 210
21
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I bow in gratitude to Almighty Allah for giving me strength and knowledge
to undertake this PHD research thesis. His constant mercy, guidance and support
for the completion of present manuscript. I am indeed indebted to my supervisor
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan whose timely advice and professional
guidance was instrumental in the completion of this research work. I wish to
convey a sincere thanks and deepest gratitude to his who has always been a
constant source of help and guidance. He helped me to conduct this study in a
focused and comprehensive way through his knowledge, experience, and sincere
commitments. I am deeply indebted and grateful to my teacher Dr. Anis-Ul-Haq
and Adnan Adil for their kind, valuable and precise guidance in pursuing this
research work. They helped me allot in the selection of appropriate analysis type as
well as carrying out those statistical analysis for hypothesis testing of the current
study.
I am greatly thankful to my father, Manzoor Hussain Alvi, for his valuable
guidance. I am sincerely grateful from the depth of my heart to all those persons
who help me in data collection. In last I owe a great deal to my parents for being a
constant emotional and moral support during the work, which could not be possible
without their help and sincere prayers. Last but not the least, I would like to thank
my other family members, colleagues and friends who always wished to see me
flying above the height and beyond the limitations of human wisdom.
Accomplishment of such a magnificent task is the result of their prayers. I am
extremely grateful to my parents for their support.
SUMMAIRA NAZ
22
ABSTRACT
The current study aimed to examine the moderating role of personality traits on EI
and Cognitive Styles; and to explore the demographic differences on these
variables. Data of 3500 students were collected by using Ten Item Personality
Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), Self-Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; Khan & Kamal, 2008), and Object-Spatial
Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009).
Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness act as significant positive moderators,
while Agreeableness and Extroversion act as a significant negative moderator in
the relationship of EI and Cognitive Styles. Emotional Self Regulation Scale
(ESRS) has significant positive correlations with Object, Verbal, Extroversion,
Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness; and has significant negative association
with Openness to Experience. Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) has
significant positive correlations with Object, Verbal, Spatial, Extroversion and
Openness to Experience; while has significant negative relationship with
Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness. Interpersonal Skills Scale (ISS) has
significant positive correlations with Object, Verbal, Extroversion, Openness to
Experience, and Agreeableness; while it has significant negative correlations with
Conscientiousness. Object and Verbal Cognitive Style has significant positive
correlation with Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability. Object Cognitive Style
has significant negative association with Extroversion and Agreeableness, while
Verbal Cognitive Style has significant negative correlation with Extroversion and
Openness to Experience. Similarly Spatial Cognitive Style has significant positive
relationship with Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience; while it has
significant negative correlations with Extroversion and Agreeableness. Women
23
show higher scores on interpersonal skills, emotional self-awareness, and verbal
style; men show higher scores on ESRS, object style, and spatial style. The students
of social sciences have the highest level of EI and cognitive styles; the students of
management sciences have least scores on EI and the students of arts have least
scores on cognitive styles. Highly educated students have higher levels of ESAS,
spatial, and object styles; lower educated students have higher levels of ISS and
verbal style. Older students have significantly higher scores on ESR and object
styles; younger students show high scores on ISS and spatial cognitive styles.
24
Chapter-I
INTRODUCTION
Cognitive styles are those psychological dimensions, which represent
consistent behavior of an individual in his/her way of cognitive functioning;
predominantly it deals with their way of information processing (Ausburn &
Ausburn, 1978). In performing different cognitive task effectively their cognitive
styles play vital role. Though in final decision the cognitive styles are less involved
but they are more involved in the procedure of decision making. Presently Visual
cognitive style (individual mainly focus on imagery in performing cognitive tasks),
and Verbal cognitive style (individual use verbal analytical strategies to perform
cognitive tasks) are most recognized cognitive (e.g. Paivio, 1971; Richardson,
1977). Both these cognitive styles portray stable trait of individual in processing
and preferences visual versus verbal information (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov,
2009). Most of the previous researches done on both verbal and visual cognitive
styles basically assume that these two different information processing systems
exist (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009).
In previous researches for the assessment of visual and verbal cognitive
styles two separate approaches were used (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009).
The first approach deals with the development of the objective measures, while the
second approach deals with the development of self-report Questionnaires. These
both approaches aimed to assess the participants’ preferences of their use of
imagery versus verbal ways of thinking. Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009)
gave a new model of cognitive style named ‘The New Object-Spatial-Verbal
Cognitive Style Model’. This Model comprised on three independent thinking
25
dimensions: two visual dimension; object (they process visual appearance of
objects in terms of their shape, color, and texture) Spatial (they process object
location, movement, and spatial relationships); and one is verbal dimension (they
process comprehension, production of spoken, and written language). For the
assessment of this model Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009) developed Object-
Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). OSIVQ was a self-report
questionnaire designed to measure the object, spatial, and verbal cognitive styles
among adults (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009). OSIVQ was based on
Kosslyn’ theory of imagery (it assumes that imagery is a multisided phenomenon
because it comprised on collection of distinct functions, that are accountable for
different aspects of imagery; as cited in Kosslyn, Thompson, & Ganis, 2006).
Cognitive styles have an important link with emotional intelligence of individuals.
The present study focuses on three types of cognitive styles (Blazhenkova &
Kozhevnikov, 2009); Object Cognitive Styles (focus on detailed and concrete
images of objects), Spatial Cognitive Style (rely on imagery to schematically
represent spatial relations among objects), and Verbal Cognitive Style (use verbal-
analytical tools to solve cognitive tasks).
According to Goleman in individuals’ life their emotional intelligence level
is the largest single predictor of their success (Goleman, 1995). There are three
most famous models of emotional intelligence. The first model was given by
Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2001), which assumes that in order to
make sense of and navigate the social environment one’s emotions are useful
sources of information (Salovey, & Grewal, 2005). The second model introduced
by Reuven Bar-On, which emphasizes how overall well-being of individual is
influenced by their personality traits and cognition. Daniel Goleman (1995) gave
26
the third model of emotional intelligence, which deals with both personality
aspects and cognitive ability. Goleman’s model of EI has four main constructs; a)
Self-management, b) Relationship Management, c) Social awareness, and 4) Self-
awareness (as cited in Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000).
The present study focus on three aspects of Goleman’s Model of emotional
intelligence: Emotional Self-Regulation (ability of effective coping with unpleasant
event without showing harmful behavior), Emotional Self Awareness (better
recognition and identification of one’s feelings and its affect on their lives), and
Interpersonal Skills (judgment of others’ emotions, especially negative emotions).
Personality traits are the stable attribute outline of one’s
behavior/dispositions regarding the particular way of feeling and action, which
differentiate individuals from each other (Costa & McCrea, 1982). This theory
based on five personality dimensions: neuroticism/emotional stability,
conscientiousness, openness to experience, extroversion, and agreeableness. The
present study focuses on these five factor personality trait; Emotional Stability
(tendency to experience negative feeling such as fear, anger etc.), Extroversion
(people like gathering, are assertive, active, talkative, and enjoy excitement),
Openness to Experience (people are imaginative, complex, curious, independent,
analytical, and liberal), Agreeableness (individuals are fundamentally altruistic,
sympathetic, and eager to help them), and Conscientiousness (they are trustworthy,
punctual, reliable, and dependable).
Mixed models of EI by both Bar-On and Goleman have close relationship
with personality traits. Brackett and Mayer (2003) found high significant
correlations of Bar-On’s emotional intelligence model with neuroticism,
extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness factors, but moderate
27
significant correlations with openness factor of the Big Five. Similarly, Sala,
(2002) found significant correlation of Goleman’s emotional intelligence model
with extroversion, openness, and conscientiousness factors, and moderate
significant with agreeableness and neuroticism factors of Big Five.
COGNITIVE STYLES
The term cognition is used for the collection of different mental processes
such as perception, mindfulness, rationality, and decision power. The roots of
research work on cognitive processes have strong connection with Gestalt
psychology (i.e. Wolfgang Kohler, Max Wertheimer, and Kurt Koffka) and with
the studies of Jean Piaget on cognitive development in children. Carl Jung
published “Psychological Types” (1923) at the beginning of the 20th century. In
this book Jung discuss three facets which comprised personality of individuals on a
continuum descriptor. This theory is a strong evident that Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI) is a standard personality test which is used in many experiments
conducted on cognitive style (as cited in Lucas-Stannard, 2003).
There is some debate in defining cognitive styles because different
researchers define them according to their own observations and research findings.
Such as Goldstein and Blackman define it as a hypothetical construct that was
developed to explain the mediation process of cognition between stimuli and
responses (Ridding & Cheema, 1991). The conceptualization and organization of
one’s environment is determined by their cognitive styles (Goldstein & Blackman,
1978). These researchers said that cognitive styles are basically information
transformation process used for interpretation of meaningful schema through
objective stimuli. Cognitive style gave an overall picture of cognitive processes
and personality. Similarly, some other researchers theorize that cognitive styles
28
mad a connection between cognition/intelligence and personality measures
(Ridding & Cheema, 1991; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 1997). Cognitive style has a
unique characteristic of polar nature in which nonexistence of one characteristic
infers the presence of its extreme. This characteristic is opposite to the personality
characteristics that are more multifaceted (Ridding & Cheema, 1991). In previous
researches sometimes learning style is also used synonymously with cognitive
style (Entwistle, 1981; Pask, 1976), while others disagree stating that learning style
is a preferred strategy. So, both cognitive and learning styles are different terms
because learning style can change but cognitive style are permanent characteristics
of personality (Ridding & Cheema, 1991; Roberts & Newton, 2001).
Traditionally cognitive styles define in term of an individual’s consistent
way of cognitive functioning related to acquisition and processing of information
(Ausburn & Ausburn, 1978). It has been suggested that cognitive styles can be
characterized as heuristics that individuals use to process information about their
environments. Various levels of information processing is used for the
identification of these cognitive styles, from the meta cognitive to the perceptual
(Kozhevnikov, 2007). The main reason behind the attraction of researchers
towards the construct of cognitive style is its predictive power of an individual's
behavior and success on complex tasks in real-life, academic, and educational
settings (e.g., Bernardo, Zhang, & Callueng, 2002; Sadler-Smith & Badger, 1998;
Sternberg & Zhang, 2001; Streufert & Nogami, 1989). Many researchers mainly
emphasize on the comparative stability of cognitive style (e.g., Messick, 1976) in
the sense that simple habits does not represented by them, but they develops slowly
and experientially. At the same time, proves that life experiences modify
individual’s cognitive style (Hayes & Allinson, 1998; Leonard & Straus, 1997;
29
Sternberg, 1997), and they adaptively changed in accordance to the demands of the
external environment (Dunn, Dunn, & Price, 1989; Entwistle, 1981; Schmeck,
1988; Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). For that reason, since cognitive styles appear to
be to some extent flexible. The investigations of developmental changes through
which cognitive styles undergo from a life-span perspective and in relation to the
development are the main interest of investigators.
The people of different cultures use a wide range of cognitive styles which
are suitable in diverse contexts for performing different cognitive tasks. The
cognitive styles are compared by many psychological anthropologists have across
different cultures. Some of these researchers assume that these cognitive styles
falls on a wide spectrum from global style to enunciated style. People with global
style have holistic view the external world because at first they focus on bundle of
relationships and at the end they study bits and pieces related to these relationships.
Consequently these cognitive styles are referred as field dependent cognitive
styles. In comparison, people with articulated style first break up the world into
small bits and later they develop larger chunks by organizing these bits. It was also
found that they can sharply differentiate between their own bodies and outside.
Individuals having articulated cognitive style are field independent because they
have the ability to pay attention on small information irrespective of the context
(Cole & Scribner, 1974).
In the beginning it was assumed that in Western societies most people use
field independent cognitive styles, while in non-Western cultures field dependent
cognitive style is preferred by most people. Later on it was found that these
generalizations are misleading through many researches. The preference of
cognitive style by any individual often varies in accordance to the task and context.
30
Some people, who use global styles mostly to perform cognitive tasks, also
articulated styles for performing some other tasks. In certain conditions they may
perform single task with the help of different styles (Lavenda & Schultz, 2013).
Currently it was assumed by many cognitive scientists that a dead end
appeared in the research work on cognitive styles. The point of view of these
scientists is that no doubt individual differences exist in relation to cognitive
functioning and other factors often overwhelmed their effects (e.g. all human
minds have common general abilities and cognitive constraints). The sarcasm of
the current situation is that the interest level is low by all cognitive sciences in
building an articulate theory related to cognitive styles among researchers. Though,
many researchers belonging to different applied fields found that in a particular
situation cognitive style can be a better predictor of an individual’s success than
general intelligence level or situational factors.
In the history of psychology the development of cognitive style is an
interesting and paradoxical topic. In the starting years of early 1950s, both applied
and theoretical literature was emerged on style types through a great number of
studies. Individual differences identification was the main aim of all these studies
on cognition that are related to social relationships and personality, are value free,
and stable. In 1954, different studies were conducted by Gardner Murphy for the
assessment of cognitive style for better understanding of the relationship between
personality traits and their environmental factors. The results of these studies
progress the research work toward the development of American psychological
science (as cited in Witkin et al., 1954). Despite all these researches, in the 1970s,
this field remained disjointed and incomplete because the researchers related to
cognitive style began to lose their interest in this field. Consequently, the available
31
literature on cognitive style was insufficient for the development of coherent and
practically useful theory for the understanding of how these cognitive styles were
linked to other psychological constructs and cognitive science theories.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s different experimental studies were
conducted in order to reveal that individual differences are existed in performing
even simple cognitive tasks in which perception and categorization of elements is
involved (Hanfmann, 1941; Klein, 1951; Klein & Schlesinger, 1951; Witkin, 1950;
Witkin & Ash, 1948). Hanfmann (1941) found that for grouping the blocks most f
the people use perceptual approach while other individuals use more conceptual
approach (they first formulate hypotheses for possible groupings). Witkin and Ash
(1948) found that when individual performed a task called the Rod-and-Frame Test
they showed significant differences in their way of perceiving the upright
orientation of a rod in different surrounding fields. Witkin and Ash (1948) also
explore that some subjects of the experiment just perceived the rod in upright
position when this rod was aligned with the axes of the field; while other subjects
show that perception is not dependent on field characteristics. Klein (1951) studied
the level of accuracy by people in making judgments of all changes occur in
perceptual stimuli. He explore that individuals mostly received those projected
squares which have constant changed in their size. Klein (1951) also stated that on
the basis of perceiving abilities all the people can be divided in to two categories.
Individuals belonging to first category are sharpeners (they noticed contrasts and
maintained stimulus differentiation at high degree); while the people belong to
second category are levelers (they focus on similarities and ignored differences
among stimuli). These primary studies were mainly conducted for identifying the
vigorous individual differences with respect to their performance of simple
32
cognitive tasks as well as to demonstrate that people differently perceived and
solve the problems that’s why they different level of success and failures. At that
time no specific term or tag was used to identify these individual differences, so
consequently these individuals were named as cognitive system principles,
perceptual attitudes, predispositions, or patterns (Holzman & Klein, 1954; Gardner,
Holzman, Klein, Linton, & Spence, 1959).
Klein and Schlesinger (1951) and Klein (1951) introduced the term of
cognitive style for explaining the possible relations of individual differences in
perception and personality. Klein (1951) was the first who called cognitive styles
as perceptual attitudes because he stated that cognitive styles are the specific
patterns of adaptation to the changing external world and they regulate peoples’
cognitive functioning. According to him perceptual attitudes are those different
methods which are used by different persons to grips with reality. He also stated
that the adaptation process try to maintain a balance between inner needs and outer
environmental requirements. A special mechanism, which is based on ego control
system, is developed by every individual for achieving that balancing state (Klein,
1951). The executive directive of the ego-control system is expressed with the help
of cognitive style and this system regulates intake selectively (Klein, 1951). He
stated that both poles (leveling–sharpening dimension) are equally functional (i.e.,
both poles are equally important for any individuals for attaining a satisfactory
equilibrium level between their inner needs and outer requirements of
environment). This balance is highly sensitive to individuals in the procedure of
sharpening.
After a long time period, Holzman and Klein (1954) stated that cognitive
styles are preferred forms of cognitive regulation or basic regulatory principles
33
because they are those typical means which are used by an organism for problem
solution and development of adaptive requirements for certain types of cognitive
issues. The results of a large experimental study conducted by Witkin et al. (1954)
played a crucial role in the development of further research work on cognitive
style. Witkin conducted this study in order to explore the individual differences in
perception and to find the relationship between these individual differences and
their particular personality traits. The perceptual skills of subjects in Witkin’s
research assessed through different number of orientation tests. The subjects of this
study perform The Body Adjustment Test (judgment of body position with respect
to different fields); The Rod-and-Frame Test (determination of a rod’s upright
position); and The Rotating Room Test (adjustment of subjects in vertical position
in room). They also perform the Embedded Figure Test (identification of simple
figures in a complex one). A broad spectrum of methods was used by Witkin et al.
(1954) for examining the subjects’ personality characteristics with the help of their
scores on personality questionnaires and projective tests, clinical interviews, and
their autobiographical reports. The major results of Witkin et al.’s (1954) study
was the identification of individual differences in peoples’ stability in performance
of different perceptual tasks across different tasks. According to Witkin (1954) two
groups of subjects are existed; field dependent (FD; they are highly dependent on
their surrounding environment); and field independent (FI; they have lower
dependency on their external environment). Here it is important to mention that a
large number of subjects belongs to intermediate group were found in the study of
Witkin et al.’s (1954) who did not fall in FD and FI category. Subjects’
personality characteristics showed significant association with their performance
on perceptual tests and social behavior. In a vague conditions FD group use more
34
their external social referents while the subjects of FI group have higher attentive
to social cues. The FI group are impersonal orientated people because the subjects
of FD group show psychological and physical distancing from other individuals
(Witkin & Goodenough, 1981). According to Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough,
and Karp (1962) different modes of adjustment used by the individual in the world
actually made differences in their perception level. The conclusion of their
research findings is that both FI and FD groups have their own specific
components which develop for adaptation in different environment settings.
According to Witkin et al. (1962) the subjects of FD group reflects an early and
undifferentiated mode of adjustment while the subjects of FI group reflects a later
and more differentiated mode of adjustment towards changes in external
environment. On perceptual task the subjects related to field independence group
usually having higher performance on perceptual tasks and higher growth in
psychological organization.
Though a highly differentiated FI individual have very well-organized
perceptual and cognitive tasks but still these individuals may have disharmony
with their surrounding environment consequently they have inappropriate
responses to the demands of external world. Both Witkin et al. (1962) and Klein
(1951) define cognitive styles as specific cognitive patterns or adjustment modes to
adapt the outer world that are important equally but they mostly focus on different
cognitive strategies, that ultimately produce diverse perceptions of world. Klein
(1951) had strong emphasis on the guiding and controlling function of cognitive
styles in making the concept of cognitive executive functions; that in return decide
when, where, and how an individual uses different cognitive approaches and
particular skills (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977). Though both
35
Witkin’s and Klein have similar status with respect to integration and adjustment
of cognitive styles, but still Witkin and his colleagues were fail to elaborate
completely their theory on cognitive styles, resultantly confusion increase in
construct of this theory (as cited in Witkin et al., 1962). The following research
work on cognitive styles is infused by this confusion. These succeeding studies
become the base of a new discussion among the researchers that whether opposite
poles of the style dimensions are equally important or not if not then which styles
are more strong indicators of higher intelligence levels (Witkin et al., 1962).
Models of Cognitive Styles
The cognitive styles describe individual’s conceptualization and knowledge
acquisition process. The concept of cognitive styles has strong association with
mental behaviors concerning to the information getting methods, storage and
utilization of these information. An individual use or apply these cognitive styles
for the solution of their problems. Usually personality dimension are used to
describe cognitive styles which effects their social interaction ways/level, their
attitudes, and values. On cognitive styles the following theoretical models are
available:
1. Kolb’s Model
2. Honey-Mamford’s Model
3. Gregoric Model
4. Howard’s Gardener Model
5. Kirton’s Model
6. Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model
36
1. Kolb’s Model
David Kolb creates a model to assess learning/cognitive styles which
discuss different methods of perceiving and processing information (McLeod,
2010). This model explains that following four methods/ways of information
processing:
1. Concrete Experience: Individuals’ specific life experiences (e.g., feeling,
seeing, hearing, and touching) are the source of perception of information.
These learners are sensitive to feelings and relating these experiences to the
people. Laboratories experimentation and field work are also sources of
learning. Audio-visual media (e.g., multimedia applications and films) are
better source of learning (McLeod, 2010).
2. Reflective Observation: Information process is done by these learners by
thinking over it. They carefully observe things before making any judgment
or decision. They have different perspectives on things because they look
for the meaning of things. They always prefer to develop their own
observations related to their experiences. These observers can read journals
and use logs for better and easier learning (McLeod, 2010).
3. Abstract Conceptualization: they have abstract perception of information
which relies on both visual and mental conceptualization. These individuals
have systematical and logical evaluation of ideas and plan which act on any
situation’s intellectual understanding. In order to explain their observations
they develop may theories. These learners mostly learn through reading,
researching, and lecturing methods (McLeod, 2010).
4. Active Experimentation: These individuals mostly perceive information by
doing experimentation with it. These learners are risk takers and they
37
influence both people and events through their action. Moreover these
individual also use theories for solving their issues and making decision
making. These individuals have better learning with the help of homework,
case studies, and simulations (McLeod, 2010).
2. Honey-Mamford's Model
The model of Honey-Mamford's is based on Kolb's model. Honey and
Mumford (2006) get following four quadrants of cognitive styles by combining the
two opposite’s directions in Kolb's model:
1. Activists: They are dynamic and intuitive people. They learn things through
their new experiences, different opportunities, and their active
experimentation. They start their learning from their five senses and then
they organize information to take immediate action. These learners fit
themselves perfectly in activities based on here and now. They prefer to
learn through their interaction with the others (Honey & Mumford, 2006).
2. Theorists: They are theoretical, analytical, thinkers and watchers, who
made concepts by abstract way of integration of their perceived the
experiences. They prefer to examine old and construct new theories. They
make an idea after observing it in different circumstances and by doing
experimentation on it. They are specifically interested in evaluation and
generalization of reasons behind success and failure of individuals with the
help of assumptions, logic and questions. Finally they like in depth
examination of alternative methods (Honey & Mumford, 2006).
3. Pragmatists: They are thinkers and doers. They are practical and common
sense people. They use abstract perception of experiences and then actively
process them. They try to prove their unique ideas with the help
38
experimentation. They have the ability to solve a real problem by using all
the possible methods and techniques of a theory. Consequently they prefer
those methods that have practically more advantageous. Finally, they like
to learn with simulating learning methods and the type of learning material
that has a practical scope (Honey & Mumford, 2006).
4. Reflectors: These individuals are imaginative feelers, and watchers. They
have concrete perception of information/experience and then reflective
processing of it. They rely on their observations and then they generalize
and analyze it (Honey & Mumford, 2006).
3. Gregoric Model
The Gregoric model is based on two parts: the way we gather information,
and the way we process information (Reio & Wiswell, 2006). The styles of this
model are the following:
1. Concrete Sequential: They practically apply ideas because they focus on
facts and realities. As these peoples work systematically step by step, so the
best performance given by them when they set deadlines. These learners
produce concrete products through effective utilization of their abstract
ideas. They have interrogative in nature and prefer to work alone, as well as
they are keenly interested to know peoples’ expectations of them (Reio &
Wiswell, 2006).
2. Abstract Sequential: They have logical reasoning and well-researched
information for explaining things which they get from researches and
analysis of ideas. They bitterly learn through direct observations rather than
experimentations. They repeatedly perform the same task and every time
39
subject are examining in-depth. Though they try to control the discussion
but by nature they are not diplomatic (Reio & Wiswell, 2006).
3. Abstract Random: Their main focus in on the understanding of others
‘emotions and feelings by carefully listening them. They are capable to
bring harmony through their cooperation with others, as well as the
recognition of others emotional needs. Consequently, they have very
friendly relationships with everyone. They personalize their learning and
mainly focus on general principles. They always prefer their emotions than
their cognitions in decision making, so they have difficulty in explaining
and justification of their emotional states (Reio & Wiswell, 2006).
4. Concrete Random: They have very fast thinking procedure, so they are
capable to find many options for solving problems. Insight and instinct are
two important tools used by these individuals in solving the problems. They
do not like routines, limitations, restrictions, deadlines, formal reports, keep
detail in records, and repeating tasks (Reio & Wiswell, 2006).
4. Howard Gardener’s Model
Gardener has identified seven distinct learning styles. This theory assumes
that though spatial representation of language, musical thinking, and logical-
mathematical analysis we are all able to know the world. This theory explains the
role of different body parts in problem solution, understanding of ourselves and
other selves (Gardner, 1999).
1. Visual/Spatial: they have the ability to develop mental images by
visualizing an object. They have a strong color sense and they gather their
knowledge/information through observations. They graphically represent
the relationships between different objects after deep recognition of it. They
40
feel difficulty in understanding the verbal instructions so they can not
follow the lectures. Usually these individuals are architects, inventors,
mechanics, and engineers (Gardner, 1999).
2. Verbal/Linguistic: They have strong association with language and spoken
words. They acquire and process their information by reading, writing, and
listening. They have highly developed auditory skills, have better
understanding of syntax and the meaning of the words, and have impressive
verbal expression. They like writing, reading, explanations, and discussion.
These people generally belong to teaching, authors, journalism, lawyers,
and translators’ professions (Gardner, 1999).
3. Logical/Mathematical: They deal with numbers and inter relationships of
these numbers. They have sharp ability to recognize the patterns in order to
work with geometric shapes and to make connections between pieces of
information. They are more interested in performing practical, asking
cosmic questions, and solving puzzles. They are highly skilled individuals
in problem solving, logic, and reasoning. Usually engineers, scientists,
accountants, and computer programmers possessed this cognitive style
(Gardner, 1999).
4. Bodily/Kinesthetic: These mainly focused on the information regarding the
body parts and their functions as well as on the physical movement of these
body parts. These are high performers in game, can express emotion, as
well as to interpret and invoke effective body language with the help of
their different body parts. They possessed mimetic abilities. As they have
deep awareness level regarding whole body, so they have better control on
their movements which they learned previously. They are hyperactive and
41
that’s why usually chosen to become clowns, dancers, athletes, mimes, and
actors (Gardner, 1999).
5. Musical/Rhythmical: These individuals have good recognition for the beat,
tonal patterns, and rhythm of music. They are very sensitive in perceiving
the sounds of surrounding environment, musical instruments, and the voice
of humans. They have the ability to produce melodies and sounds because
they have better understanding of the structure of music. These people are
generally disc jockeys, composers, and singers (Gardner, 1999).
6. Interpersonal: They have empathetic attitudes towards their feelings and
beliefs and use both verbal and nonverbal ways of communication in order
to communicate with others. Usually they act like organizers because they
know how to create and maintain a synergy. They use others’ perspectives
to understand things and matters. These learners are usually community
organizers, business people, counselors, and politicians, (Gardner, 1999).
7. Intrapersonal: These learners are very skillful regarding their ability of
focusing on their inner self. These people have deep awareness of their
inner feelings, ideas, and their dreams. Analytical and reflective features
are part of their nature. They know very well that what are the weaknesses
and self-strengths they have. They are usually motivated, wise, strong will,
intuitive, and self-confident. So they are mostly philosophers, self-
employed, theorists, and researchers by profession (Gardner, 1999).
5. Kirton's Model of Cognitive Style
Kirton's Model (also called Adaption-Innovation theory) is one of the most
popular models of cognitive style, which was devised by Michael Kirton (1976,
2003). This model mainly assumes that a continuum, which ranges from high
42
adaptation to the high innovation, is an ideal approach for problem solution used
by every individual's. Kirton stated that some individuals are adaptors (they use
adaptive approach for solving a problem), while others are innovators (they use
innovative approach for solving a problem). Time-honored techniques are used by
the adaptor individuals for solving their problems; while innovators do not use
innovative technologies for the solution of their problems. Kirton also stated that
adaptors show better performance within a given paradigm, while innovators
perform better in a different way. So, both innovators and adaptors strived to
transcend the existing paradigms. Kirton Adaption-innovation Inventory (KAI) is
based on theory of Kirton model of cognitive style, which was developed for the
assessment of cognitive style. This instrument requires the respondent to rate
themselves against thirty-two personality traits. Another important concept related
to A-I theory is that of bridging in teams. Kirton (2003) defines the concept of
bridging as a way to reaching out to people in the team and helping them to be the
part of it. Though their contribution might be outside the main-stream but still
these researches may contribute a lot. So, in these state of affairs bridging is just a
role or a task that researchers has learnt. Though the skilled leader might use other
individuals for recognizing good bridges for maintaining the group cohesiveness
but despite all this the bridging is not leading. Group cohesion assumes that group
members must be aware about the importance of this information that either all of
its members working well together or not. Kirton (2003) stated that for a person it
is easy to assume and learn a linking role if their cognitive style is a transitional
one.
43
6. Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model
The present research based on this model of cognitive styles. Kozhevnikov
(2007) critically reviewed the existing trends and perspectives of research in the
field of cognitive style. So, after the revision of these researches Kzhevnikov
(2007) proposed an integrated framework in order to guide future research work on
cognitive styles. This was consummate with the help of a comprehensive literature
review of the major problems that have accrued over the years, as well as by
conducting long discussion on the promising theoretical models of cognitive styles
that can be developed later on. It is also based on research work done in different
psychological fields by using multiple methods of modern neuroscience.
On the basis of the findings of previous research literature, it was found
that cognitive styles are those special types of heuristics with the help of which
surrounding environment is processed by individuals. So, various levels of
processing the information are used in order to identify these special types of
heuristics (ranging from perceptual level to meta-cognitive level). On regulatory
function these heuristics can be grouped together, which they exert on processing
information ranging from automatic encoding of data to allocation of cognitive
resources at conscious executive level.
Kozhevnikov, Kosslyn, and Shephard (2005) proposed the new model of
cognitive style named Object Spatial Verbal theoretical model, which identifies
three independent dimensions (Object Imagery, Verbal, and Spatial Imagery).
44
The traditional model of Visual Verbal cognitive style is re-examine by this
model of cognitive style with the help of current findings on neuroscience and
behavioral researches. The results of this analysis demonstrate that spatial and
object processing systems are independent of each other. The results of
confirmatory factor analysis found that this data will be best fit to the new three
dimensional model of cognitive style rather than that to a traditional model of
cognitive styles (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009). Theoretical approach of
Object Spatial Verbal cognitive style was used to construct a new self-report
Questionnaire (Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire; OSIVQ).
OSIVQ was designed with an aim to explore the individual differences in spatial
imagery and object imagery (Blazhenkova, Kozhevnikov, & Motes, 2006).
Relationship between Personality Traits and Cognitive Styles
For almost more than 40 years, researchers are deeply interested to inquire
those cognitive/learning styles and personality traits which make academically
talented and intellectually gifted students different from rest of the world of that
makes. This trend of research becomes the center of attention for many researchers
especially since it was found that gender differences are related with a number of
45
personality traits in mathematical ability, science ability, long-term social-
emotional adjustment, and even with high-level achievement. For the last 20 years
a great number research and scholarly of article focus on the need of exploring the
students' learning/cognitive styles for tailoring each and every student's self-
concept and their learning/cognitive style as a learner. These written materials
discuss everything from teaching style of the teachers/scholars to the classroom
environment with the assumption that this will boost their learning (Johns Hopkins
University Center for Talented Youth, CTY; 2013).
Personality, cognitive style profiles, and learning style mathematically
talented students were assessed by Mills (1993) in which he made a comparison
between academically talented group and mixed ability group having same age
level. The results of these comparisons identify four important dimensions of
cognitive style (preferences for Sensing-Intuition, Introversion-Extraversion,
Judging-Perceiving, and Thinking-Feeling) on which these students show
individual differences (Mills, 1993). Mills also reported that three personality
traits; affiliation, endurance, and achievement; made the talented students different
from the general students’ population. Gifted students have wider range of scores
on all personality traits and cognitive styles. The most interesting and surprising
result of this research was the Thinking-Feeling (subscale of MBTI) act as a
mediating variable which decrease between gender differences and increase the
within-gender differences.
Since 1983 the cognitive learning styles and personality traits of
academically talented students were investigated by the researchers at the Johns
Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (CTY; 2013). These researchers
have accumulated the largest database of information on the link between
46
personality traits and cognitive styles in the world. Initially these researchers use
Adjective Check List (ACL; to measure 14 indicators of psychological adjustment
and personality) and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; assess the
psychological type). They explore the cognitive styles and personality
characteristics of gifted and talented students with respect to student’s culture, type
of academic talent, gender, and time. The findings of these researches explained
that innovative cognitive style and openness to experience personality traits are
positively associated in the rule/group conformity domain. Originality dimension
and extraversion personality trait also possessed positive association with each
other as explored by these studies. On the other side negative connections of
conscientiousness and agreeableness personality traits with the total scores on KAI
was also reported by these studies. It was also found that conscientiousness and
agreeableness is high in adaptors in comparison to innovators. In the originality
dimension the adaptive cognitive style possessed positive association with
Neuroticism personality trait; similarly on the other hand efficiency domain of
same cognitive style has positive connection with extraversion personality trait.
Binary logistic regression analysis on the data revealed that innovative cognitive
style is predicted by extraversion personality trait, while adaptive cognitive style is
predicted by conscientiousness personality trait (Buksnyte-Marmiene,
Kovalcikiene, & Ciunyte, 2012).
Personality
The definition of term personality which contains all the essential aspects is
complicated by different theoretical approaches related to personality. For
researchers in describing and explaining the human personality what are the most
47
relevant and primary focused aspects of personality? In order to answer this
question two possible definitions of personality are:
The term personality can be define as the unique and comparatively
permanent internal and external aspects of a person’s character which effects and
predict any individual’s behavior across different conditions and situations
(Schultz & Schultz, 2001). Similarly, Carole and Carole (2000) also stated that
personality is the collection of thoughts, behaviors, emotions and motives which
are permanent and distinctive in nature and they characterized the individual
throughout his or her life.
No doubt both of these definitions of personality narrow down the scope of
research work on personality, but still they are considered as over-inclusive.the
theories related to over-inclusive theoretically gave the synthesis of personality by
developing super-models. Despite this synthesis of personality, these super-models
should be broken down into operational hypotheses for their empirical assessment
in order to get more clear-cut and manageable construct (John & Srivastava, 1999).
One major problem faced by all these personality researches is to get empirically
testable hypotheses that can be helpful later in the understanding of personality
characteristics (Allen, 2000; Hartmann, 2006).
Though a wider perspective is used to explain the term personality, but
according to traditional psychometrician personality tests are used to investigate or
assess the level of emotion, motivation, attitude, and interpersonal characteristics.
Many theorist however, chosen to emphasize on the mediating function of
personality characteristics in predicting the adjustment level of the different
people. On the other side in many other definitions the term personality is used
synonymously to the individual and exclusive aspect of individual’s
48
bevaiors/actions. So, in this respect, the term personality is used to differentiate
those things that are distinctive and mad individual different from other persons.
On the basis of this approach the personality psychologists realize that individuals
should be define with respect to their personality traits (Hall, Lindzey, &
Campbell, 1998).
Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, and Hammer (1998) explored that different
school of thoughts (i.e., humanistic, psychoanalytic, trait theory, and social-
cognitive) are used to explain the specific pattern of individual’s actions, thinking,
and perception of emotional state, for defining the term personality. Among all of
the theories of personality one of the most predominant and well accepted
personality theories is trait theory. This theory tried to explain or define
individual’s personality in terms of their underlying dynamics related to
behavior/actions. Traits are basically those specific characteristic patterns of
behavior or dispositions that determine individual’s particular ways of action and
feeling which ultimately generate the individual difference. Researchers assume
that personality traits are the permanent and constant aspects of any individual’s
personality throughout his/her lifetime. So traits are considered as templates for
any conduct of an individual (Myers, 1998). The findings generated by a
longitudinal study on American adult found that majority of people show the same
personality characteristics when they are at age 80 years and when they are at age
30 years (Costa & McCrea, 1982).
On the basis of results generated by factor analysis, a large number of trait
theorists proposed models of personality traits which can be expressed with the
help of different personality inventories. For example, two genetically influenced
personality of dimensions (introversion-extroversion and stability-instability) were
49
introduced by Hans and Sybil Eysenck in their model of personality (as cited in
Myers, 1998). Among all the models of trait personality, Big Five Personality
Factor Model is considered as one of the most recent and more widely accepted
model of trait personality.
The theoretical basis of Big Five Personality Factor Model (also named as
Big Five or the Five Factor Model) is empirical because it derives from the
findings of early research work done by Raymond Cattell, Gordon Allport, Sybil
Eysenck and Hans on personality traits/characteristics (as cited in Stys & Brown,
2004). Major assumption of this model is that five dimensions (openness to
experience, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion)
consummate all the factors of personality. In these five dimensions each dimension
also has two extreme poles and every person falls between these two extreme
poles. Neuroticism and emotional stability personality traits are opposite from each
other in term of their characteristic features. Extroversion personality trait based on
active approach which proposed that extrovert individuals have energetic ways of
dealing the eternal world. In the same way, people with openness to experience and
close-mindedness personality traits are opposite from each other, because open
individuals tried to perform new tasks and new experiences. On the other hand
people with antagonism and agreeableness personality characteristics have
opposite approaches of life because agreeable people have always altruistic
behavior and always ready to help other peoples. Conscientious people are goal-
directed because these individuals have better control on their impulses, which as a
consequence facilitate their behavior in different task performance (Hergenhahn &
Olson, 1999).
50
Trait Theory of Personality
The conventional assumption of all trait personality approaches is that
constant generalized personality can be used chiefly to determine behavior of every
individual. By following this assumption these traits are searched by a large
number of many scientists/ investigators enthusiastically. The major goal of the
trait psychology was to investigate the individual’s status on one or more than one
dimensions of trait personality (e.g., intelligence, introversion, anxiety) after
comparing the individual with each other in similar conditions/circumstances. The
search of person’s basic trait at individual level started by many researchers after
believing that on these dimensions of personality trait the positions of individuals
remains stable across different time period and situations (Mischell, 1999).
As Allport (a psychologist) developed one of the first modern trait theories,
so he gets a title of the father of personality psychology. Allport organized
personality traits in his trait theory around cardinal, central, secondary, minor
traits. According to Allport’s trait theory personality is consistent and unique in
nature because these traits were considered as the descriptors of durable and
constant disposition for a particular behavior/action. Huhhman, Vernoy, and
Vernoy assume that all trait theorists follow this believes along a continuum is
used to describe personality characteristics. Individuals have different level of
traits and predispositions to respond in particular way in different situations. The
major interest of trait theorists is to discover first how people differ from each
other as well as to measure the degree of variation in trait between and within the
individual; as cited in Chishti, 2002).
Personality traits can be broadly explained broadly as the individuals’
persistent ways of behaving, thinking and feeling. On the basis of this broad
51
definition of traits it was found that traits perform three major functions: 1)
summarize things, 2) explanation of individual’s behavior, and 3) behavior
prediction. Finally the theorists of trait personality stated that suggest that the
explanation of individual’s behavior will be found in the individual not in the
situation (Chishti, 2002). The theories related to personality traits try to answer two
basic questions regarding the structure of personality and determination of
behavior how traits are related to these two things. So according to trait theorists
personality is the accumulation of all traits of an individual which gave
explanations of their behavior. For the last several years many researchers felt that
the despite all these assumptions the trait theories were vague. So they are still
searching the fundamental factor that can bitter description of human personality
traits. Now after passing fifty years the researchers of personality psychology have
bulge of material for many different perspective. There are five major dimensions
when define personality at the broadest level. These broad five factors are;
Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), agreeableness (A), openness (O), and
Conscientiousness (C; Pervin & John, 2001).
Five-Factor Model of Personality
The Big-Five framework use hierarchical approach to define five main
factors/dimensions of personality. These factors use the broadest level of
abstraction for the representation or explanation of personality of any person. All
these five factors are bipolar in nature (e.g., Extraversion vs. Introversion), which
summarizes a large number of many specific facets of each personality factor (e.g.,
Sociability) principally. In the same way these facets also accumulate large number
of many specific characteristics of traits (e.g., talkative, outgoing). The theoretical
framework of Big Five factors suggests empirically derived domains can be used
52
to classify individuals into five broad dimensions on the basis of their individual
differences (Rayckman, 2004; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). Both the experimental
and the differential method were used to develop the five factor model (FFM) of
personality. The experimental method was used for describing and explaining the
general laws of personality applicable to all individual, while the differential
method was used for the description and explanation describe of individual
differences among specific. Both differential and experimental methods are
opposite to each other. The error variance appeared in experimental methods are
considered as the essence of the differential methods, while on the other side the
normal/average of differential method is considered as backbone of the
experimental methods. So in this way the FFM gave a general explanation of
individual differences and the structure of human personality (Hall et al., 1998;
Hartmann, 2006).
OCEAN model of personality traits comprised on five factors
(Extroversion, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness), while on the other side the five factors of Five Factor Model
(FFM) are Surgency, Dependability, Agreeableness, Culture, and Emotional
Stability. In the same way, each factor of Big Five Model also consisted upon a
large number of more specific facets (e.g., extraversion factor also includes
excitement seeking, sociability, and positive emotions). Different theories were
developed by many psychologists to describe the nature of this Big Five Model of
personality (Rayckman, 2004).
1. Agreeableness
Agreeableness personality trait reflects how individual are different
differences in their concerning attitudes towards social harmony and cooperation
53
with other peoples. The higher scorers on Agreeableness personality trait always
prefer other individuals and their company than their own selves. Consequently,
agreeable individuals are by nature kind, friendly, caring, willing to compromise
their interests, and helpful for other peoples. Optimism is one of the major qualities
of Agreeable people. They strongly believe that all people are reliable, civilized,
and truthful in their dealings with others fundamentally (Gosling, Rentfrow, &
Swann, 2003; Hartmann, 2006). While on the other side the disagreeable
individuals always prefer their own interest and benefits on others’ benefits and
interest. Usually disagreeable people do not show any concern with the benefit or
well-being of other individuals and also they never extend themselves for others.
Disagreeable people possessed cynical thinking for others, which makes them
unhelpful, aloof, and distrustful (Pervin & John, 2001). In order to attain and
maintain the popularity among society agreeableness personality trait is more
proffered trait of personality. Society appreciates agreeable people more in
comparison with disagreeable people. Contrary to this view in a specific situation,
which demands tough decisions or absolute objective, the agreeableness attitude is
not beneficial. Disagreeable people have better tendency to become excellent
soldiers, Critic, and scientists (Hall et al., 1998; Rayckman, 2004).
2. Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness personality trait deals with the specific way in which
individuals direct, regulate, and control their impulsive behavior. The impulses are
not negative in nature inherently but at certain conditions due to time pressure a
sudden decision has to be made. This sudden decision taking will considered as an
effective response to environmental demands only if person has better control on
his/her first impulse. When an individual is engaged in playing games rather than
54
doing work then such spontaneous and impulsive action enhance their fun
especially. Zany, fun-to-be-with, and colorful are the terminologies or named for
these individuals given by other people. The most important factor of
Conscientiousness is Need for Achievement (NAch; Gosling, et al., 2003;
Hartmann, 2006). The higher scorers on conscientiousness personality trait are
high achievers by using having persistence and determined planning and by easily
avoiding troubles. The social setup regards these people positively and considered
them as reliable and intelligent individuals. The negative quality attached with
conscientious people is that they are workaholics, perfectionists, and compulsively
in certain situations. Moreover, these people are also considered as boring and
stuffy persons when these individuals are extremely conscientious. Contrarily,
these individuals experience constant criticism due to their lack of ambition,
unreliability, and failure to stay within the line. As the low scorer on
conscientiousness personality trait experience many short-lived pleasures in their
live, so they will never be considered stuffy persons (Allen, 2000; Schultz &
Schultz, 2001).
3. Extroversion
Extroversion (also named as extraversion) individuals pronouncedly
involve in all the activities occur in their external world. They frequently
experience positive emotions, have high level of energy, and they enjoy the
company of other peoples. They are very passionate and try to avail all the
opportunities to get maximum excitement because they are action oriented
individuals. When these people are in group form they made every effort by using
their assertiveness and communication skills to attain the attention of others to
themselves (Hartmann, 2006; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). On the opposite side the
55
low energy level, poor activity level, and less enthusiasm attitudes are the major
characteristics of introvert individuals. Introvert people are mostly conscious, low-
key, calm, and independent on the social world. Though these people lack of social
involvement but still these individuals are not considered as shy or depress. In
comparison to extrovert individuals, these individuals simply have low level of
stimulation and they spend more time alone for recharging their batteries (Allen,
2000; Schultz & Schultz, 2001). This difference can be simply explain as that the
extrovert gains energy when they interacting with others and similarly they lose
their energy when they are alone. As both introvert and extrovert t are in contrast
to each other, so introverts lose energy when they are involved in any kind of
social activity and gain energy when they are alone and performing individual
activities( i.e., reading books, watching movie; Hall et al., 1998; Rayckman, 2004).
4. Neuroticism
Neuroticism (inversely also known as Emotional Stability) personality trait
focuses on an individuals’ tendency for experiencing the negative emotions.
Individual with higher level of Neuroticism primarily experience one particular
negative feeling (e.g., depression, anger, or anxiety) but later on they experience
many such negative emotions. Neurotic people have high level of emotional
reactivity. One major distinctive feature of these individual is that they mostly
produce response on those events, which are considered as normal events of life
for many other individuals. These people show higher tendency to provide
threatening interpretation of those situations which are ordinary in nature.
Similarly, they become very hopeless when they experience frustration of even
very minor level. As the negative emotional reactions of neurotic people usually
continue for long periods of time, so these people frequently experience bad mood.
56
They cannot cope with stress, cannot make good decisions, and unclear thinking
because these people don’t regulate their emotional states effectively (Hartmann,
2006; Mischell, 1999; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). On the other side, people
having low scores on Neuroticism personality6 trait have low tendency to upset
easily as well as have low level of emotionally reactivity. These people are very
calm, are free from experiencing negative feelings constantly, and have high level
of emotionally stability. Although they are free from experiencing negative
emotions regular basis, but it does not mean that low scorer on neuroticism
personality trait have higher tendency to experience positive emotions frequently
(Allen, 2000; Friedman & Schustack, 2003).
5. Openness to Experience
This dimension of personality traits has the ability to differentiate
imaginative and creative people from down-to-earth and conventional people. The
intellectual curiosity level is higher among these people. These people are very
beauty conscious and they are considered as appreciative of art. In comparison to
close people these people are well aware about their emotional state. For that
reason these individuals hold exceptional and individualistic beliefs about things,
despite this fact that in certain situations they show conforming behaviors/actions.
People having Low scores on Openness to Experience personality dimension
possessed some common interests which are narrow in scope. These people always
prefer clear, uncomplicated, and plain things as compared to the restrained, vague,
and multifaceted things. They show strong appreciative tendencies for sciences
with suspicion and arts, regardless of this fact that these things are endeavors as no
practical use or abstruse. Closed people are resistant to change in eternal world and
are very conservative in nature (Hall et al., 1998; Rayckman, 2004).
57
Emotional Intelligence
Presently emotional intelligence is the concept which catches the attention
of researchers and practitioners among the general public. It is widely believed by
the people that in contrast to the conventional dimension of personality and
intellectual ability, the level of social competence and emotional intelligence is as
or even more important concept (Goleman, 1995, 1998). Emotional intelligence is
the combinations of all those abilities/capabilities which are required for better
management of one’s own and others’ emotions (Goleman, 1995, 1998). The ways
in which people deal themselves, others, their work, and life is predicted by the
frequency with which a person use or demonstrates their constituent competencies
pr capabilities (inherent in emotional intelligence; Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee,
2000). So, on the whole emotional intelligence is the ability to: 1) understand,
express oneself and be aware of themselves; 2) understand and be aware of others;
3) Control and deal with impulses and strong emotions; and 4) change adaptation
and solution of personal/social problems (Bar-On, 1988).
The diverse combination of intellectual, social, and emotional dispositions
on any human being constitutes their Personality. Different patterns related human
behavior/actions provide evidences in almost in every sphere of life (Goleman,
1995). Goleman, (1995), Mayer and Salovey (1997); and Salovey and Mayer
(1990) stated that now with reference to the concept of emotional intelligence, the
investigators are more concerned with other personal characteristics/abilities (i.e.,
being able to motivate and persist oneself in frustrating conditions, to keep away
himself from inhibition of thinking ability and mood regulation, to delay
gratifications and its control, to hope and empathizes; Bar-On, 1997; Cooper &
Sawaf, 1997).
58
A new and growing area for all behavioral investigators is Emotional
intelligence, which become matured with the aid of lavish international media
attention. But for the exploration of emotional intelligence construct several
schools of thoughts exist, whose major aim is to provide accurate description and
measurement of the term emotional intelligence. The common claim regarding the
emotional intelligence is that it play an important role in modern society by
determining real life outcome in the form of success and failure, above and beyond
the contribution of general intellectual ability and personality factors (Goleman,
1995; Saarni, 1999). Thus, emotional intelligence possessed positive association
with academic achievement, occupational success and satisfaction, emotional
health, and adjustment (Elias et al., 1997).
The scientific studies conducted on EI started for the last 15 years. The first
psychological publication was in a relatively obscure journal in 1989 (Salovey &
Mayer, 1990). In 1995, Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence both
echoed and substantially added to a popular interest that fast grew out of
proportion to the knowledge accumulated in only a half a decade by a few
academic researchers. The immense popularity of EI has in some ways hindered
the field, particularly in terms of conceptual clarity (the sheer number of models
and definitions of emotional intelligence) has meant that vastly different constructs
exist under the same label, leading to different and sometimes conflicting claims
about what EI predicts.
Thorndike’s (1920) work on social intelligence act as distal roots in the
history of research work on EI. Thorndike (1920) explores the individual’s ability
to manage and understand people in order to take wise actions to protect human
relationships. On the other side, Gardner’s (1983) research work on multiple
59
intelligences act as the proximal roots of emotional intelligence. Gardner’s (1983)
research work specifically based on the concepts of interpersonal and intrapersonal
intelligence. According to Gardner (1999) interpersonal intelligence denotes a
person’s capacity to understand the motivations, desires, and intentions of other
people which result in effective dealing with other peoples. Contrary to
interpersonal intelligence, the intrapersonal intelligence deals with the capacity to
have an effective working model of oneself, understanding of oneself, (i.e., one’s
own capacities, fears, and desires) as well as the effective utilizations or use of
such information in order to regulate the mood of one’s self.
Although, in the previous literature the term emotional intelligence
appeared repeatedly (Greenspan, 1989; Leuner, 1966; Payne, 1986); but Salovey
and Mayer (1990) were the first researchers who gave formal definition and
theoretical model of Emotional intelligence. The first and the most relevant
empirical studies on emotional intelligence were conducted by Mayer, DiPaolo,
and Salovey (1990). The most influential book, which popularized the construct of
EI and strongly influenced EI’s most subsequent scientific conceptualizations, was
written by Goleman (1995). So, after appearing the Salovey and Mayer’s model of
EI and after publishing the best-selling book of Goleman on EI, many new models
of EI appeared. Weak correspondence is reported between data and models in the
majority of cases, because most researches were carried out in a theoretical
vacuum and most of these models are dissociated from empirical evidence.
Models of Emotional Intelligence
Many researchers (Kluemper, 2008; Martins, Ramalho, & Morin, 2010)
stated that substantial disagreement exist on operationalization the terminology of
EI. Ability model and mix model are the two schools of thought, which play most
60
significant role in defining the term of Emotional Intelligence. The major focus of
mental ability models is on emotions as well as the interactional role of these
emotions in thought processes. Mayer and Salovey also used mental ability model
to define emotional intelligence. On the other side, the mixed models assumes that
the mental abilities/capabilities and many other characteristics holding an
individual (motivation, social activity level, and states of consciousness) are a
single entity. Both Bar-On and Goleman used mix model of emotional intelligence
in order to explain and define Emotional Intelligence. Mixed models of EI have
broader scope as compared to mental ability models in terms of their definition of
Emotional intelligence applied by many theorists and researchers. A key difference
among all models of EI is that the mental ability models focus solely on emotions
of individual, while mixed models focus on multiple competencies which make the
base of thought based or emotion (DTS International, 2013). Currently, three
following main models of EI are used:
1. Ability EI Model
2. Trait EI Model
3. Mixed Models of EI (usually subsumed under trait EI)
a. Bar-On Model of Emotional Intelligence
b. Goleman Model of Emotional Intelligence
1. Ability Model
Salovey and Mayer's conception of EI based on the confines standard
criteria to define EI as a new form of intelligence. They follow this continuation of
research on EI, so their initial definition of EI was revised to the perceiving ability
of one self’s feelings, integration of these emotions to promote personal growth,
61
emotional regulation, facilitate thought processes, and understanding of emotions
(Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001).
The main assumption of ability model is that emotions are very useful
sources of information, which is very helping in making the sense and navigating
the social environment. This model assumes that every individual is different in
presenting their ability and to link their emotional processing with wider cognitive
functioning and to process emotional information. For better adjustment of any
individual to change in external environment, this ability is very helpful (Mayer &
Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Grewal, 2005). The model assumes that EI based on
following four types of abilities:
1. Perceiving emotions: This ability of an individual deals with better
detection of pictures, cultural artifacts, decipher emotions in faces, and
voices. It has direct effect on dealing and identification of one's own
emotions by one self. The basic aspect of emotional intelligence is the
perception of emotions because this ability makes possible for any
individual to process emotional information effectively.
2. Using emotions: Many cognitive activities are facilitated by individual’s
this ability of harness emotions (e.g., thinking, problem solving etc.).
Higher scorer individuals on emotional intelligence are always best fit in all
type of circumstances because they have full control on their emotions and
changing moods.
3. Understanding emotions: This ability of any individual deals with better
comprehension of emotion language and the appreciation of complex
relationships among emotions (e.g., description, recognition, evolution over
62
time, and understanding of emotions). It also enhances the detection ability
to slight changes which occur between emotions or feelings.
4. Managing emotions: it deals with any individual’s mood regulation ability
in others and himself/herself. Consequently, person with higher level of
emotional intelligence can harness both positive and negative emotions and
also manage these emotions for achieving the intended goals he/she set.
2. Trait EI Model
Soviet-born and Konstantin Vasily Petrides are British psychologist who
proposed a conceptually differentiate between the ability based model and a trait
based model of EI. They have been developing this difference latter after many
years in several scientific publications in different areas of the world. A huge
collection of emotional self-perceptions is termed as Trait Emotional Intelligence,
which are the lowest part of individual’s personality in ranking (Petrides &
Furnham, 2000a; Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). Trait EI can be defined in
general way as an individual's ability to perceive his/her emotional
abilities/capabilities. According to this definition, the concept of EI includes both
self-perceived abilities/capabilities and behavioral dispositions, which can be
measured in better way through many self-report questionnaires. Contrary to the
ability based model, this model deals with actual abilities of persons that can be
investigated through scientific measurement in an accurate manner (Petrides, Pita,
& Kokkinaki, 2007). The concept of Trait EI should be explored with respect to
the theoretical framework of personality characteristics. In certain place of
literature the term trait emotional self-efficacy is used as an alternative term for
trait EI (Petrides & Furnham, 2001).
63
The term trait EI is subsumes and general construct of Goleman and Bar-
On models of EI. The conceptualization of the construct EI as an essential part of
personality trait leads to the construction of a new construct, which do not lies in
the existing taxonomy regarding the cognitive ability of human. It is one of the
most important differences, which directly bears on the operationalization of the
hypothesis, theories and construct regarding trait EI (Petrides & Furnham, 2000a).
3. Mixed Models
a. Bar-On Model Of Emotional Intelligence
Dr. Reuven Bar-On is considered as one of the prominent leaders of EI
field. He writes many research articles and books on EI. The Bar-On model of EI is
very famous model which was developed on the theoretical approach of mixed
model of Emotional Intelligence (Bar-On, 2002). Bar-On’s Model of Emotional-
Social Intelligence mainly focuses on following five broad factors of EI:
1. Intrapersonal: Self-expression and self-awareness are the major focusing
area of this factor. Usually it governs our ability to positive or healthy
expression of emotions, getting awareness about the weaknesses and
strengths of ourselves and emotions. It is a broad factor which comprised
on many sub factors (Bar-On, 2002).
2. Interpersonal: It deals with our ability to be aware of needs and concerns,
others’ feelings, as well as to establish and maintain constructive,
cooperative, and mutually satisfying relationships with others. It also
consists of three sub factors named interpersonal relationships, social
responsibility, and empathy (Bar-On, 2002).
3. Stress Management: This factor relates to the ability of emotional
management and dealing with emotions in such a way that they so that they
64
are helpful for us not destructive. It has three sub factors named impulse
control, tolerance, and stress (Bar-On, 2002).
4. Adaptability: This factor primarily deals with change management (i.e., in
which way an individual cope with and adapt to interpersonal, personal,
and environmental change in our immediate environment. This factor
includes three sub factors named problem solving, flexibility, and reality
testing (Bar-On, 2002).
5. General Mood: It deals with our level of self-motivation. This factor
comprised on two sub factors named optimism and happiness (Bar-On,
2002).
b. Goleman Model Of Emotional Intelligence
The model introduced by Goleman (1998) focuses on EI as a wide range of
skills and competencies that drive leadership performance. This model of EI
consisted upon four main following constructs:
1. Self-awareness: The individual’s ability to read one's feelings and
recognize their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
2. Self-management: it involves controlling one's emotions and impulses and
adapting to changing circumstances.
3. Social awareness: It deals with an individual’s ability to understands,
sense, and reacts to one’s and others' emotions in the comprehension of
social world.
4. Relationship management: It deals with the ability of using emotions in
conflict management through influencing, inspiring, and developing
relationship with others.
65
In each construct of EI Goleman added several other emotional
competencies. Emotional competencies are not inborn aptitudes but they are
learned capabilities. These competencies worked on and can be developed in order
to achieve outstanding performance in every task. Goleman stated that every
individual born with a general emotional intelligence which determines their innate
ability to learn emotional competencies or skills (Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee,
2000).
Personality Traits and Emotional Intelligence
The relationship between emotional intelligence and personality has been
heavily discussed in the literature based on several previous research findings.
Many models of emotional intelligence and personality theory have very close
association with each other, specifically the mixed models of Goleman and Bar-
On. Major components and sub-components of both models and their theory of
emotional intelligence have close similarities to those areas of personality theory
which have been previously studies. Sub-components of Bar-On’s model of EI
which also have been considered as parts of personality are interpersonal
effectiveness, assertiveness, impulse control, reality testing, empathy, and social
responsibility. These similar characteristics can be measured through California
Psychological Inventory (CPI) which contains many such scales (i.e., interpersonal
effectiveness, self-assurance, self-control, self-acceptance, empathy and flexibility
(as cited in Stys & Brown, 2004). In the same way many competencies of
Goleman’s model of EI (e.g., self-confidence, self-control, and empathy) are areas
which have been widely researched in the field of personality psychology (Mayer,
et al., 2001). The intersection between personality theory and components of
66
emotional intelligence model is evident especially in the empirical comparisons of
their constructs.
When comparing Bar-On’s measure of emotional intelligence (the Emotion
Quotient Inventory) to the NEO-PI-R (used to measure the Big Five factors of
personality), it was found that Emotion Quotient Inventory significantly correlated
with each factor. These studies revealed highly significant correlations between the
Emotion Quotient Inventory and conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion,
and neuroticism factors, while openness to experience factor of the Big Five show
moderate significant correlations with Emotional Quotient Inventory (Brackett &
Mayer, 2003). Emotional Competence Inventory and Goleman’s measure of
emotional intelligence both have significant correlation with three personality
factors of the Big Five named; conscientiousness, openness, and extroversion
(Sala, 2002). Similarly, in case of Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test and the NEO-PI-R, the researchers found significant correlations between the
openness and agreeableness factors of personality and emotional intelligence
(Brackett & Mayer, 2003). Cognitive abilities relate only trivially to personality
traits (Cohen, 1988) for all the five factor dimensions except Openness because
openness correlates to crystallized intelligence.
There are two major mixed-model conceptualizations of EI: (1) Bar-On’s
(2000) Social and Emotional Intelligence; and (2) Boyatzis, Goleman, and Rhee’s
(2000) Emotional Competence, which grew out of Daniel Goleman’s work on EI
(Goleman, 1995, 1998). Bar-On’s theoretical model forms the basis for the
Emotional Quotient Inventory instrument (EQ-i), and Boyatzis et al.’s (2000)
theoretical model forms the basis for the Emotional Competence Inventory
instrument (ECI).
67
There is clear theoretical overlap between these models of EI and
personality: The EQ-I include stress tolerance, assertiveness, optimism, and
happiness; while the ECI includes achievement orientation, conscientiousness, and
trustworthiness. All these factors are either broad dimension or narrow facets of
NEO-PI-R model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1995). This conceptual
correspondence of self-report emotional intelligence (SREI) shows both negatively
and positive correlates with Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and
Extraversion (Engelberg & Sjoberg, 2004; Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003;
Schutte et al., 1998). Another research conducted by Petrides and Furnham (2003)
explored that emotional intelligence has negative correlation Neuroticism while
positive correlation with Extraversion. The Trait Meta Mood Scale (TMMS;
Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995) shows that emotional
intelligence is positively related with Agreeableness and Neuroticism (Davies,
Stankov, & Roberts, 1998). Correlations with narrower facets of personality are
even higher, indicating substantial overlap if not identity.
EQ-i scores correlate positively with the anxiety facet of Neuroticism
(Newsome, Day, & Catano, 2000; O'Conner & Little, 2003). However, studies
examining the relationship between trait EI and personality have tended to stop at
the five broad dimensions rather than the narrower 30 facets (e.g., Austin, 2004;
Austin, Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney, 2004; Petrides & Furnham, 2003;
Saklofske et al., 2003). An exception to this rule is provided by Petrides and
Furnham (2001), and they measured personality at the facet level but did not report
facet-level information (Petrides & Furnham, 2003). It is clear from these results
that trait EI is part of the personality domain and that some measures may be
68
substantially replicating existing dimensions of the five factor model of
personality.
Rationale of the Study
The present study aims to find out the moderating effect of personality
traits between emotional intelligence and cognitive styles of university students.
Emotional intelligence is the individual’s ability of identification, understanding,
using, and managing own and other’s emotions in positive ways to relieve stress,
better communication, being empathetic, and conflict resolution (Segal & Smith,
2014). A large number of researches had done on emotional intelligence (e.g.,
Caruso & Salovey, 2004; Emmerling & Goleman, 2003) with different variables;
such as emotional intelligence with cognitive intelligence (Elder, 1996; Sahin,
Guler, & Basim, 2009), leadership styles (Herbst, Maree, & Sibanda, 2006;
Mandell & Pherwani, 2003; Parrish, 2013), job performance (Janovics &
Christiansen, 2002; O'Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011), job
satisfaction (Kappagoda, 2011; Rakesh, 2014), academic performance (Lawrence
& Deepa, 2013; Luo, Thompson, & Detterman, 2003) etc.
Personality deals with the individual differences in thinking patterns,
characteristics, emotions, and actions (American Psychological Association; APA,
2015). Like emotional intelligence, a large number of researches have done on
personality traits (Gallo & Smith, 1998; Langerspetz & Engblom, 1979; Larsen,
Coleman, Forbes, & Johnson, 1972), with different constructs, such as with
leadership (Judge, Bono, JIlies, & Werner, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991;
Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986), with consumer behavior (Kassarjian, 1971;
Sarker, Bose, Palit, & Haque, 2013), with aggression (Barlett & Anderson, 2012;
Gleason, Jensen-Campbell, & Richardson, 2004; Soga, Shimai, & Otake, 2002),
69
with learning styles (Miller, 1991) with emotional regulation (Kokkonen &
Pulkkinen,1999) etc.
Cognitive styles are the psychological constructs which are directly related
to individuals’ different ways of information processing (Brown & Brailsford,
2006; Sadler-Smith & Badger, 1998). Unlike emotional intelligence and
personality traits there are limited research work available in cognitive styles
especially on verbal and spatial cognitive styles (Blajenkova, Kozhevnikov, &
Motes, 2006; Blazhenkova, Becker, & Kozhevnikov, 2011).
It’s very important to study the relationship between emotional intelligence
and personality traits because emotional intelligence is an integral part of
individual’s personality, similarly personality traits provides the framework in
which emotional intelligence work. Cognition, emotions and the self made the
major psychological subsystems. The existing knowledge on how personality traits
and cognitive styles affects the emotional intelligence and shed very slight light on
all these three domains.
Emotional Intelligence, cognitive styles, and personality traits are very vital
constructs in the field of psychology. Previous literature provides substantial
evidence regarding the relationship among these three constructs. Very limited
researches investigated the direction of relationship among these variables. The
current study specifically was conducted to investigate the inter-relationship
among EI, cognitive styles, and personality traits. So after making critical review
of existing literature on these variables it was decided to explore the relationships
as well as the moderating role of personality trait on EI and cognitive styles. These
interactional effects are necessary to know for the better understanding of how
individual’s personality characteristics effect the working of cognition in
70
perceiving things and dealing emotions. The most important reason for conducting
this research is that it is specifically conducted in Pakistani culture. Pakistan is one
of the countries in which collective culture exist. Being a part collectivistic culture
the individuals’ ability of better understanding, managing, and directing negative
emotions to positive emotion play a significant role in balancing a healthy
domestic environment.
In the present study students were selected for conducting the research
because cognitive styles play a significant role in students’ academic performance.
Secondly, previous literature indicated that the researcher use cognitive styles and
learning styles synonymously and most of the studies were done on students of
different academic disciplines. Emina (1986) stated that changes in the behaviors
of the students with respect to their learning achieved through education cannot be
considered attributed solely to their cognitive styles because the affective
orientations of the learners also play significant role in these changes of behaviors.
This is because the attitude is taken as an affective construct which can be
described or define on the basis of both motivation and intellectual preparedness in
learning of students.
71
Conceptual Model of the Current Study
Present study based on Goleman’s model of emotional intelligence. In
order to assess the components of this model an indigenously developed Inventory
named, Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; Khan, 2008) was
used. This inventory has 60 item having .95 alpha coefficients with scoring on five
point scale. It consists of three subscales with 11 facets. The first subscale is
Emotional Self-Regulation Scale (ESRS) which include five facets (adaptability,
emotional reactivity management, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and
achievement drive); second subscale is Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS)
which have three facets (self-awareness, perceived self-awareness, and self-
confidence); and third subscale is Interpersonal Skills Scale (ISS) which have three
facets (empathy, sociability, and communication. The hypothesized conceptual
framework of the current study based the objectives and consulted literature (See
following figure).
Moderator
Note. Personality traits (Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional
Stability) play moderating role between the relationship of emotional intelligence (Emotional Self-
Regulation, Emotional Self-awareness, and Interpersonal Skills) with cognitive styles (Object
Cognitive Style, Verbal Cognitive Style, and Spatial Cognitive Style).
Interpersonal
Skills
Emotional
Self-awareness
Spatial
Cognitive
Style
Verbal
Cognitive
Style
Emotional
Self-
Regulation
Extroversion,
Conscientiousness,
Emotional Stability,
and Agreeableness,
Object
Cognitive
Style
72
Statement of the Problem
The present proposed research intends to find out how personality traits act
as moderating factors for crafting the relationship between different aspects of
emotional intelligence and different types of cognitive styles of university students.
73
Chapter-II
METHOD
Objectives
The objectives of the present study are given below:
1. To explore the moderating effects of personality traits in relation between
cognitive styles and emotional intelligence.
2. To explore the relationships between personality traits and emotional
intelligence, between personality traits and cognitive styles, and between
emotional intelligence and cognitive styles of university students.
3. To find the demographic differences (academic discipline and education)
on personality traits, emotional intelligence, and cognitive styles of
university students.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses of present research are enlisted below:
1. All the subscales of Emotional Intelligence (Emotional Self-Regulation,
Emotional Self-awareness, and Interpersonal Skills) will have positive
correlation with Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Emotional Stability among university students.
2. Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience,
and Emotional Stability will moderate the positive relationship between
Emotional Self-Regulation and Object Cognitive Style.
3. Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience,
and Emotional Stability will moderate the positive relationship between
Emotional Self-awareness and Verbal Cognitive Style.
74
4. Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience,
and Emotional Stability will moderate the positive relationship between
Interpersonal Skills and Spatial Cognitive Style.
5. Emotional Self-Regulation will have positive relationship with Object
Cognitive Styles and Verbal Cognitive Styles among university students.
6. Emotional Self Awareness will have positive relationship with Verbal
cognitive Style among university students.
7. Interpersonal Skills will have positive relationship with Verbal Cognitive
Style, and Spatial Cognitive Style among university students.
8. Students of social sciences will have higher scores on emotional
intelligence, and cognitive styles among university students
9. University students with high Educational level will show high scores on
emotional intelligence, and cognitive styles.
Operational Definitions of Variables
The present study was based on the moderation and correlation analysis
among three variables named; cognitive styles, personality traits, and emotional
intelligence. The conceptual and operational definitions of these variables are
given below:
Cognitive Styles
Cognitive styles are those psychological proportions, which characterize by
permanent attitudes of an individual in its manner of cognitive functioning,
especially regarding their particular way of processing information (Ausburn &
Ausburn, 1978). Presently, Visual and Verbal cognitive styles are considered as the
most commonly acknowledged Cognitive Style Dimension (Paivio, 1971;
Richardson, 1977). Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009) gave a new model of
75
cognitive style ‘The New Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model’. This
model consisted upon following three relatively independent dimensions:
1. Object: Individuals use object cognitive style to processes visual
appearance of objects in terms of their shape, color, and texture. It is
operationalized on the basis of individual’s scores on subscale of
Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). High
scores indicate high level of object cognitive style and vice versa.
2. Spatial: People with spatial cognitive style processes object location,
movement, and spatial relationships. It is operationalized on the basis of
individual’s scores on subscale of Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ). High scores indicate high level of spatial
cognitive style and vice versa.
3. Verbal: individual use verbal cognitive style in order to process
comprehension, production of spoken and written language. It is
operationalized on the basis of individual’s scores on subscale of
Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). High
scores indicate high level of verbal cognitive style and vice versa.
Personality Traits
The theoretical model of big-five factor model is based on hierarchical
approach of personality trait with five broad factors, which use abstract way to
signify particular personality traits at the broadest. These factors are;
Neuroticism/Emotional Stability, Extroversion, Openness to Experience,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Friedman and Schustack (2003) gave the
basic definitions which are given below:
76
1. Extroversion (E): The high score in this domain indicates that extroverts
like people prefer large group and gathering. They are assertive, active, and
talkative, enjoy excitement and stimulation, and tend to be cheerful in
disposition. Introverts are also friendly but they have very reserved nature,
they are not followers but dependent on others, they are also active not
slow-moving. It is operationalized on the scores of subscale of Ten Item
Personality Inventory (TIPI).
2. Openness (O): Individuals who score high on openness (O) have tendency
to be imaginative, complex, curious, daring, independent, analytical,
liberal, having broad interests, and also experience both positive and
negative emotions more keenly than do closed (low O) individuals. While
individuals with low scores have been described as conventional, down to
earth, simple, not curious, conforming, non-analytical, conservative,
traditional, and having narrow interests. It is operationalized on the scores
of subscale of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI).
3. Agreeableness (A): The agreeable person is fundamentally altruistic.
He/she is sympathetic to others and eager to help them, and believe that
other will equally helpful in return. By contrast, the disagreeable or
antagonist person is egocentric, skeptical of other intentions, and
competitive rather than cooperative. It is operationalized on the scores of
subscale of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI).
4. Conscientiousness (C): High C scorers are scrupulous, punctual, consistent,
and reliable. Low scorers are not necessarily lacking in moral principles,
but they are less exacting in applying them, just as they are attention
seeking, low assertiveness, low talkativeness, and low orderliness and more
77
lackadaisical in working toward their goals. It is operationalized on the
scores of subscale of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI).
5. Emotional Stability (ES): High scorers are Relaxed, Calm, Stable, Does not
necessarily mean that they feel positive emotions they just lack negative
ones, Being too relaxed can lead to demotivation or searching out risky
situations for adrenaline (for example see skydiving preference below). It is
operationalized on the scores of subscale of Ten Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI).
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence is the concept, which is currently in focus among
the general public, practitioners and researchers. Emotional intelligence is defined
as the composite set of capabilities that enable a person to manage himself/herself
and others (Goleman, 1995, 1998). The present study focus on three aspects of
Goleman’s Model of emotional intelligence:
1. Emotional Self-Regulation: It deals with the ability to effectively cope with
unpleasant event without showing harmful behavior. It is operationalized
on the scores of subscale of Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI).
2. Emotional Self Awareness: It is the ability to recognize one’s feelings and
to identify how these feelings affect their life. It is operationalized on the
scores of subscale of Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI).
3. Interpersonal Skills: This aspect of emotional intelligence deals with the
judgment of other’s emotions, especially negative emotions. It is
78
operationalized on the scores of subscale of Self Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI).
Phasing of the Study
The current research was cross sectional study based on causal research
design. This study was comprised of the following two phases:
1) Phase I: Pilot study 2). Phase II: Main study
Phase I: Pilot Study
The Pilot study was conducted on 500 university students to determine:
a. The psychometric properties of questionnaires
b. The trend of results by determining the relationship between variables.
In order to conduct the pilot study same procedure was followed, which
was described for the main study of the present research.
Phase II: Main Study
In this study the questionnaire were administered on large sample size
(N=3500) of university students to achieve the aforementioned objectives and to
test hypotheses.
Participants of the Study
The sample size of this study was N = 3500 (male n = 1750, female n =
1750), with age range of 18-40 years. This sample was divided into two categories
on the base of age as; younger students=18-28 years (n=1770) and older
students=19-40 years (n= 1730). The sample was selected through purposive
convenient sampling technique from university student population (Under
Graduate n= 1840, and Post Graduate n= 1660) of 15 universities (Islamabad=2
universities, Rawalpindi= 3 universities, Lahore=3 universities, Multan= 1
university, Sargodha= 1university, Peshawar=2 universities, Hazara= 2
79
universities, and Faisalabad= 1university). The response rate for the present study
was 77.78% (as 3500 students gave data out of 4500 students).The sample was
non-clinical in nature and the researcher approaches the students within university
premises and takes proper informed consent from them before selecting them in
sample.
Inclusive Criteria
For the present study the students of both undergraduate and post graduate
were selected with age range of 18-40 years. These students must belong to Social
Sciences (Psychology, Sociology, and Economics) Natural Sciences (Botany,
Zoology, and Chemistry), Fine Arts, Management Sciences, and Information
Technology Department.
Exclusive Criteria
In the present study the students of other departments of the university were
not selected as a sample. Similarly all those students whose age is beyond 18-40
years were also not the part of this study.
Instruments
In the current study in order to measure the variables three questionnaire
were used named; Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence, Ten Item
Personality Inventory, Object-Spatial Verbal and Imagery questionnaire. The
description of these instruments is given as follows:
Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI)
Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; Khan & Kamal,
2008) has 60 item having .95 alpha coefficients with scoring on five point scale. It
consists of three subscales with 11 facets. The first subscale is Emotional Self-
Regulation Scale (ESRS) which include five facets (adaptability, emotional
80
reactivity management, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and achievement
drive); second subscale is Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) which have
three facets (self-awareness, perceived self-awareness, and self-confidence); and
third subscale is Interpersonal Skills Scale (ISS) which have three facets (empathy,
sociability, and communication. There are 27 positive and 33 reverse items. Higher
scores on this scale indicate higher level of emotional intelligence and vice versa.
Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)
Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI: Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003),
consisting upon 10 items with scoring on 7-point likert scale. TIPI measures the
Big Five personality dimensions, with two items assessing each dimension;
Extroversion (item no. 1, 6-R), Agreeableness (item no. 2, 7-R), Conscientiousness
(item no. 3, 8-R), Emotional Stability (item no. 4, 9-R), and Openness to
Experience (item no. 5, 10-R). e. The test-retest reliability of TIPI is .72 with
approximately two weeks interval (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Higher
scores on all personality traits indicate the higher tendency of having those specific
personality characteristics and vice versa.
Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; Blazhenkova
& Kozhevnikov, 2009) comprised on 45 items with scoring on five point likert
scale. This scale assesses three types of cognitive styles; object cognitive styles (2,
4, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, 29, 33, 34, 38, 40, 44) spatial cognitive style (3, 5, 9,
12, 21, 22, 25, 27, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 45) and verbal cognitive style (1, 6, 8,
11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 30, 32, 41, 43). It has 41 positive and 4 reverse
items. The reliability coefficient for verbal scale is .74, for object scale is .83, and
for the spatial scale is .79 (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009). Higher scores on
81
all cognitive styles indicate higher preferences of the individual for using that style
in cognitive functioning and vice versa.
Procedure
In the current study the sample of 3500 students were approached from the
universities. For the present research data from students were collected from
different universities of Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Sargodha, Multan,
Peshawar, Hazara, and Lahore. The students were approached within the university
premises.
In order to get the data appropriate instructions were given to the students
regarding how to give their responses on the given questionnaires. In the present
study three questionnaires (Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence, Ten
Item Personality Inventory, Object-Spatial Verbal and Imagery questionnaire) were
administered on the sample for data collection.
Before collecting the data informed consent form was signed by each
respondent to show his/her consent for participation in the research. After taking
their consent all the questionnaires were administered on the sample. Special
instructions were given to the respondents to complete the questionnaires as honest
as possible and do not skip any item of the any questionnaire. It was also instructed
that please gave their original responses after reading the items. There was no time
limit for the completion of the questionnaires. The respondents complete the
questionnaires on their ease.
After the collection of the data appropriate statistical procedure was used in
order to address the objectives and stated hypothesis of the current study. In order
to test the hypothesis Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. So in
82
the present study many higher statistical test (corelational analysis, t-test ANOVA,
Regression etc) were applied in order to test the hypothesis.
83
Chapter-III
PHASE I: PILOT STUDY
Objectives of Pilot Study
The pilot study aimed to meet the following objectives:
1. To determine the psychometric properties of Self-Report Measure of Emotional
Intelligence (SRMEI), Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–
Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ).
2. To explore the trends of results by finding out the inter-relationships among
cognitive styles, emotional intelligence, and personality traits of university
students.
Sample
To conduct the pilot study, convenient sampling technique was used to
select the sample from University student population of Islamabad, Rawalpindi,
Lahore, Multan, Sargodha, Peshawar, Hazara, and Faisalabad. The sample size was
N = 500 (women n = 239, men n = 261); with age range of 18--40 years (younger
adult student with age range 18---28 years, n= 283; older adult students with age
range 29---40 years, n= 217). The present sample was again divided into two
categories on the basis of its educational level i.e., under graduate students (n =
278) and post graduate students (n =222).
Instruments
For the pilot study three instruments were administered among university
students, named; Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI), Ten
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ) along with Demographic Sheet (see Annexure B). Before
84
administering these instruments on the sample, Informed Consent Form was used
to take the consent of the respondents about their willingness to participate in this
phase of present study (see Annexure A). The descriptions of these instruments are
given below:
Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI)
Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; Khan & Kamal,
2008) has 60 item (see Annexure C) with scoring on five point likert scale (1=
never, 2= rarely, 3= moderate, 4= often, and 5= always). It consists of three
subscales (Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, Emotional Self-Awareness Scale, and
Interpersonal Skills Scale). There are 27 positive and 33 reverse items. The alpha
reliability value reported y the author of this scale is .95 (Khan & Kamal, 2008).
Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)
Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI: Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003),
consisting upon 10 items with scoring on 7-point likert scale (see Annexure D).
TIPI measures the Big Five personality dimensions, with two items assessing each
dimension (Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability,
and Openness to Experience). The test-retest reliability of TIPI is .72 with
approximately two weeks interval as reported by Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann
(2003).
Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; Blazhenkova
& Kozhevnikov, 2009) comprised on 45 items with scoring on five point likert
scale (totally disagree= 1 to totally agree=5; see Annexure E). This scale assesses
three types of cognitive styles (object cognitive styles, spatial cognitive style, and
verbal cognitive style). It has 41 positive and 4 reverse items. The reliability
85
coefficient for verbal scale is .74, for object scale is .83, and for the spatial scale is
.79 as reported by Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009).
Procedure
For the pilot study the sample of N = 500 (men n = 269, women n = 231)
university students were selected and approached within the premises of
Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad, Sargodha, Multan, Peshawar, Hazara, and
Lahore. Informed consent form, Demographic Sheet, SRMEI, OSIVQ, and TIPI
were administered on that sample to get information about their demographics,
personality traits, cognitive styles, and emotional intelligence. The respondents of
the study were instructed to complete the questionnaire as honestly as possible and
make sure to give response on each item of all questionnaires. There was no time
pressure for the completion of questionnaires as they were allowed to complete
these questionnaires on their ease. After the collection of the required data it was
fed into SPSS for further analysis.
RESULTS
In the pilot study the data of 500 university students (women n = 231, men
n = 269) have been analyzed. In order to explore the aforementioned objectives
and to test the proposed hypotheses, three statistical methods, alpha reliability
coefficients, correlation coefficient, and hierarchical multiple regression analysis
have been used. Alpha reliability coefficients were used to measure the internal
consistency of instruments, correlation coefficient has been used to compute the
inter-relationships between personality traits, cognitive styles, and emotional
intelligence, while hierarchical regression analysis was done to explore the
moderating effect of personality traits between cognitive styles and emotional
intelligence of university students.
86
Reliability Estimates of Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI), Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery
and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
In order to find out the internal consistency of instruments (SRMEI,
OSIVQ, & TIPI), their alpha reliability coefficients are measured.
Table 1
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI), and its Subscales (N=500)
S. No Subscales No. of Items Alpha Coefficient
I Emotional Self-Regulation Scale (ESRS) 27 .86
II Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) 21 .79
III Interpersonal Skill Scale (ISS) 12 .86
SRMEI 60 .94
Table 1 indicates that the alpha reliability coefficient for Self-Report
Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI) is .94, while for its subscales alpha
value ranges from .79 to .86, which shows that the scale has very high level of
alpha coefficient value.
87
Table 2
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and its
Subscales (N=500)
S.
No
Subscales No. of
Items
M SD Alpha
Coefficients
I Emotional Stability 2 6.95 3.60 .88
II Extroversion 2 11.24 1.61 .64
III Openness to Experience 2 12.14 1.38 .78
IV Agreeableness 2 7.14 3.78 .86
V Conscientiousness 2 11.92 1.29 .73
TIPI 10 49.39 7.40 .71
For the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), the alpha coefficients are
above average as shown in the Table 2. The alpha reliability coefficient for the
entire scale is .71, while for its subscales alpha values ranges from .64 to .88.
88
Table 3
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
(OSIVQ) and its Subscales (N=500)
S. No Subscales No. of Items Alpha Coefficients
I Verbal 15 .84
II Object 15 .79
III Special 15 .73
OSVIQ 45 .87
The result of Table 3 shows that the alpha coefficients are very high. The
alpha reliability coefficient for the entire scale is .87, while for its subscales alpha
ranges from .73 to .84.
89
Validity Estimates of Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI),
Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
In order to assess the construct validity of instruments (SRMEI, OSIVQ, &
TIPI), their inter-scale correlation coefficients are computed.
Table 4
Item total correlation matrix of Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
(OSIVQ; N=500)
Item no r Item no r Item no r Item no r
1 .80** 13 .61** 25 .61** 37 .23**
2 .48** 14 .91** 26 .64** 38 .31**
3 .79** 15 .59** 27 .69** 39 .96**
4 .50** 16 .19** 28 .96** 40 .46**
5 .073* 17 .53** 29 .50** 41 .74**
6 .69** 18 .24** 30 .62** 42 .82**
7 .21** 19 .80** 31 .44** 43 .80**
8 .22** 20 .62** 32 .41** 44 .34**
9 .61** 21 .62** 33 .18** 45 .80**
10 .090* 22 .60** 34 .062*
11 .76** 23 .80** 35 .61**
12 .83** 24 .12** 36 .23**
*p<.05, **p <.01
The results of Table 4 indicate that all items of OSIVQ have significant
positive correlation with the total score on scale. It indicates that scale have high
construct validity.
90
Table 5
Item total correlation matrix of Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI; N=500)
Item no r Item no r Item no r Item no r
1 .83** 16 .34** 31 .37** 46 .077*
2 .53** 17 .29** 32 .16** 47 .685**
3 .89** 18 .85** 33 .75** 48 .44**
4 .94** 19 .68** 34 .68** 49 .38**
5 .98** 20 .48** 35 .73** 50 .86**
6 .52** 21 .87** 36 .057* 51 .92**
7 .69** 22 .66** 37 .049* 52 .38**
8 .25** 23 .077* 38 .85** 53 .52**
9 .84** 24 .085* 39 .75** 54 .61**
10 .92** 25 .090* 40 .79** 55 .28**
11 .32** 26 .50** 41 .84** 56 .41**
12 .08* 27 .89** 42 .71** 57 .096*
13 .98** 28 .55** 43 .48** 58 .057*
14 .68** 29 .047* 44 .94** 59 .53**
15 .71** 30 .81** 45 .62** 60 .51**
*p<.05, **p <.01
Table 5 indicates that SRMEI has high level of construct validity as its
entire item has significant positive correlation with the total scores on whole scale.
91
Table 6
Item total correlation matrix of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; N=500)
Item no R Item no r
1 .22** 16 .22**
2 .90** 17 .90**
3 .085* 18 .088*
4 .87** 19 .90**
5 .27** 20 .19**
*p<.05, **p <.01
The findings of Table 6 shows that all items of TIPI have significant
positive correlation with the total scores on the whole scale. Which ultimately
provide a base for high construct validity of TIPI.
Table 7
Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of Object-Spatial Imagery
and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; N=500)
S. No Subscales I II III
I Spatial ---- .32** .89**
II Object ---- .11*
III Verbal ---- ----
*p<.05, **p <.01
The Table 7 portrays that all subscales of OSIVQ have significant positive
correlations with each other, which indicates that OSIVQ has high level of
construct validity.
92
Table 8
Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscale of Ten Item Personality
Inventory (TIPI; N=500)
S. No Subscales I II III IV V
I Extroversion ---- .82* .80** .41** .17*
II Openness to Experience ---- ---- .56** .49* .47**
III Conscientiousness ---- ---- ---- .69* .16**
IV Agreeableness ---- ---- ---- ---- .30*
V Emotional Stability ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
*p<.05, **p <.01
The results of Table 8 describe that all personality traits of TIPI has
significant positive correlations with each other. It indicates that TIPI has moderate
level of construct validity.
Table 9
Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of Self Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; N=500).
S. No Subscales I II III
I Emotional Self-Regulation Scale (ESRS) ---- .90** .88*
II Emotional Self-Awareness Scale (ESAS) ---- .98**
III Interpersonal Skill Scale (ISS) ---- ----
*p<.05, **p <.01
Table 9 portrays that all subscales of Self Report Measure of Emotional
Intelligence (SRMEI) have significant positive correlation with each other, which
indicates that SRMEI has very high level of construct validity.
93
Relationships among Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI),
Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
Correlation coefficients are computed to determine the inter-relationships
among cognitive styles, emotional intelligence, and personality traits of university
students, by correlating their scores on the subscales of instruments (SRMEI,
OSIVQ, & TIPI).
Table 10
Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of TIPI and Subscales of SRMEI
(N=500)
Subscale of SRMEI
Subscale of TIPI ESRS ESAS ISS
Extroversion .52** .49** .58**
Openness to Experience .63* .72** .73**
Conscientiousness .73** .48* .54
Agreeableness .61** .31** .23*
Emotional Stability .51** .60* .53
p>.05, *p < .05, **p < .01
Note. TIPI= Ten Item Personality Inventory, SRMEI = Self-Report Measure of Emotional
Intelligence, ESRS= Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, ESAS= Emotional Self Awareness Scale,
ISS= Interpersonal Skill Scale
Table 10 shows that ESRS and ESAS have significant positive correlations
with all personality traits; while ISS has significant positive correlations with three
personality traits (Extroversion, Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness) and
94
have non-significant relationships with other two personality traits (emotional
stability and conscientiousness).
Table 11
Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of TIPI and Subscales of OSIVQ
(N=500)
Subscale of OSIVQ
Subscale of TIPI Object Verbal Spatial
Extroversion -.91* .11* .39**
Openness to Experience .90** .08* -.27
Conscientiousness -.71** -.46 .51*
Agreeableness .36* -.56** -.50**
Emotional Stability .26** .09* .02
p> .05, *p< .05, **p < .01,
Note. TIPI= Ten Item Personality Inventory, OSIVQ = Object-Spatial Imager and Verbal
Questionnaire
The results of Table 11 describe that object cognitive style has significant
positive correlation with three personality traits (Agreeableness, Openness to
Experience, and Emotional Stability) while has significant negative correlations
with Conscientiousness and Extroversion personality traits. It is also showed that
verbal cognitive style has significant positive correlations with three personality
traits (Extroversion, Openness to Experience, and Emotional Stability), has
significant negative correlation with Agreeableness and also has non-significant
relationship with conscientiousness personality trait. Spatial cognitive style has
significant positive correlation with two personality traits (Extroversion and
Conscientiousness), has significant negative correlation with Agreeableness, and
95
has non-significant correlations with Emotional Stability and Openness to
Experience personality traits.
Table 12
Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of SRMEI and Subscales of OSIVQ
(N=500)
Subscale of OSIVQ
Subscale of SRMEI Object Verbal Spatial
Emotional self-Regulation Scale (ESRS) .67** .45** .41
Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) .73 .20* .22**
Interpersonal Skill Scale (ISS) .79* .15** .23*
p>.05 *p<.05, **p <.01
Note. SRMEI = Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence, OSIVQ = Object-Spatial Imagery
and Verbal Questionnaire.
The results of Table 12 show that ESRS has significant positive correlation
with object and verbal cognitive styles while it has non-significant relationship
with spatial cognitive style. Results also reveal that ESAS has significant positive
correlation with verbal and spatial cognitive styles, while it has non-significant
relationship with object cognitive style. On the other side ISS has significant
positive correlations with all subscales of Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (Object, Spatial, and Verbal).
96
Discussion
The pilot study was conducted on relatively small sample of university
students to determine the psychometric properties of Self Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI), Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ), and Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI). The other
objective of the present phase was to find out the interactional effect of personality
traits (Openness to Experience, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability,
and Conscientiousness) on emotional intelligence (Emotional Self-Regulation,
Emotional Self-Awareness, and Interpersonal Skill) and cognitive styles (Object,
Verbal, and Spatial) among the university students. This phase of the study also
aimed to explore the inter-relationships among emotional Intelligence, cognitive
styles, and Personality traits among university students.
In order to compute the psychometric properties of SRMEI, OSIVQ, and
TIPI; the reliability coefficients and inter-scale correlation coefficients of
instruments were computed. The alpha coefficient values for all instruments and
for their subscales are very high as alpha value for SRMEI was .94, while for its
subscales the alpha values ranges from .79 to .86 (see Table 1); for TIPI it was .75
while for its subscales alpha values ranges from .61 to .97 (see Table2); and for
OSIVQ it was .87 while for its subscales alpha values ranges from .63 to .84 (see
Table 3).
Object Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ) examined The
New Object-Spatial-Verbal Cognitive Style Model theoretical model that
distinguishes between three separate cognitive styles: spatial imagery, object
imagery, and verbal cognitive style. OSIVQ was validated across the three studies
97
conducted by Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009). The findings of these three
studies supported the construct validity of the OSIVQ, as the results of these three
studies demonstrated that OSIVQ assess three different cognitive construct (object,
spatial and verbal) for which it purports to measure. The results of Study 1 showed
that all three cognitive styles of the OSIVQ possessed acceptable internal
reliability. Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009) also perform principal
component analysis on the items of OSIVQ. The results of the analysis support the
authenticity of theoretical constructs’ operationalization by indicated that those
items which were constructed to assess verbal, object, or spatial cognitive styles,
indeed, loaded on the consistent and separate factors. Similarly, the findings of
Study 2 support both convergent and discriminant validity of OSIVQ by indicating
that the patterns of correlations between the measures known to be unrelated or
related to object, spatial and verbal constructs were consistent with the theoretical
expectations. Study 3 proves the ecological validity of the OSIVQ by exploring
significant correlations among three cognitive constructs (object, spatial and
verbal) and a significant relationship between these cognitive styles and the area of
specialization of students.
Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann (2003) also report that reliability of Ten
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) is higher (.72) with six week intervals. Gosling,
et al. (2003) also explore that TIPI has promising convergent validity by showing
convergences (mean r=.77) that were comparable to the Big Five Inventory (BFI)
and Five Item Personality Inventory (FIPI). Later on Renaua, Obersta, Gosling,
Rusinola, and Chamarroc (2013) translate and validate TIPI in Spanish. Renaua, et
al. (2013) determine the convergent and discriminant correlations between the
factors and facets of both NEO-PI-R dimensions and TIPI-SPA-v2 (Ten Item
98
Personality Inventory Spanish Version). The results of Renaua et al. (2013) found
that the convergent correlations for all dimensions of the TIPI-SPA-v2 with their
NEO-PI-R counterparts were higher than any discriminant correlations found. This
research also computed the intercorrelations among the 10 items of TIPI and
reported that the correlations between the items belongs to same dimensions were
higher than correlations between items of different dimensions (Renaua et al.,
2013). The discriminant and convergent validity, inter-correlation of the items,
degree of convergence between self- and observer ratings, and test-retest reliability
of Renaua et al.’s study (2013) are similar to those obtained in the original study of
the English-language TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003).On the basis of the results it was
found that all the instruments possessed above average level of reliability,
satisfactory level of convergent and construct validity.
In the present study the in order to determine the construct validity of
questionnaires both item total correlation analysis and inter-scale correlation
analyses were carried out. The results of item-total correlation analyses on all three
(OSIVQ, SRMEI, & TIPI) indicates that all items of each instrument have
significant positive correlation with the total score on corresponding questionnaire
(see Table 4, 5, & 6). Similarly, the inter-scale correlation analyses also provide
foundations for the high construct validity of TIPI, SRMEI, and OSIVQ, as all the
subscales of these instruments depict significant positive association with each
other (see Table 7, 8 & 9). These findings of the present study provides evidences
for the convergent validity of all questionnaire ((TIPI, OSIVQ, & SRMEI) as all
items of each questionnaire show significant positive association with the total
score on each scale, which ultimately revealed that this item-total correlation is
related to the same construct.
99
Luo, et al., (2010) also use item-total correlations for the measurement of
construct validity of 39-item Parkinson’s disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). They
calculated the construct validty of PDQ-39 by correlating the scores on each item
with the score calculated by the remaining items in the same subscale.
In order to address the second objective of this study the inter-relationships
among personality traits, cognitive styles, and emotional intelligence of university
students were found. The finding indicated that Emotional Self-Regulation Scale
(ESRS) and Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) have significant positive
correlations with all personality traits; while ISS has significant positive
correlations with three personality traits (Agreeableness, Openness to Experience,
and Extroversion) and have non-significant relationships with other two
personality traits (Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness; see Table 10).
These findings are supported by one previous study (Brackett & Mayer,
2003) in which Emotion Quotient Inventory (EQi) was used for the assessment of
emotional intelligence. They found to high significant correlations between the
Emotion Quotient Inventory and conscientiousness, neuroticism/emotional
stability, agreeableness, and extraversion factors, and moderately significant
correlations were found with the openness factor of the Big Five Personality traits.
Zadal (2004) has also assessed the relationship between emotional
intelligence with the help of Emotional Competence Inventory (Goleman’s
inventory) and personality trait. The results of this study stated that emotional
intelligence is positively associated with extraversion personality trait. A study
conducted by Matchimanon also examined the link of personality and emotional
intelligence among 304 employees. This study revealed that overall emotional
intelligence was significantly correlated with personality dimensions at .01 level
100
(as cited in Nawi, Redzuan, & Hamsan, 2012). Similarly, another study done by
Besides, Kemp, Cooper, Hermens, Gordon, Bryant, and Williams examine that
emotional intelligence is more strongly related with personality traits in
comparison to cognitive ability. They also explore what dimensions of personality
traits strongly associated with whom aspects of emotional intelligence (as cited in
Nawi, Redzuan, & Hamsan, 2012).
The results of the current study for the correlational analysis between
personality traits and cognitive styles revealed that object cognitive style has
significant positive correlation with three personality traits (Emotional Stability,
Openness to Experience, and Agreeableness) while has significant negative
correlations with Conscientiousness and Extroversion personality traits. It is also
showed that verbal cognitive style has significant positive correlations with three
personality traits (Emotional Stability, Extroversion, and Openness to Experience),
has significant negative correlation with Agreeableness and also has non-
significant relationship with conscientiousness personality trait. Spatial cognitive
style has significant positive correlation with two personality traits (Extroversion
and Conscientiousness), has significant negative correlation with Agreeableness,
and has non-significant correlations with Emotional Stability and Openness to
Experience personality traits (see Table 11).
These results are in line with the findings of one previous study conducted
by Researchers at Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (CTY;
2013) by using Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), a measure of psychological
type, and the Adjective Check List (ACL), a measure of 14 indicators of
personality and psychological adjustment. The results indicated, that extraversion
and openness to experience is related to innovative cognitive style, agreeableness
101
and conscientiousness had substantial negative correlation with the total score
cognitive styles. These results indicate that adaptors are more agreeable as well as
more conscientious in comparison to innovators. On the other hand Neuroticism is
related to adaptive cognitive style in the originality dimension as well as
extraversion in the efficiency domain (Buksnyte-Marmiene, Kovalcikiene, &
Ciunyte, 2012).
The present study also runs correlational analysis to find out the
relationship between cognitive styles and emotional intelligence. The results of this
analysis explored that ESRS has significant positive correlation with object and
verbal cognitive styles while it has non-significant relationship with spatial
cognitive style. Results also reveal that ESAS has significant positive correlation
with verbal and spatial cognitive styles, while it has non-significant relationship
with object cognitive style. On the other side ISS has significant positive
correlations with all subscales of Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
(Object, Spatial, and Verbal; see Table 12).
These results are consistent with the findings of one previous study
(Alavinia & Ebrahimpour, 2012) which revealed that emotional intelligence of
learners has significant positive correlation with their learning styles/cognitive
styles. These results show that emotional intelligence is liable to play an important
role in learners’ cognitive styles/learning styles. Similarly, Van Rooy et al. (2005)
conducted a study to explore the relationship between emotional intelligence by
using MSCEIT test and cognitive styles. They reported r =0.30 correlation of
emotional intelligence with both spatial and verbal cognitive styles. The scores on
MSCEIT have strong association with the amount of cognitive effort individuals
used for solving problems especially problems related to emotions. In another
102
study conducted by Reis et al., (2007), it was found that individuals with higher
scores on MSCEIT solved their social problems (affective in content) more quickly
as compared to those who have lower scores.
103
Chapter-IV
PHASE II: MAIN STUDY
Objectives
The objectives of the main present study are given below:
1. To explore the moderating effect of personality traits on emotional
intelligence and cognitive styles of university students.
2. To explore the inter-relationships of emotional intelligence, personality
traits, and cognitive styles of university students.
3. To find the demographic differences (age, gender, education etc.) on
personality traits, emotional intelligence, and cognitive styles of university
students.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses of present research are enlisted below:
1. All the subscales of Emotional Intelligence (Emotional Self-Regulation,
Emotional Self-awareness, and Interpersonal Skills) will have positive
correlation with Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Emotional Stability among university students.
2. Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability
will moderate the positive relationship between Emotional Self-Regulation
and Object Cognitive Style of university students.
3. Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability
will moderate the positive relationship between Emotional Self-awareness
and Verbal Cognitive Style of university students.
104
4. Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability
will moderate the positive relationship between Interpersonal Skills and
Spatial Cognitive Style of university students.
5. Emotional Self-Regulation will have positive relationship with Object
Cognitive Styles and Verbal Cognitive Styles among university students.
6. Emotional Self Awareness will have positive relationship with Verbal
cognitive Style among university students.
7. Interpersonal Skills will have positive relationship with Verbal Cognitive
Style, and Spatial Cognitive Style among university students.
8. Students of social sciences will have higher scores on emotional
intelligence, and cognitive styles among university students
9. University students with high Educational level will show high scores on
emotional intelligence, and cognitive styles.
Sample
The sample size of the present study was N = 3500 (male n = 1750, female
n = 1750), with age range of 18-40 years through convenient sampling technique
from university student population (Under Graduate n= 1840 and Post Graduate
n=1660) of Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Multan, Sargodha, Peshawar, Hazara,
and Faisalabad. This sample was comprised on six different academic disciplines
(social sciences n=744, Natural Sciences n=742, Arts n=681, Management
Sciences n=655, and Information Technology n=678). This sample was further
divided into two categories on the basis of age ranges (younger adults with age
range 18-30 years n=1770, older adults with age range 31-40 years n=1770).
105
Instruments
Pilot study was conducted to measure the psychometric properties of
instruments. The results of the pilot study prove that these three instruments (Self-
Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence; SRMEI, Ten Item Personality
Inventory; TIPI, and Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire; OSIVQ)
are reliable and have good construct validity and convergent validity. The
descriptions of these questionnaires are given below:
Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI)
Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; Khan & Kamal,
2008) has 60 item having .95 alpha coefficients with scoring on five point scale. It
consists of three subscales with 11 facets. The first subscale is Emotional Self-
Regulation Scale (ESRS) which include five facets (adaptability, emotional
reactivity management, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and achievement
drive); second subscale is Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) which have
three facets (self-awareness, perceived self-awareness, and self-confidence); and
third subscale is Interpersonal Skills Scale (ISS) which have three facets (empathy,
sociability, and communication. There are 27 positive and 33 reverse items. Higher
scores on this scale indicate higher level of emotional intelligence and vice versa.
Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)
Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI: Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003),
consisting upon 10 items with scoring on 7-point likert scale. TIPI measures the
Big Five personality dimensions, with two items assessing each dimension;
Extroversion (item no. 1, 6-R), Agreeableness (item no. 2, 7-R), Conscientiousness
(item no. 3, 8-R), Emotional Stability (item no. 4, 9-R), and Openness to
Experience (item no. 5, 10-R). e. The test-retest reliability of TIPI is .72 with
106
approximately two weeks interval (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). Higher
scores on all personality traits indicate the higher tendency of having those specific
personality characteristics and vice versa.
Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; Blazhenkova
& Kozhevnikov, 2009) comprised on 45 items with scoring on five point likert
scale. This scale assesses three types of cognitive styles; object cognitive styles (2,
4, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, 29, 33, 34, 38, 40, and 44) spatial cognitive style (3, 5,
9, 12, 21, 22, 25, 27, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, and 45) and verbal cognitive style (1, 6,
8, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 30, 32, 41, and 43). It has 41 positive and 4
reverse items. The reliability coefficient for verbal scale is .74, for object scale is
.83, and for the spatial scale is .79 (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009). Higher
scores on all cognitive styles indicate higher preferences of the individual for using
that style in cognitive functioning and vice versa.
Procedure
In the main study the sample of 3500 (men n=1750, women n=1750) were
approached from the different universities of Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Faisalabad,
Sargodha, Multan, Peshawar, Hazara, and Lahore were finalized for sample
selection. In the present study three questionnaires (Self-Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence, Ten Item Personality Inventory, Object-Spatial Verbal and
Imagery questionnaire) along with Informed Consent Form and Demographic
Sheet were administered on the sample for data collection. Special instructions
were given to all respondents to complete the questionnaires honestly and do not
skip any item of the all questionnaires. The respondents complete the
questionnaires on their ease because there was no time limit for the completion of
107
the questionnaires. After completing the data collection appropriate statistical
procedure was used in order to address the objectives and stated hypothesis by
using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS).
108
RESULTS
In the main study the data of 3500 university students have been analyzed.
In order to explore the aforesaid objectives and to test the suggested hypotheses,
four statistical methods, alpha reliability coefficients, correlation coefficient,
hierarchical multiple regression analysis and t-test have been used. The results of
these analyses are given below:
Reliability Estimates of Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI), Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery
and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
In order to find out the internal consistency of instruments (SRMEI,
OSIVQ, & TIPI), their alpha reliability coefficients were measured.
Table 13
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI), and its Subscales (N=3500)
S.
No
Subscales
No. of
Items
M SD Alpha
Coefficient
I Emotional Self-Regulation Scale 27 85.92 16.63 .84
II Emotional Self Awareness Scale 21 57.17 10.59 .75
III Interpersonal Skill Scale 12 36.92 8.98 .83
SRMEI 60 189.80 36.07 .93
Table 13 indicates that the alpha reliability coefficient for Self-Report
Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI) is .93, while for its subscales alpha
value ranges from .75 to .84, which shows that the scale is highly internally
consistent.
109
Table 14
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) and its
Subscales (N=3500)
S.
No
Subscales No. of Items M SD Alpha
Coefficients
I Emotional Stability 2 6.94 3.64 .94
II Extroversion 2 11.27 1.59 .68
III Openness to Experience 2 12.13 1.39 .80
IV Agreeableness 2 7.18 3.95 .97
V Conscientiousness 2 11.90 1.28 .75
TIPI 10 49.41 7.63 .75
For the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), the alpha coefficients for all
its subscales are high as shown in the Table 14. The alpha reliability coefficient for
the entire scale is .75, while for its subscales alpha ranges from .68 to .97.
110
Table 15
Alpha Reliability Coefficients of Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
(OSIVQ) and its Subscales (N=3500)
S. No Subscales No. of Items M SD Alpha Coefficients
I Verbal 15 56.77 8.33 .77
II Object 15 65.07 5.91 .80
III Special 15 50.42 6.42 .65
OSIVQ 45 172.27 15.83 .83
The result of Table 15 shows that the alpha coefficients are high. The alpha
reliability coefficient for the entire scale is .83, while for its subscales alpha values
ranges from .65 to .80.
Validity Estimates of Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI),
Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
In order to assess the construct validity of instruments (SRMEI, OSIVQ, &
TIPI), their inter-scale correlation coefficients were computed.
111
Table 16
Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of Object–Spatial Imagery
and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; N=3500)
S. No Subscales I II III
I Spatial ---- .33** .82**
II Object ---- .14**
III Verbal ---- ----
M 56.58 66.59 55.55
SD 9.86 3.20 11.27
**p < .01
The Table 16 portrays that all subscales of OSIVQ have significant positive
correlations with each other, which indicates that OSIVQ has very high level of
construct validity.
112
Table 17
Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscale of Ten Item Personality
Inventory (TIPI; N=3500)
S. No Subscales I II III IV V
I Extroversion ---- .74** .57** .40** .11**
II Openness to Experience ---- ---- .41** .49** .41**
III Conscientiousness ---- ---- ---- .50** .09**
IV Agreeableness ---- ---- ---- ---- .25**
V Emotional Stability ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M 11.23 12.20 11.33 11.20 11.85
SD 1.63 1.32 0.95 1.47 1.57
**p < .01
Table 17 indicates that all personality traits of TIPI (Extroversion,
Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, agreeableness, and Emotional
Stability) are significantly positively related with each other. It shows that TIPI
possessed higher level of construct validity.
113
Table 18
Inter-Scale Correlation Coefficients for the Subscales of Self Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; N=3500)
S. No Subscales I II III
I Emotional Self-Regulation Scale (ESRS) ---- .79** .82**
II Emotional Self-Awareness Scale (ESAS) ---- .90**
III Interpersonal Skill Scale (ISS) ---- ----
M 84.39 65.10 36.42
SD 17.80 13.82 9.26
**p <.01
The results of Table 18 indicate that SRMEI has higher level of construct
validity as all of its subscales have significant positive correlation with each other.
114
Relationships of Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI), Ten
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
Correlation coefficient analysis was used to compute the relationships
between the cognitive styles, emotional intelligence, and personality traits of
university students, by correlating their scores on the subscales of all instruments
(SRMEI, OSIVQ, and TIPI).
Table 19
Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of TIPI and Subscales SRMEI
(N=3500)
Subscale of SRMEI
Subscale of TIPI ESRS ISS ESAS
Extroversion .46** .55** .42**
Openness to Experience -.59* .72** .65**
Conscientiousness .50 -.39** -.31**
Agreeableness .57** .23** .28
Emotional Stability .47** .50 -.52**
**p < .01
Note. TIPI= Ten Item Personality Inventory, SRMEI= Self-Report Measure of Emotional
Intelligence, ESRS=Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, ESAS=Emotional Self-Awareness Scale, ISS
=Interpersonal Skill Scale
The results of Table 19 show that all subscales of emotional intelligence
(ESRS, ISS and ESAS) have significant positive correlations with all personality
traits (Extroversion, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, Emotional Stability,
and Agreeableness).
115
Table 20
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Emotional Self-Regulation
from Object Cognitive Style and Emotional Stability Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .44*
Object .67*
Step II .10*
Object .56*
Emotional Stability -.12*
Step III .02*
Object .55*
Emotional Stability -.12*
Object * Emotional Stability .13*
Total R2 .56*
*p < .001
Table 20 depicts significant positive relationship between object cognitive
style and emotional self-regulation {β = .67, t = 52.90, p = .001} where the former
explained about 44% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .44, ΔF (1, 3498) = 2798.76, p =
.001}. In the second step, emotional stability personality trait also predicted
emotional self-regulation {β = -.12, t = -27.18, p = .001} and explained an
additional variance of 10% in it {ΔR2 = .10, ΔF (1, 3497) = 739.65, p = .001}.
Finally, in the third step, the interaction term of object cognitive style and
emotional stability personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-
regulation in positive direction {β = .13, t = 10.73, p = .001} and explained an
additional variance of about 2% {ΔR2 = .02, ΔF (1, 3496) = 115.09, p = .001}.
116
This provides an evidence for the moderating role of emotional stability
personality trait on emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style (see Figure
1).
Figure 1. Moderating effect of emotional stability personality trait in the relationship between
emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style.
This figure depicts that the positive relationship between emotional self-
regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who are
high in emotional stability. Overall object cognitive style, emotional stability, and
their interaction constituted a significant model that explained 56% variance in
emotional self-regulation.
117
Table 21
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Regulation
from Object Cognitive Style and Extroversion Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .44*
Object .67*
Step II .03*
Object .99*
Extroversion .37*
Step III .12*
Object .95*
Extroversion -.09*
Object * Extroversion -.48*
Total R2 .59*
*p < .001
Table 21 depicts significant positive relationship between object cognitive
style and emotional self-regulation {β = .67, t = 52.90, p = .001} where the former
explained about 44% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .44, ΔF (1, 3498) = 2798.76, p =
.001}. In the second step, extroversion personality trait also predicted emotional
self-regulation {β = .37, t = -15.05, p = .001} and explained an additional variance
of 3% in it {ΔR2 = .03, ΔF (1, 3497) = 26.66, p = .001}. Finally, in the third step,
the interaction term of object cognitive style and extroversion personality trait
significantly predicted emotional self-regulation in positive direction {β = .48, t =
32.71, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 12% {ΔR2 = .12, ΔF
(1, 3496) = 1069.81, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the moderating role
118
of extroversion personality trait between emotional self-regulation and object
cognitive style (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Moderating effect of extroversion personality trait in the relationship between emotional
self-regulation and object cognitive style.
As depicted in Figure 2 the positive relationship between emotional self-
regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who are
high in extroversion personality trait. Overall, object cognitive style, extroversion
personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model that explained
59% variance in emotional self-regulation.
119
Table 22
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Regulation
from Object Cognitive Style and Agreeableness Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .44*
Object .67*
Step II .16*
Object .51*
Agreeableness .42*
Step III .27*
Object -.42*
Agreeableness .68*
Object * Agreeableness -.81*
Total R2 .87*
*p < .001
Table 22 depicts significant positive relationship between object cognitive
style and emotional self-regulation {β = .67, t = 52.90, p = .001} where the former
explained about 44% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .44, ΔF (1, 3498) = 2798.76, p =
.001}. In the second step, agreeableness personality trait also predicted emotional
self-regulation {β = .42, t = 36.99, p = .001} and explained an additional variance
of 16% in it {ΔR2 = .16, ΔF (1, 3497) = 1368.06, p = .001}. Finally, in third step,
the interaction term of object cognitive style and agreeableness personality trait
significantly predicted emotional self-regulation in negative direction {β = -.81, t =
-57.15, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 27% {ΔR2 = .27,
ΔF (1, 3496) = 7595.34, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the moderating
120
role of agreeableness personality trait between emotional self-regulation and object
cognitive style (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Moderating effect of agreeableness personality trait in the relationship between emotional
self-regulation and object cognitive style.
The above figure explains that the positive relationship between emotional
self-regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who
are low in agreeableness personality trait. Overall, object cognitive style,
agreeableness personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model
that explained 87% variance in emotional self-regulation.
121
Table 23
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Regulation
from Object Cognitive Style and Conscientiousness Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .44*
Object .67*
Step II .05*
Object .54*
Conscientiousness .26*
Step III .07*
Object .74*
Conscientiousness .10*
Object * Conscientiousness .32*
Total R2 .56*
*p < .001
Table 23 depicts significant positive relationship between object cognitive
style and emotional self-regulation {β = .67, t = 52.90, p = .001} where the former
explained about 44% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .44, ΔF (1, 3498) = 2798.76, p =
.001}. In the second step, conscientiousness personality trait also predicted
emotional self-regulation {β = .26, t = 18.35, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of 5% in it {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF (1, 3497) = 336.74, p = .001}. Finally, in the
third step, the interaction term of object cognitive style and conscientiousness
personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-regulation in positive
direction {β = .32, t = 23.61, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of
about 7% {ΔR2 = .07, ΔF (1, 3496) = 557.44, p = .001}. This provides an evidence
122
for the moderating role of conscientiousness personality trait between emotional
self-regulation and object cognitive style (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in the relationship between
emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style.
As depicted in Figure 4, the positive relationship between emotional self-
regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who are
high in conscientiousness personality trait. Overall, object cognitive style,
conscientiousness personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant
model that explained 56% variance in emotional self-regulation.
123
Table 24
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self Regulation
Scale from Object Cognitive Style and Openness to Experience Personality Trait
(N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .44*
Object .67*
Step II .04*
Object .53*
Openness to Experience .15*
Step III .17*
Object 1.63*
Openness to Experience -.83*
Object * Openness to
Experience
-.63*
Total R2 .65*
*p < .001
Table 24 depicts significant positive relationship between Object cognitive
style and Emotional Self Regulation Scale {β = .67, t = 52.90, p = .001} where the
former explained about 44% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .44, ΔF (1, 3498) =
2798.76, p = .001}. In the second step, Openness to Experience personality trait
also predicted Emotional Self Regulation Scale {β = .15, t = 5.17, p = .001} and
explained an additional variance of 4% in it {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 3497) = 26.74, p =
.001}. Finally, in third step, the interaction term of Object cognitive style and
Openness to Experience personality trait significantly predicted interpersonal skill
124
in negative direction {β = -.63, t = -39.27, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of about 17% {ΔR2 = .17, ΔF (1, 3496) = 1542.12, p = .001}. This
provides an evidence for the moderating role of Openness to Experience
personality trait between Emotional Self Regulation Scale and object cognitive
style (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Moderating effect of Openness to Experience personality trait in the relationship between
emotional self regulation scale and object cognitive style.
The results of Figure 5 indicated that the positive relationship between
emotional self regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly for
individuals who are low in openness to experience personality trait. Overall, object
cognitive style, openness to experience personality trait, and their interaction
constituted a significant model that explained 65% variance in emotional self
regulation.
125
Table 25
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Awareness
from Verbal Cognitive Style and Emotional Stability Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .04*
Verbal .20*
Step II .32*
Verbal .16*
Emotional Stability -.57*
Step III .04*
Verbal .64*
Emotional Stability .15*
Verbal * Emotional Stability .20*
Total R2 .40*
*p < .001
Table 25 depicts significant positive relationship between verbal cognitive
style and emotional self-awareness {β = .20, t = 12.32, p = .001} where the former
explained about 4% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 3498) = 151.65, p =
.001}. In the second step, emotional stability personality trait also predicted
emotional self-awareness {β = -.57, t = -42.19, p = .001} and explained an
additional variance of 32% in it {ΔR2 = .32, ΔF (1, 3497) = 1779.69, p = .001}.
Finally, in the third step, the interaction term of verbal cognitive style and
emotional stability personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-
awareness in positive direction {β = .20, t = 14.55, p = .001} and explained an
additional variance of about 4% {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 3496) = 211.59, p = .001}.
126
This provides an evidence for the moderating role of emotional stability
personality trait between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style (see
Figure 6).
Figure 6. Moderating effect of emotional stability personality trait in the relationship between
emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
The above figure 6 explains that the positive relationship between
emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style holds more strongly for
individuals who are high in emotional stability personality trait. Overall, verbal
cognitive style, emotional stability personality trait, and their interaction
constituted a significant model that explained 40% variance in emotional self-
awareness.
127
Table 26
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Awareness
from Verbal Cognitive Style and Agreeableness Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .04*
Verbal .20*
Step II .05*
Verbal .05*
Agreeableness .28*
Step III .05*
Verbal -.36*
Agreeableness .73*
Verbal * Agreeableness -.75*
Total R2 .14*
*p < .001
Table 26 depicts significant positive relationship between verbal cognitive
style and emotional self-awareness {β = .20, t = 12.32, p = .001} where the former
explained about 4% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 3498) = 151.65, p =
.001}. In the second step, agreeableness personality trait also predicted emotional
self-awareness {β = .28, t = 14.27, p = .001} and explained an additional variance
of 5% in it {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF (1, 3497) = 203.51, p = .001}. Finally, in the third step,
the interaction term of verbal cognitive style and agreeableness personality trait
significantly predicted emotional self-awareness in negative direction {β = -.75, t =
-46.48, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 5% {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF
(1, 3496) = 4030.03, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the moderating role
128
of agreeableness personality trait between emotional self-awareness and verbal
cognitive style (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Moderating effect of agreeableness personality trait in the relationship between emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
The above figure 7 showed that the positive relationship between emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who
are low in agreeableness personality trait. Overall, verbal cognitive style,
agreeableness personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model
that explained14% variance in emotional self-awareness.
129
Table 27
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Awareness
from Verbal Cognitive Style and Extroversion Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .04*
Verbal .20*
Step II .20*
Verbal .16*
Extroversion .44*
Step III .04*
Verbal .18*
Extroversion .26*
Verbal * Extroversion -.32*
Total R2 .28*
*p < .001
Table 27 depicts significant positive relationship between verbal cognitive
style and emotional self-awareness {β = .20, t = 12.32, p = .001} where the former
explained about 4% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 3498) = 151.65, p =
.001}. In the second step, extroversion personality trait also predicted emotional
self-awareness {β = .44, t = 29.85, p = .001} and explained an additional variance
of 20% in it {ΔR2 = .20, ΔF (1, 3497) = 891.13, p = .001}. Finally, in the third
step, the interaction term of verbal cognitive style and extroversion personality trait
significantly predicted emotional self-awareness in negative direction {β = -.32, t =
-14.10, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 4% {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF
(1, 3496) = 198.74, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the moderating role
130
of extroversion personality trait between emotional self-awareness and verbal
cognitive style (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Moderating effect of extroversion personality trait in the relationship between emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
Figure 8 turns out that the positive relationship between emotional self-
awareness and verbal cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who are
low in extroversion personality trait. Overall, verbal cognitive style, extroversion
personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model that explained
28% variance in emotional self-awareness.
131
Table 28
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Awareness
from Verbal Cognitive Style and Conscientiousness Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .04*
Verbal .20*
Step II .09*
Verbal .10*
Conscientiousness .32*
Step III .03*
Verbal .25*
Conscientiousness .19*
Verbal * Conscientiousness .26*
Total R2 .16*
*p < .001
Table 28 depicts significant positive relationship between verbal cognitive
style and emotional self-awareness {β = .20, t = 12.32, p = .001} where the former
explained about 4% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 3498) = 151.65, p =
.001}. In the second step, conscientiousness personality trait also predicted
emotional self-awareness {β = .32, t = 19.10, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of 9% in it {ΔR2 = .09, ΔF (1, 3497) = 364.61, p = .001}. Finally, in the
third step, the interaction term of verbal cognitive style and conscientiousness
personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-awareness in positive
direction {β = .26, t = 10.67, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of
about 3% {ΔR2 = .03, ΔF (1, 3496) = 113.84, p = .001}. This provides an evidence
132
for the moderating role of conscientiousness personality trait between emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style (see Figure 9).
Figure 9. Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in the relationship between
emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
It is depicted in figure 9 that the positive relationship between emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who
are high in conscientiousness personality trait. Overall, verbal cognitive style,
conscientiousness personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant
model that explained 16% variance in emotional self-awareness.
133
Table 29
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Emotional Self-Awareness
from Verbal Cognitive Style and Openness to Experience Personality Trait (N =
3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .04*
Verbal .20*
Step II .49*
Verbal .14*
Openness to Experience .70*
Step III .01*
Verbal .15*
Conscientiousness .71*
Verbal * Openness to Experience .05*
Total R2 .54*
*p < .001
Table 29 depicts significant positive relationship between verbal cognitive
style and emotional self-awareness {β = .20, t = 12.32, p = .001} where the former
explained about 4% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .04, ΔF (1, 3498) = 151.65, p =
.001}. In the second step, Openness to Experience personality trait also predicted
emotional self-awareness {β = .71, t =60.56, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of 49% in it {ΔR2 = .49, ΔF (1, 3497) = 3667.99, p = .001}. Finally, in
the third step, the interaction term of verbal cognitive style and Openness to
Experience personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-awareness in
positive direction {β = .05, t = 4.38, p = .001} and explained an additional variance
134
of about 3% {ΔR2 = .01, ΔF (1, 3496) = 19.20, p = .001}. This provides an
evidence for the moderating role of Openness to Experience personality trait
between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style (see Figure 10).
Figure 10. Moderating effect of Openness to Experience personality trait in the relationship
between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.
It is depicted in figure 10 that the positive relationship between emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who
are high in Openness to Experience personality trait. Overall, verbal cognitive
style, Openness to Experience personality trait, and their interaction constituted a
significant model that explained 54% variance in emotional self-awareness.
135
Table 30
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Interpersonal Skill Scale
from Spatial Cognitive Style and Emotional Stability Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .05*
Spatial .23*
Step II .27*
Spatial .23*
Emotional Stability -.52*
Step III .05*
Spatial .45*
Emotional Stability -.18*
Spatial * Emotional Stability .24*
Total R2 .37*
*p < .001
Table 30 depicts significant positive relationship between spatial cognitive
style and interpersonal skill {β = .23, t = 14.19, p = .001} where the former
explained about 5% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF (1, 3498) = 201.47, p =
.001}. In second step, emotional stability personality trait also predicted
interpersonal skill {β = -.52, t = -37.03, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of 27% in it {ΔR2 = .27, ΔF (1, 3497) = 1371.47, p = .001}. Finally, in
third step, the interaction term of spatial cognitive style and emotional stability
personality trait significantly predicted interpersonal skill in positive direction {β =
.24, t = 16.79, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 5% {ΔR2 =
.05, ΔF (1, 3496) = 281.99, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the
136
moderating role of emotional stability personality trait between interpersonal skill
and spatial cognitive style (see Figure 11).
Figure 11. Moderating effect of emotional stability personality trait in the relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
This Figure 11 turns out that the positive relationship between interpersonal
skill and spatial cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who are high in
emotional stability personality trait. Overall, spatial cognitive style, emotional
stability personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model that
explained 37% variance in interpersonal skill.
137
Table 31
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Interpersonal Skill Scale
from Spatial Cognitive Style and Extroversion Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .05*
Spatial .23*
Step II .25*
Spatial .04*
Extroversion .54*
Step III .01*
Spatial .03*
Extroversion .25*
Spatial * Extroversion -.31*
Total R2 .31*
*p < .001
Table 31 depicts significant positive relationship between spatial cognitive
style and interpersonal skill {β = .23, t = 14.19, p = .001} where the former
explained about 5% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF (1, 3498) = 201.47, p =
.001}. In the second step, extroversion personality trait also predicted interpersonal
skill {β = .54, t = 35.40, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of 25% in
it {ΔR2 = .25, ΔF (1, 3497) = 1252.79, p = .001}. Finally, in the third step, the
interaction term of spatial cognitive style and extroversion personality trait
significantly predicted interpersonal skill in negative direction {β = -.31, t = -
13.71, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 1% {ΔR2 = .01, ΔF
(1, 3496) = 13.74, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the moderating role of
138
extroversion personality trait between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style
(see Figure 12).
Figure 12. Moderating effect of extroversion personality trait in the relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
Figure 12 provides evidence that the positive relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals
who are low in extroversion personality trait. Overall, spatial cognitive style,
extroversion personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model
that explained 31% variance in interpersonal skill.
139
Table 32
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Interpersonal Skill Scale
from Spatial Cognitive Style and Agreeableness Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .05*
Spatial .23*
Step II .02*
Spatial .16*
Agreeableness .15*
Step III .55*
Spatial -.43*
Agreeableness .44*
Spatial * Agreeableness -.68*
Total R2 .62*
*p < .001
Table 32 depicts significant positive relationship between spatial cognitive
style and interpersonal skill {β = .23, t = 14.19, p = .001} where the former
explained about 5% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF (1, 3498) = 201.47, p =
.001}. In the second step, agreeableness personality trait also predicted
interpersonal skill {β = .15, t = 8.01, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of 2% in it {ΔR2 = .02, ΔF (1, 3497) = 64.17, p = .001}. Finally, in third
step, the interaction term of spatial cognitive style and agreeableness personality
trait significantly predicted interpersonal skill in negative direction {β = -.68, t = -
55.36, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 55% {ΔR2 = .55, ΔF
(1, 3496) = 5160.54, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the moderating role
140
of agreeableness personality trait between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive
style (see Figure 13).
Figure 13. Moderating effect of agreeableness personality trait in the relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
The results of Figure 13 indicated that the positive relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals
who are low in agreeableness personality trait. Overall, spatial cognitive style,
agreeableness personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model
that explained 62% variance in interpersonal skill.
141
Table 33
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Interpersonal Skill Scale
from Spatial Cognitive Style and Conscientiousness Personality Trait (N = 3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .05*
Spatial .23*
Step II .11*
Spatial .09*
Conscientiousness .35*
Step III .01*
Spatial .15*
Conscientiousness .25*
Spatial * Conscientiousness .33*
Total R2 .17*
*p < .001
Table 33 depicts significant positive relationship between spatial cognitive
style and interpersonal skill {β = .23, t = 14.19, p = .001} where the former
explained about 5% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF (1, 3498) = 201.47, p =
.001}. In the second step, conscientiousness personality trait also predicted
interpersonal skill {β = .35, t = 20.85, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of 11% in it {ΔR2 = .11, ΔF (1, 3497) = 434.59, p = .001}. Finally, in the
third step, the interaction term of spatial cognitive style and conscientiousness
personality trait significantly predicted interpersonal skill in positive direction {β =
.33, t = 4.83, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of about 1% {ΔR2 =
.01, ΔF (1, 3496) = 23.31, p = .001}. This provides an evidence for the moderating
142
role of conscientiousness personality trait between interpersonal skill and spatial
cognitive style (see Figure 14).
Figure 14. Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in the relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
The results of Figure 14 showed that the positive relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals
who are high in conscientiousness personality trait. Overall, spatial cognitive style,
conscientiousness personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant
model that explained 17% variance in interpersonal skill.
143
Table 34
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Interpersonal Skill Scale
from Spatial Cognitive Style and Openness to Experience Personality Trait (N =
3500)
Predictor ΔR2 Β
Step I .05*
Spatial .23*
Step II .47*
Spatial .04*
Openness to Experience .71*
Step III .02*
Spatial .08*
Openness to Experience .71*
Spatial * Openness to
Experience
.15*
Total R2 .54*
*p < .001
Table 34 depicts significant positive relationship between spatial cognitive
style and interpersonal skill {β = .23, t = 14.19, p = .001} where the former
explained about 5% variance in the later {ΔR2 = .05, ΔF (1, 3498) = 201.47, p =
.001}. In the second step, Openness to Experience personality trait also predicted
interpersonal skill {β = .71, t = 58.69, p = .001} and explained an additional
variance of 11% in it {ΔR2 = .47, ΔF (1, 3497) = 3444.50, p = .001}. Finally, in
the third step, the interaction term of spatial cognitive style and Openness to
Experience personality trait significantly predicted interpersonal skill in positive
144
direction {β = .15, t =12.72, p = .001} and explained an additional variance of
about 1% {ΔR2 = .02, ΔF (1, 3496) = 161.90, p = .001}. This provides an evidence
for the moderating role of Openness to Experience personality trait between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style (see Figure 15).
Figure 15. Moderating effect of Openness to Experience personality trait in the relationship
between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.
The results of Figure 15 showed that the positive relationship between
interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals
who are high in Openness to Experience personality trait. Overall, spatial cognitive
style, Openness to Experience personality trait, and their interaction constituted a
significant model that explained 54% variance in interpersonal skill.
145
Table 35
Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of Ten Item Personality Inventory
and Subscales of Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (N=3500)
Subscale of OSVIQ
Subscale of TIPI Object Verbal Spatial
Extroversion -.59** -.12* -.35**
Emotional Stability .19** .079** .01**
Conscientiousness .37* .36** .40
Agreeableness -.23** .51 -.45**
Openness to Experience .58 -.08** .26**
p>.05, **p < .01
Note. TIPI=Ten Item Personality Inventory, OSIVQ= Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire
The results of Table 35 describe that all personality traits Emotional
stability trait have significant positive relationship with all cognitive styles. On the
other hand emotional stability personality trait has significant negative relationship
with both object and verbal cognitive styles, while it has non-significant negative
relationship with spatial cognitive styles.
146
Table 36
Correlation Coefficients between the Subscales of Self Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence and Subscales of Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (N=3500)
Subscale of OSIVQ
Subscale of SRMEI Spatial Verbal Object
Emotional self-Regulation Scale (ESRS) .38 .41** .40**
Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) .22** .19** .41**
Interpersonal Skill Scale (ISS) .23 .15** .51**
**p < .01
The results of Table 36 show that all subscales of emotional intelligence
(ESRS, ESAS, and ISS) have significant positive relationship with all cognitive
styles (object, verbal, and spatial).
Demographic Differences on Self-Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI), Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), and Object–Spatial Imagery
and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ)
In order to explore the demographic differences (gender, academic
discipline, education, and age) on personality traits, emotional intelligence and
cognitive styles among university students; mean, Standard Deviation and t-values
of the scores of university students are computed.
147
Table 37
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Men and Women University Students on
Subscales of Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI; N=3500)
Subscale
SRMEI
Men
(n = 1750)
M SD
Women
(n = 1750)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
ESRS 86.53 18.15 85.23 19.14 2.06 .039 0.06 2.54 0.07
ESAS 64.88 13.14 65.23 13.51 0.78 .437 -1.23 0.533 0.03
ISS 35.89 9.38 36.95 9.12 3.389 .001 -1.67 -0.45 0.13
df = 3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit, SRMEI= Self-Report Measure
of Emotional Intelligence, ESRS=Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, ESAS=Emotional Self-
Awareness Scale, ISS =Interpersonal Skill Scale
Table 37 shows that there exist significant gender differences on ESRS and
ISS, while non-significant differences emerged on ESAS of Self-Report Measure
of Emotional Intelligence. These results indicate that women show higher scores
on Interpersonal Skill Scale while men show higher scores on Emotional Self-
Regulation Scale in comparison with women.
148
Table 38
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Men and Women University Students on
Subscales of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; N=3500)
Subscales
Men
(n = 1750)
M SD
Women
(n = 1750)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
Emotional
Stability
12.36 1.52 12.25 1.48 2.17 .030 .011 .213 0.07
Extroversion 11.57 1.67 11.48 1.42 1.72 .081 1.18 1.37 0.06
Openness to
Experience
12.29 1.69 12.18 1.84 1.84 .066 -.23 .01 0.002
Agreeableness 11.30 1.48 11.36 1.52 1.183 .024 -.04 .159 0.04
Conscientiousness 10.78 0.87 10.85 0.97 2.25 .025 .011 .131 0.08
df =3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit
The findings of Table 38 describe significant gender differences on
Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, while non-significant
gender differences emerged on Extroversion and Openness to Experience
personality traits. Results demonstrate that men show higher scores on
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability personality traits, while women show
higher scores on Agreeableness personality trait.
149
Table 39
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Men and Women University Students on
Subscales Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ; N=3500)
Subscales
Men
(n = 1750)
M SD
Women
(n = 1750)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
Verbal 53.05 11.89 53.89 10.30 2.23 .026 -1.58 -.10 0.08
Object 54.32 12.30 53.85 9.45 1.27 .205 -1.20 0.23 0.04
Spatial 58.39 7.01 57.85 8.72 2.02 .044 .016 1.06 0.07
df = 3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit
Table 39 shows significant gender differences on Verbal and Spatial
cognitive styles while non-significant differences exist on object cognitive style.
These findings indicate that men have higher scores on spatial cognitive style than
while women have higher scores on verbal cognitive style.
150
Table 40
One-way Analysis of Variance for the Effect of Academic Discipline on SRMEI and
OSIVQ (N = 3500)
Variable SS (n = 744) NS (n = 742) AR (n = 681) MS (n = 655) IT (n = 678)
F
p
Tukey’s
Post Hoc M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
SRMEIT 229.16 12.67 220.24 17.12 145.00 4.32 140.66 11.35 196.94 13.47 4572.04 .001 1>2>5>3>4
OSIVQ 195.00 9.03 178.81 25.59 156.54 6.95 173.44 8.51 179.80 19.53 546.51 .001 1>5>2>4>3
Note. SS = social sciences; NS = natural sciences; AR = arts; MS = management sciences; IT =
information technology; SRMEI = Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence;
OSIVQ=Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
The results of table 40 shows students have significant differences with respect to
academic discipline on their scores on Self Report Measure of Emotional
Intelligence (SRMEI) and on Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire
(OSIVQ). It is indicated that the students of Social Sciences discipline show
highest level of emotional intelligence and cognitive styles as compared to the
students of other academic discipline. On the other hand the students of
management Sciences discipline show least scores on Self Report Measure of
Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI); while the students of Arts discipline show least
scores on Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ).
151
Table 41
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Under Graduate and Post Graduate
University Students on Subscales of Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence
(SRMEI; N=3500)
Subscale
SRMEI
Under Graduate
(n = 1840)
M SD
Post Graduate
(n = 1660)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
ESRS 36.68 9.78 37.24 5.01 2.10 .036 .036 1.08 0.07
ESAS 64.82 13.29 66.98 13.58 4.74 .001 -3.05 1.26 0.16
ISS 85.24 16.82 85.19 17.50 .082 .935 -1.09 1.18 .002
df = 3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit, SRMEI= Self-Report Measure
of Emotional Intelligence, ESRS=Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, ESAS=Emotional Self-
Awareness Scale, ISS =Interpersonal Skill Scale.
Table 41 shows that there exist significant education differences on
Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) and Emotional Self-Regulation Scale
(ESRS), while non-significant differences occur on Interpersonal Skill Scale (ISS).
These results show that post graduate students have higher level of Emotional Self-
Awareness and Emotional Self Regulation than under graduate students.
152
Table 42
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Under Graduate and Post Graduate
University Students on Subscales of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI;
N=3500)
Subscales
Under
Graduate
(n = 1840)
M SD
Post
Graduate
(n = 1660)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
Emotional
Stability 12.33 1.45 12.48 1.97 2.54 .011 -.27 -.03 0.09
Extroversion 11.39 1.75 11.17 1.54 3.96 .001 .11 .33 0.13
Openness to
Experience 12.50 1.94 12.38 1.98 1.81 .071 -.01 .25 0.06
Conscientiousness 11.20 1.29 11.36 1.60 3.27 .001 .06 .26 0.11
Agreeableness 11.21 1.55 11.27 1.70 1.09 .277 -.17 .05 0.03
df = 3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit
The findings of Table 42 describe significant education differences on three
personality traits (Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, and Extroversion), while
non-significant education differences emerged on Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness personality traits. It shows from the results that Post Graduate
students have higher scores on Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness
personality traits, while Under Graduate students have higher scores on
Extroversion personality traits.
153
Table 43
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Under Graduate and Post Graduate
University Students on Subscales Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal
Questionnaire (OSIVQ; N=3500)
Subscales
Under Graduate
(n = 1840)
M SD
Post Graduate
(n = 1660)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
Verbal 57.54 10.75 56.67 9.85 2.50 .013 .187 1.55 0.08
Spatial 53.52 8.69 54.02 9.35 1.633 .102 -1.10 1.10 0.05
Object 66.34 2.08 66.50 2.12 2.28 .022 -.30 -.02 0.07
df = 4398
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit
The results of Table 43 indicated that significant education differences
emerged on Verbal and Object cognitive styles, while non-significant education
differences exist on spatial cognitive style. It shows that Under Graduate students
have higher scores on Verbal cognitive style, while Post Graduate students show
higher scores on Object cognitive style.
154
Table 44
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Younger and Older Adult University
Students on Subscales of Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence (SRMEI;
N=3500)
Subscale
SRMEI
Younger Adults
(n = 1770)
M SD
Older Adults
(n = 1730)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
ESRS 79.78 16.97 81.08 15.45 2.37 .018 -2.38 -.22 0.08
ESAS 60.75 11.77 61.31 9.87 1.53 .127 -1.28 .159 0.05
ISS 40.42 8.95 39.70 7.77 2.54 .011 .165 1.275 0.09
df = 3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit, SRMEI= Self-Report Measure
of Emotional Intelligence, ESRS=Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, ESAS=Emotional Self-
Awareness Scale, ISS =Interpersonal Skill Scale.
Table 44 shows that there exist significant age differences on emotional
self-regulation (ESRS) and interpersonal skill (ISS) while non-significant
differences emerged on emotional self-awareness scale (ESAS). These results
indicate that older adult students have significantly higher scores on Emotional
Self-Regulation Scale, while younger adult students show higher scores on
Interpersonal Skill Scale.
155
Table 45
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Younger and Older Adult University
Students on Subscales of Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; N=3500)
Subscales
Younger
Adults
(n = 1770)
M SD
Older
Adults
(n = 1730)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
Emotional
Stability
12.39 1.50 12.55 2.80 2.10 .036 -.31 -.01 0.07
Openness 11.93 2.95 11.62 4.73 2.33 .019 -.58 -.05 0.08
Extroversion 11.91 1.31 11.70 3.27 1.77 .076 -.02 .32 0.06
Conscientiousness 11.28 1.71 11.12 1.16 1.22 .071 .06 .26 0.01
Agreeableness 11.22 0.98 11.44 0.89 2.44 .015 -.32 -.03 0.08
df = 3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit
The findings of Table 45 describe significant age differences on three
personality traits (Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Openness to
Experience,) while non-significant age differences emerged on Extroversion and
Conscientiousness personality traits. Results demonstrate that Older Adult students
had significantly higher scores on Openness to Experience, Emotional Stability,
and Agreeableness personality traits than younger adult students.
156
Table 46
Mean, Standard Deviation, and t-values of Younger and Older Adult University
Students on Subscales Object–Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ;
N=3500)
Subscales
Younger Adults
(n = 1770)
M SD
Older Adults
(n = 1730)
M SD
t
p
CI 95%
Cohen’s
d
LL UL
Verbal 54.74 10.13 54.78 11.32 0.12 .901 -.75 .67 .003
Spatial 57.69 8.51 55.21 9.10 2.03 .037 -1.16 .08 0.12
Object 65.82 1.76 66.03 3.24 2.38 .018 -.38 -.04 0.08
df = 3498
Note. CI = Confidence Interval, LL= lower Limit, UL= Upper Limit
The results of Table 46 indicate non-significant age differences on Verbal
cognitive style, while significant age differences emerged on Object and Spatial
cognitive styles. These findings show that older adult students use Object
cognitive styles more than younger students, while younger students use more
spatial cognitive styles than older students.
157
Chapter-V
DISCUSSION
The current study was conducted on the sample of 3500 (men n=1750,
women n=1750) university students. This study was based on three main
objectives; 1) to explore the moderating effect of personality traits
(Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, Extroversion, and
Openness to Experience) on emotional intelligence (Emotional Self-Regulation,
Emotional Self-Awareness, and Interpersonal Skill) and cognitive styles (Object,
Verbal, and Spatial) among the university students; 2) To explore the inter-
relationships among personality traits, emotional intelligence, and cognitive styles
of university students; and 3) To find the demographic differences (age, gender,
education, and academic discipline) on personality traits, emotional intelligence,
and cognitive styles of university students.
In the first step of analyses the reliability coefficients and inter-scale
correlation coefficients of instruments (TIPI=Ten Item Personality Inventory;
SRMEI=Self Report Measure of Emotional Intelligence; and OSIVQ=Object-
Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire) were computed. The alpha coefficient
values for all the instruments and for their subscales are very high. The alpha value
for SRMEI was .91, while for its subscales alpha value ranges from .79 to .86, (see
Table 13); for TIPI it was .78 while for its subscales alpha ranges from .61 to .97
(see Table 14); and for OSIVQ it was .89, while for its subscales alpha values
ranges from .71 to .89 (see Table 15). The values of inter-scale correlation
coefficients for all instruments (SRMEI, OSIVQ, and TIPI) indicated that all
instruments have high level of construct validity (see Table 16, 17, & 18).
158
Relationships between Emotional Intelligence and Personality Traits
In order to address the second objective of present research, inter-
relationships among personality traits, cognitive styles, and emotional intelligence
of university students were found. The results of this analysis revealed that
Emotional Self Regulation Scale (ESRS) has significant positive correlations with
three personality traits (Emotional Stability, Extroversion, and Agreeableness),
while it has significant negative association with Openness to Experience and non-
significant correlation with Conscientiousness. These findings also showed that
Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) has significant positive correlations with
two personality traits (Extroversion and Openness to Experience), has significant
negative relationship with two personality traits (Emotional Stability and
Conscientiousness), and also has non-significant relationship with Agreeableness.
It was also found that Interpersonal Skills (ISS) has significant positive correlation
with three personality traits (Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and
Extroversion), has significant negative correlation with Conscientiousness and
non-significant relationship with Emotional Stability personality trait (see Table
19). These findings support the first hypothesis of the current study which stated
that all the subscales of Emotional Intelligence (Emotional Self-Regulation,
Emotional Self-awareness, and Interpersonal Skills) will have positive correlations
with Emotional Stability, Extroversion, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness
among university students.
These findings are supported by previous research conducted by DeYoung
(2009) who found positive relationship between emotional intelligence (tested by
the MSCEIT) with Agreeableness and Openness to experience personality trait.
Some other previous studies (Mayer et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2008) also reported
159
(by using MSCEIT questionnaire) that emotional intelligence correlated positively
with Agreeableness and Openness/Intellect. Similarly these studies (Mayer et al.,
2004, 2008; Roberts et al., 2008) also explore that emotional intelligence has low
positive correlations with Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Extraversion
personality traits. On the other hand the results of a meta-analysis conducted by
Ackerman and Heggestad’s (1997) explored that emotional intelligence has no
correlation or a weak negative correlation between Conscientiousness.
The findings of the present study also supported by one previous study
conducted by Brackett and Mayer (2003) who found that Emotion Quotient
Inventory (EQi) was found to have high significant correlations of emotional
intelligence with Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism
factors, and moderately significant correlations was found with the Openness
factor of the Big Five Personality traits. In the same way the findings of the present
study was also supported by some previous researches (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007) who explored that in both childhood and
adulthood emotional intelligence is positively related to Conscientiousness
personality trait.
Brackett and Mayer (2003) reported that Emotion Quotient Inventory had
highly significant correlations with Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Extraversion and
Conscientiousness personality traits; while moderately significant correlations
were found with the Openness personality trait of the Big Five. In the same way
Sala (2002) explore significant correlation of emotional intelligence with three
personality traits of the Big Five Personality factors (Extroversion, Openness, and
Conscientiousness) by using Goleman’s measure of emotional intelligence and
Emotional Competence Inventory. Another research explored positive correlation
160
of emotional intelligence with openness to experience and conscientiousness
personality trait by using NEO-PI-R (as cited in Brackett & Mayer, 2003).
Emotional Intelligence (EI) and personality traits have positive
relationships because EI deals with the understanding and controlling of those
emotions which play significant role in the construction of personality traits. The
relationship between EI and personality traits has been investigated widely, but the
relationship between these two variables is dependents upon those instruments
which are used by the researcher to assess the relationship. The relationship
between EI and personality traits has been discussed repeatedly in the previous
literature. Many models of EI have close attachment with the theory of personality,
specifically the mixed models (Bar-On, 2005; Goleman, 1995). Components and
sub-components of both Bar-On model and Goleman Model of EI have close
similarity with areas which have been previously studied as part of personality
theory.
Moderating Role of Personality Traits on Emotional Intelligence and
Cognitive Styles
In order to explore the moderating effect of personality traits (Emotional
Stability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) on emotional
intelligence (emotional self-regulation, emotional self-awareness, and interpersonal
skills) and cognitive styles (object, verbal, and spatial) Hierarchical Multiple
Regression Analysis was carried out.
The results of the analysis, which was done to explore the moderating role
of emotional stability personality trait on emotional self-regulation and object
cognitive style, support the second hypothesis of the current study by exploring
that emotional stability personality trait is the significant positive moderator for the
161
positive relationship of emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style (see
Table 20, Figure 1). These findings depict significant positive relationship between
object cognitive style and emotional self-regulation and explored emotional
stability personality trait as a positive predictor of emotional self-regulation. It was
also found that the interaction term of object cognitive style and emotional stability
personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-regulation in positive
direction. This provides evidence that this positive relationship between emotional
self-regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly for those individuals
who are high in emotional stability personality trait. Overall object cognitive style,
emotional stability, and their interaction constituted a significant in the value of
emotional self-regulation scale.
In order to explore the moderating role of Extroversion personality trait on
emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style, Hierarchical Multiple
Regression Analysis was done. The findings of this analysis indicate that
extroversion personality trait is a significant positive moderator between the
positive relationship of object cognitive style and emotional self-regulation (see
Table 21, Figure-2). These findings also support the second hypothesis of the
current study by exploring extroversion personality trait as a positive moderator for
the positive relationship between object cognitive style and emotional self-
regulation. These results show significant positive relationship between object
cognitive style and emotional self-regulation, and also found that the extroversion
personality trait can predicted emotional self-regulation. The analysis depicted that
the interaction term of object cognitive style and extroversion personality trait
significantly predict the emotional self-regulation in positive direction. These
results also stated that the positive relationship between emotional self-regulation
162
and object cognitive style holds more strongly for those individuals who are high
in extroversion personality trait. Overall, object cognitive style, extroversion
personality trait, and their interaction create 59% variance change in the value of
emotional self-regulation scale. These finding are supported by a previous study
(Buksnyte-Marmiene, Kovalcikiene, & Ciunyte, 2012) which found extroversion
personality trait as a positive predictor of innovative cognitive style by using
binary logistic regression.
The results of the analysis found agreeableness personality trait as a
significant negative moderator in the relationship of object cognitive style and
emotional self-regulations (see Table 22, Figure-3). These findings also ultimately
support the second hypothesis of the current study by revealing that agreeableness
personality trait act as a positive moderator for the relationship of emotional self-
regulation and object cognitive style. Significant positive relationship was found
between object cognitive style and emotional self-regulation and also explore
agreeableness personality trait as a predictor of emotional self-regulation. This
analysis revealed that the interaction of object cognitive style and agreeableness
personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-regulation in negative
direction, as the positive relationship between emotional self-regulation and object
cognitive style holds more strongly for those individuals who have low sores on
agreeableness personality trait. On the whole this analysis stated 87% change in the
value of Emotional Self Regulation as a result of interaction among object
cognitive style and agreeableness personality trait. These findings of the present
study partially supported by a research conducted by Bao-Yiann and Yang (2012)
to explore the moderating role of agreeableness personality traits on emotional
intelligence and conflict management styles on part time and undergraduate MBA
163
students. This study revealed that agreeableness moderated the relationships of
emotional intelligence with compromising style and dominating style of conflict
management.
The results of Table 23 found Conscientiousness as a significant positive
predictor in the positive relationship of object cognitive style and emotional self-
regulation, which support the second hypothesis of the current study that
conscientiousness personality trait is a significant moderator on the relationship of
object cognitive style and emotional self-regulation (see Figure-4). The findings on
this hypothesis explore significant positive relationship between object cognitive
style and emotional self-regulation, and also found Conscientiousness personality
trait as a positive predictor of emotional self-regulation. The interactional effect of
object cognitive style and Conscientiousness personality trait significantly
predicted emotional self-regulation in positive direction. This positive relationship
between emotional self-regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly
for those people who are higher level of conscientiousness personality trait. Taken
as a whole, conscientiousness personality trait, object cognitive style, and their
interaction create a significant amount of change in the value of emotional self-
regulation.
The results of Table 24 depicts that Openness to Experience personality
trait also predicted Emotional Self Regulation Scale and explained an additional
variance of 4% in it. It was also found that the interaction of Object cognitive style
and Openness to Experience personality trait significantly predicted interpersonal
skill in negative direction and explained an additional variance of about 17%.
These results indicated that the positive relationship between emotional self
regulation and object cognitive style holds more strongly for individuals who are
164
low in openness to experience personality trait. Overall, object cognitive style,
openness to experience personality trait, and their interaction constituted a
significant model that explained 65% variance in emotional self regulation.
The findings of current study found emotional stability personality trait as a
positive moderator on emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style. These
results support the third hypothesis of the present study which stated that emotional
stability is a significant moderator in the relationship of emotional self-awareness
and verbal cognitive style (see Table 25, Figure-6). This Table depicts significant
positive relationship between verbal cognitive style and emotional self-awareness
and also depicts that emotional stability personality trait is a significant predicted
emotional self-awareness. It was also found that the interaction of verbal cognitive
style and emotional stability personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-
awareness in positive direction. This positive direction means that the positive
relationship between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style holds
more strongly for those individuals who are higher on emotional stability
personality trait. In general, verbal cognitive style, emotional stability personality
trait, and their interaction constituted a 40% significant change in the value of
emotional self-awareness.
The hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed agreeableness
personality trait as a significant negative moderator in the relationship of emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style (see Table 26, Figure-7). These results
support the third hypothesis of the current study that agreeableness act as a
significant moderator in the relationship between emotional self-awareness and
verbal cognitive style. The results reveal significant positive relationship between
verbal cognitive style and emotional self-awareness and also found that the
165
agreeableness personality trait is a significant predictor of emotional self-
awareness. It was also found that the interactional effect of verbal cognitive style
and agreeableness personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-awareness
in negative direction. It means that the positive relationship between emotional
self-awareness and verbal cognitive style holds more strongly for those individuals
who are lower in agreeableness personality trait. Generally, verbal cognitive style,
agreeableness personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant
change in the values of emotional self-awareness.
The results of the current study explore extroversion personality trait as a
significant negative moderator in the relationship of emotional self-awareness and
verbal cognitive style (see Table 27, Figure-8). These results partially support the
third hypothesis of the present study, which stated that agreeableness personality
trait significantly moderate the existing relationship between emotional self-
awareness and verbal cognitive style. This analysis shows that verbal cognitive
style has significant positive relationship with emotional self-awareness and also
shows extroversion personality trait as a significant predictor of emotional self-
awareness. The findings regarding the effect of interaction term of verbal cognitive
style and extroversion personality trait revealed that this interaction significantly
predicted emotional self-awareness in negative direction. It turns out that the
positive relationship between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style
holds more strongly for individuals who are low in extroversion personality trait.
28 percent change noticed in the value of emotional self awareness as the result of
interactional effete of verbal cognitive style and extroversion personality trait.
A study conducted by Bao-Yiann and Yang (2012) on 442 both part time
and undergraduate students to explore the moderating role of extroversion and
166
agreeableness personality traits on emotional intelligence and conflict management
styles. They explored that extroversion personality traits moderate the relationship
of emotional intelligence with both integrating style and the dominating style of
conflict management.
Regression analysis of the current study explored the significant positive
moderating role of conscientiousness personality trait between verbal cognitive
style and emotional self-awareness (see Table 28, Figure-9). These findings
support third hypothesis of the current study regarding the significant moderating
role of conscientiousness personality trait between emotional self-awareness and
verbal cognitive style. These results depict significant positive relationship
between verbal cognitive style and emotional self-awareness, and also revealed
that conscientiousness personality trait is a significant predicted emotional self-
awareness. The findings stated that the interaction of verbal cognitive style and
conscientiousness personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-awareness
in positive direction. These results turns out that the positive relationship between
emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style holds more strongly for those
individuals who are higher in conscientiousness personality trait. Overall, verbal
cognitive style, conscientiousness personality trait, and their interaction constituted
a significant model that explained 16 percent change in the values of emotional
self-awareness.
Table 29 depicts significant positive relationship between verbal cognitive
style and emotional self-awareness and also found that Openness to Experience
personality trait also predicted emotional self-awareness by creating 49% variance
in it. These results also explore that the combination of verbal cognitive style and
Openness to Experience personality trait significantly predicted emotional self-
167
awareness in positive direction and creating an additional variance of about 3%.
This positive relationship between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive
style holds more strongly for individuals who are high in Openness to Experience
personality trait (see Figure-10). Overall, verbal cognitive style, Openness to
Experience personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant model
that explained 54% variance in emotional self-awareness.
The findings of Table 30 revealed that emotional stability personality trait
is a significant positive moderator in the relationship between spatial cognitive
style and interpersonal skill (see Figure-11). These results support the fourth
hypothesis of the current study which supposes that emotional stability act as a
significant moderator in the relationship between spatial cognitive style and
interpersonal skills. Significant positive relationship was found between spatial
cognitive style and interpersonal skills, and also found that emotional stability
personality trait can predict interpersonal skills. The analysis explore that the
interaction of spatial cognitive style and emotional stability personality trait
significantly predicted interpersonal skills in positive direction. This provides
evidence that the positive relationship between interpersonal skill and spatial
cognitive style holds more strongly for specially those individuals who are higher
in emotional stability personality trait. Inclusively, spatial cognitive style,
emotional stability personality trait, and their interaction constituted a significant
change in the value of the variance in interpersonal skills.
The analysis of the current study found that extroversion personality trait
significantly negatively moderate the relationship between spatial cognitive style
and interpersonal skill (see Table 31, Figure-12). These findings support the fourth
hypothesis of the current study which stated that extroversion personality trait
168
negatively moderate the relationship between spatial cognitive style and
interpersonal skills. These results depict significant positive relationship between
spatial cognitive style and interpersonal skill as well as also found that
extroversion personality trait can predict interpersonal skills. The results revealed
that the interaction of spatial cognitive style and extroversion personality trait
significantly predicted interpersonal skill in negative direction. It turns out that the
positive relationship between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style holds
more strongly for those individuals who are lower in extroversion personality trait.
These findings revealed that 31 percent change appeared in the value of
interpersonal skills as a result of interaction between spatial cognitive style and
extroversion personality trait.
The analysis of the present study depicts agreeableness personality trait as a
significant negative moderator in the relationship of spatial cognitive style and
interpersonal skills (see Table 32, Figure-13). These results did not support the
fourth hypothesis of the present study, which assume agreeableness personality
trait as a significant moderator in the relationship of spatial cognitive style and
interpersonal skills. This analysis revealed significant positive relationship between
spatial cognitive style and interpersonal skills, and also revealed agreeableness
personality trait as a predictor of interpersonal skills. The interaction term of
spatial cognitive style and agreeableness personality trait significantly predicted
interpersonal skills in negative direction. This provides evidence that the positive
relationship between interpersonal skills and spatial cognitive style holds more
strongly for those individuals who are lower in agreeableness personality trait. On
the whole, spatial cognitive style, agreeableness personality trait, and their
interaction constituted a change in the value of interpersonal skills.
169
The findings showed in Table 33 identified conscientiousness personality
trait as a significant positive moderator between the relationship of spatial
cognitive style and interpersonal skill (see Figure-14). These results ultimately
support the fourth hypothesis of the present study which stated that
conscientiousness is a positive moderator in the relationship between spatial
cognitive style and interpersonal skill. Significant positive relationship emerged
between spatial cognitive style and interpersonal skills, and conscientiousness
personality trait revealed as a predictor of interpersonal skills. The analysis,
regarding the effect of the interaction between spatial cognitive style and
conscientiousness personality trait, revealed that this interaction significantly
predicted interpersonal skills in positive direction. So, it turns out that the positive
relationship between interpersonal skills and spatial cognitive style holds more
strongly for individuals who are higher in conscientiousness personality trait.
Overall, spatial cognitive style, conscientiousness personality trait, and their
interaction constituted a significant model that explained 17 percent change in the
value of variance of interpersonal skills.
The analysis of the Table 34 stated that spatial cognitive style and
interpersonal skill have significant positive relationship with each other and
Openness to Experience personality trait predicted interpersonal skill by creating
11% variation in interpersonal skills. The interaction term of spatial cognitive style
and Openness to Experience personality trait significantly predicted interpersonal
skill in positive direction and having1% change in interpersonal skills. The positive
relationship between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style holds more
strongly for individuals who are high in Openness to Experience personality trait.
Overall, spatial cognitive style, Openness to Experience personality trait, and their
170
interaction constituted a significant model that explained 54% variance in
interpersonal skill (see Figure-15).
Relationship between Personality Traits and Cognitive Styles
The results of the present research found that object cognitive style has
significant positive correlation with two personality traits (Conscientiousness and
Emotional Stability), while it has significant negative association (Extroversion
and Agreeableness) and has non-significant relationship with Openness to
Experience personality trait. These results also revealed that verbal cognitive style
has significant positive correlation with two personality traits (emotional stability
and conscientiousness) while it has significant negative correlation with two
personality traits (extroversion and openness to experience) and has non-significant
association with Agreeableness personality trait. Similarly, spatial cognitive style
has significant positive relationship with two personality traits (Emotional Stability
and Openness to Experience), while it has significant negative correlations with
two personality traits (Extroversion and Agreeableness) and non-significant
association with conscientiousness (see Table 35). These results are supported by a
study conducted at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (CTY;
2013) to study the relationship between personality and cognitive learning styles
among academically talented students since 1983. They primarily use the Myers
Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), in order to measure the psychological type, and use
the Adjective Check List (ACL), for the measurement of 14 indicators of
personality.
These researchers of CTY (2013) studied the personality and cognitive
styles of gifted and talented students across different times. The results of this
research indicated, that openness to experience is positively related to innovative
171
cognitive as well as positively relationship between extraversion and originality
dimension. They also found that agreeableness and conscientiousness personality
traits had significant negative relationship with the total cognitive styles’ score. It
indicated that those students who have high scores on adaptors cognitive style are
more agreeable as well as more conscientious than those students who have high
scores on innovators cognitive style. On the other hand Neuroticism personality
trait is positively related to adaptive cognitive style in the originality dimension as
well as extraversion is positively correlated adaptive cognitive style in the
efficiency domain (Buksnyte-Marmiene et al., 2012).
Cognitive styles have close relationship to each other. Brown pointed out
that cognitive styles and learning strategies do not operate by themselves, but
reasonably linked the learner’s innate cognitive and learning styles with their
personality-related factors (as stated in Li & Qin, 2006).
Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive Styles
The findings of the analysis displayed in Table 36 showed that emotional
self regulation scale (ESRS) and interpersonal skills (ISS) have significant positive
relationship with object and verbal cognitive styles, while they have non-
significant association with spatial cognitive style. On the other side emotional
self regulation has significant positive correlations with all subscales of SRMEI
(Object, Verbal, and Spatial). These results ultimately support the fifth hypothesis
of the current study which stated that the emotional self-regulation will have
positive relationship with object and verbal cognitive styles among university
students. These findings are supported by a previous study (Hahin, Guler, &
Basim, 2009) which was done to explore the relationship between cognitive
intelligence, emotional intelligence, coping and stress symptoms in the context
172
of type A personality pattern. This study found positive relationship between
cognitive intelligence/cognitive styles and emotional intelligence (Hahin, Guler, &
Basim, 2009).
The results of the analysis also support the sixth hypothesis of the current
study, regarding the positive correlation of emotional self-awareness with verbal
cognitive style among university students, by exploring that emotional self-
awareness show significant positive correlation with object, verbal, and spatial
cognitive styles (see Table 36). These findings are supported by some previous
studied (Mayer et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 2008) who explored that the emotional
intelligence (measured through MSCEIT) appears to be more strongly associated
with verbal cognitive styles.
The results of correlational analysis explored positive association of
interpersonal skills with object, verbal, and spatial cognitive styles, which support
the seventh hypothesis of the current study; which stated that the interpersonal
skills have positive relationship with verbal cognitive and spatial cognitive style
among university students (see Table 36). These findings are partially supported by
the results of some previous studies (Allinson, 2012; Allinson & Hayes, 1996),
which was done to explore the correlation between the cognitive styles and
emotional intelligence. The findings of these studies stated that cognitive style
index (CSI) scores showed positive correlation with spatial way of thinking while
significant negative association occurred with the intuitive perception.
Demographic Differences on Personality Traits, Emotional Intelligence, and
Cognitive Styles
In order to explore the demographic differences (gender, academic
discipline, educational level, and age) on personality traits (extroversion, emotional
173
stability, agreeableness, openness to experience, and conscientiousness), cognitive
styles (object, verbal, and spatial), and emotional intelligence (emotional self-
regulation, emotional self-awareness, and interpersonal skills); independent t-test
and One-Way ANOVA were carried out.
Gender
The analysis of the current study regarding the gender differences on
emotional intelligence explored significant gender differences on Emotional self
regulation scale and interpersonal skills scale, while non-significant differences
emerged on emotional self awareness scale of Self-Report Measure of Emotional
Intelligence (see Table 37). These results indicate that women show higher scores
on Interpersonal Skills Scale while men show higher scores on Emotional Self-
Regulation Scale in comparison with women. These findings partially support the
eighth hypothesis of the present research, which stated that gender differences are
present on all subscales of emotional intelligence. These results are in line with the
findings of a previous study which found significant gender differences and stated
that females shows higher scores than male on emotional intelligence (Naghavi &
Redzuan, 2011). Another study also support the finding of current study by
exploring that men show high level of emotional self-regulation (stress
management component); while women show higher level of emotional self-
awareness scale and interpersonal skill (Hassan, 2013).
Studies conducted by Bar-On (2002) stated that gender have a significant
impact on emotional intelligence. He found that males have higher scores on
intrapersonal skills scale than females while females show higher level of
interpersonal intelligence than males, on the other side females exhibited
significantly higher level of emotional self-awareness level than males. Bar-On
174
(2002) also found that males tended to score higher than females in the general
mood management scale (emotional self-regulation scale) than females.
Almran and Punamaki (2008) conducted a study to examine the age and
gender and differences on emotional intelligence among 312 Bahraini adolescents.
They found that gender of the students have significant association with their level
of emotional intelligence, as they stated that girls showed higher interpersonal
skills than boys. The results of some other earlier studies (Day & Carroll, 2004;
Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Van Rooy, Alonso, & Viswesvaran, 2005) also
support the results of the current study by exploring that women show high level of
interpersonal skill than men, while on the other side men have better ability to
regulate their mood fluctuation (emotional self-regulation) in contrast with women.
The research findings of Palmer, Monach, Gignac, and Stough (2003) also
confirmed the results of current study by exploring that woman attaining higher
levels of interpersonal skills and emotional awareness than men.
The findings of Table 38 describe significant gender differences on
Emotional Stability, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, while non-significant
gender differences emerged on Extroversion and Openness to Experience
personality traits. The results demonstrate that men show higher scores on
Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability personality traits, while women show
higher scores on Agreeableness personality trait. These results are supported by the
findings of a study conducted by men reported higher level of Extroversion and
Emotional Stability scores than women (Budaev, 1999; Lee, 2005; Weisberg,
DeYoung, & Hirsh, 2011). Some other studies (Feingold, 1994; Costa,
Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001) reported that women show more agreeable attitude
than men because on average women are more nurturing, tender-minded, and
175
altruistic than men. However, such a finding does not preclude the fact that men
may also experience nurturing, tender-minded, and altruistic states.
The results of some previous studies support the findings regarding the
gender differences on neuroticism by exploring that women have higher scores on
Neuroticism and low self-esteem than men, while men show higher level of
emotional stability than women (Chapman, Duberstein, Sorensen, & Lyness, 2007;
Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994; Kling, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999;
Sinnot & Shifren, 2001). Previous findings suggested that women do not always
exhibit higher scores on one facet of Neuroticism than men which is Anger, or
Angry Hostility (Costa et al., 2001; Eagley, 1987; Reynolds, 1998; McCrae, et al.,
2005).
Agreeableness personality trait comprises altruism attitude, such as
empathy and kindness, that’s why agreeable individuals involves have the
tendency for cooperation, social harmony maintenance, and consideration of the
concerns of others. So, on the basis of these attributes of agreeableness personality
trait it was found through previous researches that women consistently show higher
score than men and related measures, such as tender- mindedness (Buss, 1995;
Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994; Guttman, 1987). Openness/Intellect personality
trait reflects imagination, intellectual curiosity creativity, and appreciation of
esthetic experiences, so it relates to the ability and interest in attending to and
processing complex information. Most of the previous studies conducted to explore
the demographic differences on openness to experience personality trait revealed
non-significant gender differences (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001). These non-
significant differences likely occur due to the divergent content of the trait, as
women have high score on the facets of Esthetics and Feelings than men, whereas
176
men tend to score higher on the Ideas facet than women (Costa et al., 2001; Costa,
McCrae, & Holland, 1984).
The results of current study are consistent with the results of some previous
studies (Bhatti, 2013; Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994), which found that women
show high scores on conscientiousness personality trait than men. The reason
behind this gender difference is that as the conscientiousness personality trait
describes as self-discipline, organization, strong impulse control, and having
ability to exert self-control in order to follow rules or maintain goal pursuit, so the
women score somewhat higher than men on some facets of conscientiousness, such
as order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. The results of the present study regarding
the gender differences on extroversion personality trait are supported by some
earlier research findings (Depue & Collins, 1999; DeYoung & Gray, 2009;
Helgeson & Fritz, 1999; Wiggins, 1979) which stated that men are more extrovert
than women. Extrovert personality trait reflects sociability, assertiveness, and
positive emotionality, all of these qualities linked to sensitivity, so the gender
differences present but these differences are small on the overall domain level of
extraversion (with men typically scoring higher). This small effect size on
extroversion personality trait could be due to the existence of gender differences in
different directions at the facet level; as women tend to score higher warmth,
gregariousness, and positive emotions than men, whereas men score higher on
assertiveness and excitement seeking than women (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al.,
2001; McCrae & Costa, 1989).
The researches on gender differences concerning the causes and precursors
of differences stated that Biological and evolutionary approaches both explain the
gender differences with the help of dimorphically which evolved with respect to
177
reproductive issues, and parental investment in offspring (Buss, 2008; Trivers,
1972). According to these theories, women are more concerned with effectively
raising their children and therefore they are more cautious, nurturing, agreeable,
and emotionally involved than men. On the other hand, men are more concerned
with obtaining practical mating opportunities and therefore they exhibit more
assertive attitude, aggression, and risk-taking behavior. Other theories suggested
that socio-cultural influences shaped the gender norms, which expected that
women and men have to serve different roles in society as well as to socialized and
behave differently from one another (Eagly & Wood, 2005; Wood & Eagly, 2002).
The analysis of the current study shows significant gender differences on
verbal and Spatial cognitive styles while non-significant differences exist on object
cognitive style (see Table 39). These findings indicate that men have higher scores
on spatial cognitive style than while women have higher scores on verbal cognitive
style. These findings partially support the eighth hypothesis of the present study
which supposes that gender differences exist on all cognitive styles. These findings
are consisted with the results of some previous studies on gender differences;
which reported that males perform better in spatial ability than females (Linn &
Petersen, 1985; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995) as well as they also reported that
men have higher spatial imagery ratings (Blajenkova et al., 2006). In opposite,
women tend to report higher scores on object imagery and imagery vividness
ratings than men (Blajenkova et al., 2006; McKelvie, 1995; Richardson, 1995).
The gender differences on verbal ability indicated that women show high scores
than men (Halpern, 2000; Hyde & Linn, 1988), however, according to the results
of a meta-analysis conducted by Hyde and Linn (1988), these differences are very
negligible.
178
Some previous studies also reported that gender differences were found
only on imagery dimensions and these results showed that females tend to report
themselves as object visualizers and while males tend to report themselves as
spatial visualizers (Blajenkova et al., 2006; Kozhevnikov et al., 2005; McKelvie,
1995; Linn & Petersen, 1985). The findings of the present research are also
consistent with the findings of previous researches on gender differences with
respect to cognitive style (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009; Chabris et al.,
2006) as they found non-significant differences emerged on verbal scale of the
OSIVQ while males reported higher spatial imagery ratings than females and
females reported higher scores on object imagery ratings than males. A significant
gender differences were also reported by Arnup, Murrihy, and Roodenburg (2013)
on cognitive style; as they found that boys use more Analytic/Imagery style
(spatial cognitive styles) than girls, while girls on the other hand show high scores
on verbal cognitive styles.
Academic Discipline
The results of One way analysis of variance which was conducted to
explore the academic discipline differences on cognitive styles and emotional
intelligence explores that students have significant academic discipline differences
on cognitive styles and emotional intelligence (see Table 40). It is indicated in this
analysis of variance that the students of Social Sciences discipline show highest
level of emotional intelligence and cognitive styles as compared to the students of
other academic disciplines, while the students of management Sciences discipline
show least scores on emotional intelligence and the students of Arts discipline
show least scores cognitive styles. These findings support the ninth hypothesis of
the present study which assumes that the students of social sciences have higher
179
level of emotional intelligence and cognitive styles in comparison with the students
of other academic disciplines (natural sciences, arts, management sciences, and
information technology).
Educational Level/Achievement
The results of Table 41 show that there exist significant education
differences on Emotional Self Awareness Scale (ESAS) and Emotional Self-
Regulation Scale (ESRS), while non-significant differences occur on Interpersonal
Skill Scale (ISS). These results show that post graduate students have higher level
of Emotional Self-Awareness and Emotional Self Regulation than under graduate
students. These results partially support the tenth hypothesis of the current study
that students with high educational achievement show high level of emotional
intelligence than students with low academic achievement. These findings are
supported by a previous study (Elizabeth, 2007) who found that the emotional
intelligence correlate significantly with the academic achievement of the students.
Some previous researchers found that emotional intelligence and academic
achievement/educational level have a positive relationship with each other (Todres,
Tsimtsiou, Stephenson, Jones, 2010). It was found through surveys that almost
90% of very successful individuals show a very high level of emotional
intelligence (Extremera & Fernandez-Berrocal, 2006). All these researchers stated
that those people who have higher degree of emotional abilities also possessed
better level of social capabilities, have longer relationships, and have superior level
of competency in conflicts resolution (Rafati, Sharif, & Zeighami 2004). So, on the
basis of the results of these previous researches it appears that emotional
intelligence has a direct relationship with a healthy life because a person can bring
180
success in life by using emotional intelligence capabilities (Omidi, Mohammadi,
Zargar, Akkashe, & Akbari, 2012).
These results are also in line with the findings of some previous studies
(Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker, 2002; Schutte et al., 1998), which found that the
students’ scores of emotional intelligence which they got at the beginning of the
academic year are the significant predictors of their grade point average at the end
of the year. Goleman (1995, 1998) explore that three out of the five factors of
emotional intelligence scale has close positive association with the academic
achievement. Similarly, Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, and Majeski, (2004), found
that various dimensions of emotional intelligence are positive predictors of
students’ academic success. Petrides, Frederickson, and Furnham (2004)
investigate the relationships between trait emotional intelligence, academic
performance, and cognitive ability on the sample of 650 British secondary
education students. They found that emotional intelligence positively moderated
the existing relationship between cognitive ability and their academic performance.
A study conducted by Rode et al. (2007), explored that there are two basic
reasons behind the positive relationship between emotional intelligence and
academic performance. First, academic achievement includes a great deal of
vagueness which ultimately create stress among students. As they are required to
manage a number of assignments, adapt to the different teachers’ teaching styles
and the expectations of their instructors, independently work for achieving their
objectives, as well as to manage conflicting academic and non-academic schedules
(Astin, 1993; Jex, 1998; Rode, et al., 2007). Second, the major work of academic
is self-directed, which require high levels of self-management as well as to
understand that emotions and their various the causes and effects, which are the
181
important aspects of emotional intelligence. Similarly Mayer and Salovey (1997)
also concluded that individuals with a high level of emotional intelligence are
better able to direct their positive emotions to maintain the energy, which is
required for better performance over long periods of time as well as to redirect
negative their emotions into productive behaviors.
On the other hand the results of the current study regarding the significant
academic achievement differences on emotional self-regulation (subscale of
emotional intelligence) was also supported a previous study conducted by
Newsome, Day, and Catano (2000), who investigated the relationship of emotional
intelligence, cognitive ability, and personality with students’ academic
achievement. The results of this study found that emotional intelligence was a
significantly related to the academic achievements of the students. Similarly some
other studies (Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005; O’Connor & Little, 2003) also
found that the emotional intelligence was a strong predictor of students’ academic
achievement regardless of the type of instrument used to measure it.
The results of independent t-test analysis revealed significant educational
achievement differences on three personality traits (Emotional Stability,
Conscientiousness, and Extroversion), while non-significant education differences
emerged on Conscientiousness and Agreeableness personality traits (see Table 42).
It shows from the results that Post Graduate students have higher scores on
Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness personality traits, while Under
Graduate students have higher scores on Extroversion personality traits.
These findings are supported by a previous study conducted by Nye, Orel,
and Kochergina (2013), who found significant positive correlation of Emotional
Stability, Agreeableness and Openness to Experience with the academic
182
performance of the students which was measured with their GPA. Similarly
Elizabeth (2007) suggested that the students’ personality trait plays a most
significant role in their academic achievement. Another previous study
(Chowdhury, 2006) also has similar findings, as it suggested that all four
personality traits (emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness and
openness to experience) show significant positive relationship with academic
achievement of the students; while extraversion personality trait have non-
significant relationship with academic achievement of the students.
In the educational process social interaction play a significant role because
in university premises the need to interact with different people on different levels:
such as with other students, with professors, and with university administration.
So, in this perspective some important qualities of agreeableness personality trait
(i.e. conflict avoidance, gentleness, and tendency to agree with other people rather
than to enter the conflict) help students to communicate more effectively on
different levels effectively (Nye, Orel, & Kochergina, 2013).
Poropat (2009) stated that those people who have high level of Emotional
stability personality trait are more anxious and they tend to focus on their
emotional state and self-talk. They most of the time focus on interferes with
attention to academic tasks and thereby it ultimately enhance performance (De
Raad & Schouwenberg, 1996). These findings are also supported by the results of a
meta-analysis (Nye, et al.., 2013). Emotional stability and high self-efficacy have
positive effect on student’s scholastic performance which strengthen emotional
stability and self-agency, which as a result triggers further positive educational
achievement (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2005). Non-significant results on
Conscientiousness personality trait was also supported by the findings of Nye, et
183
al. (2013) who stated that conscientiousness personality trait have no correlation
with the academic achievement of the students.
The results of Table 43 indicated that significant education differences
emerged on Verbal and Object cognitive styles, while non-significant education
differences exist on spatial cognitive style. It shows that Under Graduate students
have higher scores on Verbal cognitive style, while Post Graduate students show
higher scores on Object cognitive style. These findings ultimately partially support
the tenth hypothesis of the present study which stated that university students with
high educational level have higher scores on cognitive styles than the students with
lower educational achievement. These results are in line with the findings of
previous study (Atay & Artan, 2005), which stated that educational level of the
students show significant differences on cognitive styles (as measured through CSI
index), as the educational achievement increase students’ ability to use more object
or spatial cognitive way of thinking. In the same way Elizabeth (2007) explored
that cognitive styles have significant correlation with the academic achievement on
college students because the academic achievement create mental maturity in
students and in return they start using more cognitive style for making their way of
thinking and information processing.
Age
The results of the present study found that significant age differences on
emotional self-regulation (ESRS) and interpersonal skills (ISS) while non-
significant differences emerged on emotional self-awareness scale (ESAS). These
results indicate that older adult students have significantly higher scores on
Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, while younger adult students show higher scores
on Interpersonal Skills Scale (see Table 44). These findings partially support the
184
eleventh hypothesis of the present research which stated that age differences exist
on emotional intelligence among university students. These results are consistent
with the results of a study conducted by Almran and Punamaki (2008) for
exploring the gender and age differences on emotional intelligence among 312
Bahraini adolescents. They discovered significant age differences on emotional
intelligence. Similarly, the studies conducted by Bar-On (2002) also concluded that
gender and age have significant impact on emotional intelligence level. Some other
earlier studies also found significant positive correlation between emotional
intelligence and their age (Bii, et al., 2012).
Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999) stated that emotional intelligence can
be considered as a standard intelligence, so it should increase with age and
experience of the individual. Unfortunately, there is no previous literature available
which authoritatively asserts that emotional intelligence and age are positively
related with each other. A study conducted by Day and Carroll (2004) explored
that the experience was positively correlated with three out of the four emotional
intelligence scales (measured through Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test). Van Rooy, Alonso, and Viswesvaran (2005) also examined the
relationship between age and emotional intelligence by using 33-item Emotional
Intelligence Scale. They explored significant positive correlation between the age
of the respondents and their level of emotional intelligence. On the other side one
research explore that emotional intelligence was not significantly associated with
age of the individuals (Shipley, Jackson, et al., 2010). Many previous studies
(Allik, Laidra, Realo, & Pullmann, 2004; Branje, Van Lieshout, & Gerris, 2007;
McCrae et al., 2002; Pullmann, Raudsepp, & Allik, 2006; Soto, John, Gosling, &
185
Potter, 2011), also found that age of the individuals have positive trends for
Openness to Experience personality trait.
The results of the present research describe significant age differences on
three personality traits (Emotional Stability, Agreeableness and Openness to
Experience) while non-significant age differences emerged on Extroversion and
Conscientiousness personality traits. These results demonstrate that Older Adult
students have significantly higher scores on Emotional Stability, Agreeableness,
and Openness to Experience personality traits than younger adult students (see
Table 45). These results are in line with the findings of a study conducted by Bhatti
(2013), which explore that older adult students have higher scores on openness to
experience while younger students have higher level of extroversion personality
trait.
A study conducted by Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006) found that
agreeableness and conscientiousness personality traits showed relatively gradual
increases with age in absolute scores across the life span whereas Neuroticism
showed relatively gradual decreases with the age. They also found that scores on
Openness personality trait showed increase from adolescence to the early 20s and
remained consistent until the mid-50s but after 50s the score started to decline.
Some other previous studies (Costa, McCrae, Zonderman, Barbano, Lebowitz, &
Larson 1986; Donnellan & Lucas, 2008; Helson et al., 2002; Mroczek, Spiro, &
Griffin, 2006; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003) reported that extroversion
personality trait has negative correlation with age of the respondents while
conscientiousness and openness has positive correlation with the age of the
respondents.
186
Age differences in the Big Five were also identified in a cross-cultural
research conducted by McCrae et al. (1989). They select convenience samples
from Germany, Italy, Portugal, Croatia, and Korea and found that extraversion
personality trait was low in older participants than younger, whereas
conscientiousness and Agreeableness scores were higher in older participant than
younger participants. McCrae et al. (2005) also found that older individuals have
higher on the measures of Openness to Experience personality trait but lower
scored on the measures of Extraversion personality trait with college students.
The independent t-test analysis was carried out to explore the age
differences on different cognitive styles. The results of this analysis indicate non-
significant age differences on Verbal cognitive style, while significant age
differences emerged on Object and Spatial cognitive styles. These findings show
that older adult students use Object cognitive styles more than younger students,
while younger students use more spatial cognitive styles than older students (see
Table 46). The results of this analysis partially support the eleventh hypothesis of
the present study which assumes that age differences are present on cognitive
styles of university students. These findings are supported by the results of a
previous study (Riding & Al-Sanabani, 1998), which was conducted on Two-
hundred students in the UK for children from a Yemeni background for exploring
their cognitive styles with the help of the Cognitive Styles Analysis. On the basis
of scores on cognitive style, these students were placed on two dimensions:
Wholist–Analytic and Object– Imagery. The results of this study suggested that
most of the students improved with age on the content that suited their style, with
age the Object cognitive style increase, while imager cognitive styles lose its
strength among students. The results are may be occur due to the developmental
187
changes which appear in the individual with the age on information processing
patterns. Similarly another previous study also reported that the elderly individuals
had relatively impaired image rotation and image activation (it is a process of
accessing and activating stored visual memories). So, these results support the
findings of current study that older students use low spatial cognitive style than
younger students by indicating that the aging may impair the individual’s ability to
maintain images (Dror & Kosslyn, 1994).
It is clear from the theories of developmental psychology that physical
changes in the brain with age must influence individual’s mental abilities. Findings
of some earlier researchers claim that such developmental effects are uniform and
global (Birren, 1974; Birren, Woods, & Willams, 1980; Cerella, 1991; Cerella,
Poon, & Fozard, 1981; Myerson, Hale, Wagstaff, Poon, & Smith 1990; Salthouse,
1985a, 1985b). These findings suggest that although some aspects of getting older
may have general effects but aging also has some particular selective effects (i.e.
the processes which are used to add segments to build an image, as well as those
processes which used to scan an existing imaged object). These processes didn’t
degrade as much over age as other processes do, such as those which used to
activate the stored representations during the generation of image and to the
rotation of imaged objects. It gives a possible hint that the aging may have a deficit
in maintaining the images, as depicted by the errors our overall analysis of the
images.
188
Conclusion
It is concluded on the basis of the analyses that emotional intelligence,
cognitive styles, and personality traits are significantly associated with each other
as all constructs have some similar abilities or construct. ESRS has significant
positive correlations with Extroversion, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness;
while it has significant negative association with Openness to Experience
personality trait. ESAS has significant positive correlations with Extroversion and
Openness to Experience; while it has significant negative relationship with
Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness personality traits. ISS has significant
positive correlations with Extroversion, Openness to Experience, and
Agreeableness; while it has significant negative correlations with
Conscientiousness personality trait. It is also concluded that object and verbal
cognitive style has significant positive correlation with Conscientiousness and
Emotional Stability. Object cognitive style has significant negative association
with Extroversion and Agreeableness, while Verbal cognitive style has significant
negative correlation with Extroversion and Openness to Experience personality
traits. Similarly spatial cognitive style has significant positive relationship
Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience; while it has significant negative
correlations Extroversion and Agreeableness personality traits. ESRS and ISS have
significant positive relationship with object and verbal cognitive styles and ESAS
has significant positive correlations with all subscales of SRMEI (Object, Verbal,
and Spatial). It was also concluded that Emotional stability, extroversion, and
Conscientiousness personality traits act as significant positive moderators, while
agreeableness personality trait and openness to experience act as a significant
negative moderator in the relationship of object cognitive style and emotional self-
189
regulation. Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness personality traits act as
positive moderator, while Agreeableness and Extroversion personality traits act as
negative moderator in the relationship between verbal cognitive style and
emotional self-awareness. It is also concluded that emotional stability and
conscientiousness personality traits appeared as significant positive moderators,
while extroversion and agreeableness personality traits appeared as significant
negative moderators in the relationship of spatial cognitive style and interpersonal
skills.
Women show higher scores on Interpersonal Skill Scale, Agreeableness
personality trait, and verbal cognitive style; while men show higher scores on
Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, spatial
cognitive style than women. The students of social sciences show highest level of
emotional intelligence and cognitive styles while the students of management
sciences show least scores on emotional intelligence while the students of arts
show least scores on cognitive styles. It is also concluded that post graduate
students have higher level of Emotional Self-Awareness, Object cognitive style,
Emotional Self Regulation, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness; while Under
Graduate students have higher scores on Extroversion and Verbal cognitive style.
It is also found that older adult students have significantly higher scores on
Emotional Self-Regulation Scale, Openness to Experience, Emotional Stability,
Agreeableness, and Object cognitive styles; while younger adult students show
higher scores on Interpersonal Skill Scale and spatial cognitive styles than older
students.
190
Limitations and Suggestions
The present research was confronted with some limitations. Certain factors were
assumed and acknowledged as limitations of the present study and therefore
essential to mention for consideration of future research.
1. The present study was conducted only on university students. The future
research should be conducted with different age group (i.e., children,
teenagers etc.) with different educational background.
2. The present study only studied age, gender, academic discipline, and
education differences on personality traits, emotional intelligence, and
cognitive styles. For future research it is suggested that in order to get in-
depth understanding of inter-relationship between personality traits,
emotional intelligence, and cognitive styles; the researcher should study
some other important demographic variables (e.g., ethnicity, social class,
youth cultures, and socio-economic status) and their impact on these
variables.
3. In the present study only self-report instrument of personality traits (Ten
Item Personality Inventory), emotional intelligence (Self-Report Measure
of Emotional Intelligence), and cognitive styles (Object-spatial Imagery
and Verbal Questionnaire) were used. By doing so, we assumed that
students are able to accurately report on these questionnaires. In this case
the impression management motivation plays a role in these reports.
However the impact of this impression management bias may be relatively
minor and it may not be ruled out completely. So, for future research it is
suggested that in order to minimize the impact of impression management
motivation bias, the researcher must use some other techniques or
191
instruments along with the self-report of personality, emotional intelligence
and cognitive styles.
4. The present study only explore the moderating effects of four personality
traits between emotional intelligence scales and cognitive styles while
openness to experience personality trait was excluded from the moderating
model. So the next researcher should also explore the moderating role of
openness to experience personality trait between emotional intelligence and
cognitive styles.
5. Another limitation of this study is that in explore the moderating role of
three pairs of variable (object and motional self-regulation.; verbal and
emotional self-awareness; and spatial and interpersonal skill). This study
didn’t explore the moderating role of personality traits between other
possible pairs of variable (i.e., object and emotional self-awareness, verbal
and interpersonal skill ets.). So the next researcher should also consider this
limitation as well.
192
Implications of the Current Study
The results of the present research are helpful in understanding the
cognitive styles of individuals with respect to demographic characteristics (age,
gender, educational level, and academic discipline), personality traits and
emotional intelligence. Cognitive styles are that major concept which crosses many
disciplines. Initially cognitive styles were just a part of the realm of
Jungian/Piagetan psychology but now-a-day they become an important part of
many fields such as, education, computer programming, and information
science. All these fields have a common goal which is to study the cognitive style
in order to know how users (computer users, students, or information seekers)
process their incoming information and how systems (computer interfaces,
teaching styles, or information systems) can be built in an improved way for better
accommodating the diversity of the user population.
The findings of the current study also have important implications in the
fields of education, management and organizational behavior. The researchers of
these fields are more concerned with investigative the individual differences with
respect of their impact on people in different educational and work settings
(D’Amato & Zijlstra, 2008). One of the major searched factors of these studies is
cognitive styles, which have can be defined as the particular way of people’s
perception of stimuli and how they use this information for the guide their behavior
(i.e., actions, thinking, feeling, etc.; Hayes & Allinson, 1998). Previous studies
explored that differences in cognitive style also influence the way of perception,
problem solving, learning, decision making, interpersonal functioning,
communication, and creativity (Hayes & Allinson, 1994; Kirton, 2003; Sadler-
Smith, 1998).
193
The other important implication of the current study is the relationship of
personality traits with cognitive styles and emotional intelligence. Personality is
relatively stable set of psychological attributes that is used to distinguish one
person from another person (Moorhead & Griffin, 2004). Personality traits and
cognitive styles are mostly considered as independent but they are inter-related
constructs, as they together affect the behavior. Riding and Wigley (1997) stated
that behavior is the combination of different levels of a particular personality
source, and the cognitive styles are the combinations of addition or subtraction of
the component of personality. Similarly, Kirton (1994) said that behavior which
stems from cognitive styles is actually an expression of stable personality traits.
The results of current study also helpful for assessing the emotional
intelligence level of the students. Emotional intelligence plays a significantly
important role in making interesting and meaningful predictions regarding the
outcomes of any person's life. In order to understand and evaluate the influence of
emotional intelligence on individual’s life, it’s necessary to know how the different
parts of personality influence generally a person's life. It was found that many parts
of personality slowly exert consistent influence on the social interactions level of
person and more generally on person’s environment.
The findings of the current study also help out to predict that high level of
emotional intelligence will leads to better dealing with many daily routine
problems (such as drug problems, arguments, and interpersonal violence). These
predictive relationships are at levels that are customary for personality variables.
There is nothing extra small or large about the effects of cognitive styles on
personality traits. High emotional intelligence involves the more effective
resolution of personal and social conflict without showing aggressive behavior. It
194
is a highly desirable and personally valuable attribute to possess often. It give the
impression of reasonable when people possess higher level of emotional
intelligence, they may have higher tendency to behave in a more passive manner
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004).
In this view point, the findings of the current study not only have great
practical implications but also gave enhancement in the existing literature on these
variables regarding the interactions effects on each other with respect to Pakistani
population.
195
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P. L. & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and
interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-
245.
Alavinia, P., & Ebrahimpour, S. (2012). On the correlation between emotional
intelligence and learning styles: The case of Iranian academic EFL learners.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (6), 1291-1299.
doi:10.4304/tpls.2.6.1291-1299
Allen, B. P. (2000). Personality theories: Development, growth and diversity.
United States of America; Allyn & Bacon Company.
Allik, J., Laidra, K., Realo, A., & Pullman, H. (2004). Personality development
from 12 to 18 years of age: Changes in mean levels and structure of traits.
European Journal of Personality, 18, 445–462. doi:10.1002/per.524
Allinson, C. W. (2012). Cognitive style index: Technical manual and use guide.
United Kingdom: Pearson Education, Inc.,
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of
intuition analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies,
33, 119-135.
Almran, J. I., & Punamaki, R. (2008). Relationship between gender, age, academic
achievement, emotional intelligence, and coping styles in Bahraini
adolescents. Individual Differences Research, 6, (1), 104-119.
American Psychological Association (APA; 2015). Personality. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/
196
Arnup, J. L., Murrihy, C., & Roodenburg, J. (2013). Cognitive style and gender
differences in children’s mathematics achievement. Educational Studies, 39
(3), 355-368. DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2013.767184.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Atay, S. & Artan, S. (2005). Cognitive style and business postgraduates in Turkey:
Preliminary findings. Conference proceedings, Challenges For Business
Administrators In The New Millennium, Canakke Onsekiz Mart
University/Silesian University, Czech Republic, 176-182.
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and
implications for instructional design. Educational Communication and
Technology, 26, 337–354.
Austin, E. J. (2004). An investigation of the relationship between trait emotional
intelligence and emotional task performance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 1855-1864.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H. S., & McKenney, D. (2004).
Measurement of trait emotional intelligence: Testing and cross-validating a
modified version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) measure. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 555-562.
Bar-On, R.A (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict,
serf-efficacy and task performances. Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207
Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual.
Multi-Health System Inc; Toronto, Canada.
197
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional
quotient inventory. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of
emotional intelligence. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco.
Bar-On, R. (2002). EQ-I: Bar-On emotional quotient inventory technical manual.
Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bao-Yiann & Yang, C.C. (2012). The moderating role of personality traits on
emotional intelligence and conflict management styles. Psychological Reports,
110 (3), 1021
Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence
predicts life skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1135-1145.
Bernardo, A. B. I., Zhang, L., & Callueng, C. M. (2002). Thinking styles and
academic achievement among Filipino students. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 163, 149−163.
Bhatti, A. S. (2013). Personality as a determinant of attitude of people towards
piri-muridi relationship (Unpublished MPhil Dissertation). National Institute
of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Bii, P. K., Lucas, O., Mwengei, O. K. B., Koskey, N., Korir, E., & Yano, E. M.
(2012). Age: A determinant of Management’s Emotional Intelligence
Competency. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies, 3 (6), 807-811.
Birren, J. E. (1974). Translations in gerontology—From lab to life:
Psychophysiology and the speed of response. American Psychologist, 29, 808-
815.
198
Birren, J. E., Woods, A. M., & Willams, M. V. (1980). Behavioral slowing with
age. In L. W. Poon (Ed.), Aging in the 1980's (pp. 293-308). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Blajenkova, O., Kozhevnikov, M., & Motes, M. A. (2006). Object-spatial imagery:
A new self-report imagery questionnaire. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20,
239–263.
Blazhenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2009). The new object-spatial-verbal
cognitive style model: Theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, (23), 638–663.
Blazhenkova, O., Becker, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2011). Object–spatial imagery
and verbal cognitive styles in children and adolescents: Developmental
trajectories in relation to ability. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3),
281-287. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.012
Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. S. (2000). Clustering competence in
emotional intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory. In
R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp.
343-362). Jossey-Bass; San Fransisco.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality & Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.
Branje, S. J. T., Van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2007). Big Five
personality development in adolescence and adulthood. European Journal of
Personality, 21, 45–62. doi:10.1002/per.596
199
Budaev, S. V. (1999). Sex differences in the Big Five personality factors: Testing
an evolutionary hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 801-
813
Buksnyte-Marmiene, L., Kovalcikiene, K., & Ciunyte, A. (2012). Relationships
between the big five personality traits and cognitive style. International
Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach, 10, 125-143. ISSN 1941-
7233.
Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological
science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1–30.
Buss, D. M. (2008). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (3rd
ed). Boston, Allyn & Bacon.
Cerella, J. (1991). Age effects may be global, not local: Comment on Fisk and
Rogers (1991). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 215-223.
Cerella, J., Poon, L. W, & Fozard, J. L. (1981). Mental rotation and age
reconsidered. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 620-624.
Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager. Jossey-
Bass; San Francisco.
Carole, W., & Carole, T. (2000). Psychology (6th ed). Prentice-Hall, Inc ; New
Jersey.
Chabris, C. F., Jerde, T. E., Woolley, A. W., Gerbasi, M. E., Schuldt, J. P.,
Bennett, S. L., Hackman, R. J., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2006). Spatial and object
visualization cognitive styles: Validation studies in 3800 individuals. Retrieved
from http://www.chabris.com/Chabris2006d.pdf.
Chapman, B. P., Paul R. Duberstein, P. R., Sorensen, S., & Lyness, M. J. (2007).
Gender differences in five factor model personality traits in an elderly cohort:
200
Extension of robust and surprising findings to an older generation. Personality
and Individual Differences, 43 (6), 1594–1603.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.028
Chishti, M. A. (2002). Translation and adaptation of revised NEO personality
inventory (Unpublished M.Phil. Dissertation ). National Institute of
Psychology, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad.
Chowdhury, M. (2006). Students’ personality traits and academic performance: a
five-factor model perspective. College Quarterly, 9 (3). Retrieved from
http://www.collegequarterly.ca/2006-vol09-num03-summer/chowdhury.html
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; New Jersey.
Cole. M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought: A psychological
introduction. John Wiley &Sons: New York.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in
leadership and organizations. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years:
Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes &
O. G. J. Brim (Eds.), Life Span Development and Behavior (pp. 65-102). New
York: Academic Press.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R., (1982). Self-concept and the stability of personality:
Cross-sectional comparisons of self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 43, 1282-1292.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational
interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 390–400.
201
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., Zondeerman, A. B., Barbano, H. E., Lebowitz, B., &
Larson, D. M. (1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national
sample: 2. Stability in neuroticism, extraversion, and openness. Psychology and
Aging, 1, 144–149.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). Four ways five factors are basic.
Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory
(NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFM) professional manual.
Odessa: FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical
personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 64, 21-50.
Costa, P. T. Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
D’Amato, A., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2008). Psychological climate and individual
factors as antecedents of work outcomes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 17, 33-54.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In
search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 989-1015.
Day, A., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using ability-based measure of emotional
intelligence to predict individual performance, and group citizenship behaviors.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (6), 1443-1458.
202
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality:
Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavior
Brain Science, 22, 491–569.
De Raad, B., & Schouwenberg, H. (1996). Personality in learning and education: a
review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303-335.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and
domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 880-896.
DeYoung, C. G. (2009). Intelligence and personality. In Sternberg, R. J., &
Kaufman, S. B., Eds. (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp.
711–737). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality neuroscience: Explaining
individual differences in affect, behavior, and cognition. In P. J. Corr & G.
Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology, 323–
346. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the big five across the
life span: evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23 (3),
558–566. doi: 10.1037/a0012897.
Dror, I. E., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Mental Imagery and Aging. Psychology and
Aging, 9 (1), 90-102.
DTS International (2013). Models of emotional intelligence: Emotional
intelligence series. Retrieved from,
http://www.dtssydney.com/blog/models_of_emotional_intelligence
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. E. (1989). Learning style inventory. Lawrence,
KS: Price Systems.
203
Eagley, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
interpretation. New Jersey, Erlbaum; Hillsdale.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2005). Universal sex differences across patriarchal
cultures evolved psychological dispositions. Behavioral Brain Science, 28,
281–283.
Elder, L. (1996). Critical thinking and emotional intelligence. Critical Thinking
Across the Disciplines, XVI (2). Retrieved from
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/cognition-and-affect-critical-thinking-
and-emotional-intelligence/485
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes,
N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. A. (1997). Promoting
social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development; Alexandria, Va., United States of
America.
Elizabeth, W. M. (2007). The impact of trait emotional intelligence and cognitive
style on the academic achievement and life satisfaction of college students.
Retrieved from
http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=L5aOr8PAT0QC&printsec=frontcover&
source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Emmerling, R.J. & Goleman, D. (2003). Emotional intelligence: Issues and
common misunderstandings. Retrieved from www.http://eiconsortium.org
Engelberg, E., & Sjoberg, L. (2004). Emotional intelligence, affect intensity, and
social adjustment. Personality & Individual Differences, 37, 533-542.
Entwistle, N.J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching. London: Wiley & Sons.
204
Extremera, N. & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2006). Emotional intelligence as
predictor of mental, social, and physical health in university students. Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 9 (1), 45-51.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.
Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2003). Personality: Classical theories and
modern research (2nd ed). Pearson Education, Inc; India.
Gallo, L. C., & Smith, T. W. (1998). Construction validation of health-related
personality traits: Interpersonal circumplex and five-factor model analysis of
the aggression questionnaire. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5,
129–147.
Gardner, R. W., Holzman, P. S., Klein, G. S., Linton, H. B., & Spence, D. P.
(1959). Cognitive control. A study of individual consistencies in cognitive
behavior: Part 4. Psychological issues. International Universities Press: New
York.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic
Books; New York.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligence for the 21st
century. Basic Books; New York.
Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Richardson, D. S. (2004).
Agreeableness as a predictor of aggression in adolescence. Aggressive
Behavior, 30, 43–61.
Goldberg, D. P. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five
factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
205
Goldstein, K.M, Blackman, S. (1978). Cognitive styles: Five approaches and
relevant research. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. J. (2003). A very brief measure of
the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-
528.
Greenspan, S. I. (1989). Emotional intelligence. In K. Field, B. J. Cohler, & G.
Wool (Eds.), Learning and education: Psychoanalytic perspectives (pp. 209–
243). International Universities Press; Madison.
Guttman, D. L. (1987). Reclaimed powers: Toward a new psychology of men and
women in later life. New York: Basic Books.
Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., & Compbell, J. B. (1998). Theories of personality (4th
ed). John Wiley & Sons, Inc; New York.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.) Mahwah,
New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hanfmann, E. (1941). A study of personal patterns in an intellectual performance.
Character and Personality, 9, 315–325.
Hartmann, P. (2006). The five factor model: Psychometric, biological and practical
perspectives. Nordic Psychology, 58 (2), 150-170.
Hassan, A. (2013). Emotional intelligence and perceived stress among university
students (Unpublished M.Sc Research Report). National Institute of
Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
206
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1994). Cognitive style and its relevance for
management practice. British Journal of Management, 5, 53–71.
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C.W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of
individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51, 847-
871.
Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated
communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research
and Personality, 33, 31–158.
Herbst, H.H., Maree, J.G. & Sibanda, E. (2006.) Emotional intelligence and
leadership abilities. South African Journal of Higher Education, 20 (5), 592–
612.
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (1999). An introduction to theories of
personality. Prentice Hall; New Jersey.
Helson, R., Jones, C., Kwan, V. S. Y. (2002). Personality change over 40 years of
adulthood: Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of two longitudinal samples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 752–766.
Holzman, P. S., & Klein, G. S. (1954). Cognitive system-principles of leveling and
sharpening: Individual differences in assimilation effects in visual time-error.
Journal of Psychology, 37, 105–122.
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (2006). The learning styles questionnaire, 80-item
version. Maidenhead, UK, Peter Honey Publications.
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53–69.
Jackson, L. A., Von Eye, A., Biocca, F. A., Barbatsis, G., Fitzgerald, H. E., &
Zhao, Y. (2003). Personality, cognitive style, demographic characteristics and
207
Internet use - Findings from the HomeNetToo project. Swiss Journal of
Psychology, 62 (2), 79-90. doi: 10.1024//1421-0185.62.2.79
Janovics, J., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002, January). Emotional intelligence in the
workplace. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA
Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Retrieved from,
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/pubs/bigfive.pdf.
Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth (CTY; 2013). Personality
and cognitive learning styles of academically talented: Topical research series
#2. Retrieved from, http://cty.jhu.edu/research/topical/cognitive.html
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Werner, M. (2002). Personality and
leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1971). Personality and consumer behavior: A review. Journal of
Marketing Research, 8 (4), 409-418
Kappagoda, S. (2011). The relationship between principals’ emotional intelligence
and teachers’ job satisfaction: A case of national schools in Sri Lank.
Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2216372
Khan, R. A. & Kamal, A. (2008). Development and validation of self report
measure of emotional intelligence for heart patients and healthy individuals
(Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-i-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
208
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Executive,
5, 48–60.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61 (5), 622–629.
Kirton, M. J. (1994) Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem
solving. New York: Routledge.
Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaptation and innovation in the context of diversity and
change. Routledge, London.
Klein, G. S. (1951). A personal world through perception. In R. R. Blake & G. V.
Ramsey (Eds.), Perception: An approach to personality (pp. 328 –355). The
Ronald Press Company: New York.
Klein, G. S., & Schlesinger, H. J. (1951). Perceptual attitudes toward instability: I.
Prediction of apparent movement experiences from Rorschach responses.
Journal of Personality, 19, 289 –302.
Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender
differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470–
500
Kluemper, D. H. (2008). Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core-self
evaluations and social desirability. Personality and Individual Differences, 44
(6), 1402-1412.
Kokkonen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (1999). Emotion regulation strategies in relation to
personality characteristics indicating low and high self control of emotions.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 913–932.
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson,W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental
imagery. New York: Oxford University Press.
209
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology:
Toward an integrated framework. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464–481.
Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S., & Shephard, J. (2005). Spatial versus object
visualizers: A new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory and
Cognition, 33, 710–726.
Langerspetz, K. M., & Engblom, P. (1979). Immediate reactions to TV-violence by
Finnish pre-school children of different personality types. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 20, 43–53.
Larsen, K. S., Coleman, D., Forbes, J., & Johnson, R. (1972). Is the subject’s
personality or the experimental situation a better predictor of a subject’s
willingness to administer shock to a victim? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 22, 287–295.
Lavenda, R. H., & Schultz, E. A. (2013). Cognitive styles. Retrieved from,
http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195189766/student_resource
s/Supp_chap_mats/Chap10/Cognitive_Style/
Lawrence, A. S. A., & Deepa, T. (2013). Emotional intelligence and academic
achievement of high school students in Kanyakumari district. International
Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 3(2), 101-107.
Lee, Y. S. (2005). Gender differences in physical activity and walking among older
adults. Journal of Women and Aging, 17, 55–70.
Leonard, D., & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your company's whole brain to work.
Harvard Business Review, 75, 111−121.
Leuner, B. (1966). Emotional intelligence and emancipation. Praxis der
Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatry, 15, 196–203.
210
Li, J., & Qin, X. (2006). Language learning styles and learning strategies of
tertiary-level English learners in China. Regional Language Center Journal,
37, 367-390, doi: 10.1177/0033688206063475.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex
differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–
1498.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the
relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application
of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–
410.
Luo, W., Gui, X., Wang, B., Zhang, W., Ouyang, Z., Guo, Y., Zhang, B., & Ding,
M. (2010). Validity and reliability testing of the Chinese (mainland) version of
the 39-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39). Journal of Zhejiang
University Science B, 11(7), 531–538. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B0900380
Luo, D., Thompson, L. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2003). The causal factor
underlying the correlation between psychometric g and scholastic performance.
Intelligence, 31, 67–83.
Mandell, B. & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence
and transformational leadership style: A Gender Comparison. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 17(3), 387–404.
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of
the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Journal of
Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (6), 554–564.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029
211
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2005). Models of personality and
affect for education: A review and synthesis. Hamilton, 18 (21), 163-187.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 27 (4), 267-298.
Mayer, J. D., DiPaolo, M., & Salovey, P. (1990). Perceiving affective content in
ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 54, 772–781.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey
& D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and EI: Educational implications
(pp. 3-34). Basic Books; New York.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional
intelligence as a standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232-242.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory,
findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 60, 197-215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New
ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503-517.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits:
Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56, 586–595.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De
Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to
age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1456–1468. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.83.6.1456
212
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A, et al. (2005). Universal features of personality
traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561.
McKelvie, S. J. (1995). The VVIQ as a psychometric test of individual differences
in visual imagery vividness: A critical quantitative review and plea for
direction. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19, 1–106.
McLeod, S. A. (2010). Kolb's learning styles and experiential learning cycle -
simply psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-
kolb.html
Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. In S.
Messick (Ed.), Individuality in learning (pp. 4 –23). Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco
Miller, A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles and educational goals.
Educational Psychology, 11, 217–238.
Mills, C. J. (1993). Personality, learning style and cognitive style profiles of
mathematically talented students. European Journal for High Ability, 4, 70-85.
Mischell, W. (1999). Introduction to personality (6th ed). Harcourt Brace College
Publishers; United States of America.
Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R.W. (2004). Organizational behavior: Managing
people and organizations (7th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Mroczek, D. K., Spiro, A., I. I. I., & Griffin, P. W. (2006). Personality and aging.
In: J. E. Birren, & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Aging
(6th ed, 363–377). New York: Academic Press.
213
Myers I. B., McCaulley M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). Manual: A
guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, (3rd ed).
Consulting Psychologists Press; Palo Alto.
Myers, D. G. (1998). Psychology (5th ed). Worth Publishers; New York.
Myerson, J., Hale, S., Wagstaff, D., Poon, L. W., & Smith, G. A. (1990). The
information-loss model: A mathematical theory of age-related cognitive
slowing. Psychological Review, 97, 475-487.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive
validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29,
1005-1016.
Naghavi, F. & Redzuan, M. (2011). The relationship between gender and
emotional intelligence. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15 (4), 555-561.
Nawi, N. H., Redzuan, M., & Hamsan, H. (2012). Inter relationship between
emotional intelligence and personality trait of educator leaders. International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2 (5), 223-237.
Nye, J., Orel, E., & Kochergina, E. (2013). Big five personality traits and academic
performance in Russian universities. Working Papers; Series: Psychology, WP
BRP 10/PSY/2013. National Research University Higher School of Economics
(HSE).
O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A.
(2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32 (5), 788–818.
O’Conner, R. M., & Little, I. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of
emotional intelligence: Selfreport versus ability-based measures. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 1-10.
214
Omidi, A., Mohammadi, A., Zargar, F., Akkashe, G., & Akbari, H. (2012).
Personality types and emotional intelligence as predictors of academic
achievement in students at Kashan University of Medical Sciences. Nursing
and Midwifery Studies, 1(2), 72-76. DOI: 10.5812/nms.8304
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston.
Palmer, B. R., Monacha, R., Gignac, G., & Stough, C. (2003). Examining the
factor structure of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory with an Australian
general population sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1191-
1211.
Parrish, D. R. (2013). The relevance of emotional intelligence for leadership in a
higher education context. Studies in Higher Education.
DOI:10.1080/03075079.2013.842225
Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. (2004).
Emotional intelligence and academic success: Examining the transition from
high school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 163-172.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 128-148.
Payne, W. L. (1986). A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence, self
integration, relating to fear, pain, and desire. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 203.
Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (2001). Personality theory and research (8th ed). John
Willey & Sons, Inc; Canada.
215
Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000a). On the dimensional structure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320 .
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal
of Personality, 15, 425-448.
Petrides, K.V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait
emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behavior at
school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.
Petrides, K.V., Pita, R., Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional
intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98,
273-289.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral
validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood
induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–57.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and
academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338.
Pullmann, H., Raudsepp, L., & Allik, J. (2006). Stability and change in
adolescents’ personality: A longitudinal study. European Journal of
Personality, 20, 447–459. doi:10.1002/per.611
Rafati, F., Sharif, F., & Zeighami, B. (2004). Correlation between academic
achievement and introversion-extroversion and neuroticism of nursing students
in Shiraz. Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Science, 8 (1), 24-31.
Rakesh, K. (2014). Impact of emotional intelligence on employees’ performance: A
study of employees working in himachal pradesh university Shimla. Retrieved
216
from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2451027 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.24510
27
Raychman, R. M. (2004). Theories of personality (8th ed). Wadsworth, Thomson
Learning, Inc; United States of America.
Reio, T. G. Jr., & Wiswell, A. K. (2006). An examination of the factor structure
and construct validity of the Gregorc style delineator. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66 (3), 489-501. doi:10.1177/001316440528245
Renaua, V., Obersta, U., Gosling, S.D., Rusinola, J. & Chamarroc, A. (2013).
Translation and validation of the Ten-Item-Personality Inventory into Spanish
and Catalan. Revista de Psicologia, 31(2), 85-97
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The
structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 12535-12561.
Reis, D. L., Brackett, M. A., Shamosh, N. A., Kiehl, K. A., Salovey, P., & Gray, J.
R. (2007). Emotional intelligence predicts individual differences in social
exchange reasoning. NeuroImage, 35, 1385–1391.
Reynolds, C. R. (1998). Need we measure anxiety differently for males and
females? Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 212–221.
Richardson, A. (1977). Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension. Journal
of Mental Imagery, 1, 109–125.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). Imagery. Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1995). Gender differences in the vividness of visual imagery
questionnaire: A meta-analysis. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19, 177–187.
217
Riding, R. J. & Al-Sanabani, S. (1998). The effect of cognitive style, age, gender
and structure on the recall of prose passages. International Journal of
Educational Research, 29 (3), 173–185.
Ridding, R. & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive Styles: An overview and integration.
Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193 – 216.
Riding, R. J., & Wigley, S. (1997). The relationship between cognitive style and
personality in further education students. Personality and Individual
Differences, 23, 379-389.
Roberts, M. J. & Newton, E. J. (2001). Understanding strategy selection.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 137 – 154.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level
change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of
longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.
Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., & MacCann, C. (2008). The measurement of
emotional intelligence: A decade of progress? In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D.
H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory and
Assessment, (2). Los Angeles: Sage.
Rode, J., Mooney, C., Arthaud-Day, M., Near, J., Baldwin, T., Rubin, R., &
Bommer, W. (2007). Emotional intelligence and individual performance:
Evidence of direct and moderated effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
28, 399-421.
Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2002). An empirical evaluation of
emotional intelligence: The impact on management development. Journal of
Management Development, 21, 272-289.
218
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. Guilford Press. New
York.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1998). Cognitive style: Some human resource implications for
manage. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 185-202.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Badger, B. (1998). Cognitive style, learning and innovation.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10, 247–265.
Hahin, N. H., Guler, M. & Basim, H. N. (2009). The relationship between
cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, coping and stress symptoms in
the context of type A personality pattern. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 1, 1-
10.
Sahin, N. H., Guler, M., & Basim H. N. (2009). The relationship between cognitive
intelligence, emotional intelligence, coping and stress symptoms in the context
of type A personality pattern. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 20 (3), 243-54.
Sala, F. (2002). Emotional competence inventory (ECI): Technical manual.
Boston: McClelland Center for Research and Innovation, Hay Group.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995).
Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using
the trait meta-mood scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, &
health (pp. 125-154). American Psychological Association; Washington, DC.
Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 14 -6.
Salthouse, T. A. (1985a). A theory of cognitive aging. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
219
Salthouse, T. A. (1985b). Speed of behavior and its implications for cognition. In J.
E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (2nd
ed., pp. 400-426). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and
validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 707–721.
Sarker, S., Bose, T. K., Palit, M., & Haque, E. (2013). Influence of personality in
buying consumer goods-A comparative study between neo-freudian theories
and trait theory based on Khulna Region. International Business and
Economics Research, 2 (3), 41-58. doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20130203.12
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2001). Theories of personality. Wadsworth
Thomson Learning, Inc; United States of America.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden,
C. J. et al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence. Personality & Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York:
Plenum Press.
Segal, J. & Smith, M. (2014). Emotional Intelligence (EQ): Key skills for raising
emotional intelligence. Retrieved from
http://www.helpguide.org/articles/emotional-health/emotional-intelligence-
eq.htm
Shipley, N. L., Jackson, M. J., & Segrest, S. L. (2010). The effects of emotional
intelligence, age, work experience, and academic performance. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 9, 1–18.
220
Sinnot, J. D., & Shifren, K. (2001). Gender and aging: Gender differences and
gender roles. In Birren, J. E., & Schaie, K. W., (Eds), Handbook of psychology
and aging. (5th ed) 454-467. San Diego; Academic Press.
Soga, S., Shimai, S., & Otake, K. (2002). As analysis of the relationship between
aggressiveness and personality traits of children. Japanese Journal of
Psychology, 73, 358-36.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in
personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large cross-
sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (2), 330–
348, DOI: 10.1037/a0021717
Srivastava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of
personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1041–1053.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Streufert, S., & Nogami, G. Y. (1989). Cognitive style and complexity:
Implications for I/O psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 93–143).
Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. F. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: Their
relationships with student learning. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.),
Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 227–247).
Erlbaum: Mahwah.
Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style?
American Psychologist, 52 (7), 700 – 712.
221
Stys, Y. & Brown, S. L. (2004). A review of the emotional intelligence literature
and implications for corrections. Retrieved from http://www.csc-
scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r150/r150_e.pdf
Lucas-Stannard, P. (2003). Cognitive Styles: A review of the major theories and
their application to information seeking in virtual environments. Retrieved
from, http://www.personal.kent.edu/~plucasst/Cognitive%20Styles.pdf
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227–
235.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell
(Ed.) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 136–179. Aldine, Chicago.
Todres, M., Tsimtsiou, Z., Stephenson, A., Jones, R. (2010). The emotional
intelligence of medical students: an exploratory cross-sectional study. Med
Teach, 32 (1), 42-8.
Van Rooy, D. L., Alonso, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Group differences in
emotional intelligence test scores: Theoretical and practical implications.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 689-700.
Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct
validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Performance,
18, 445–462.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in
spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.
Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in
personality across the ten aspects of the big five. Frontiers in Psychology 2,
178/1-11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178
222
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The
interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–
412.
Witkin, H. A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded
figures. Journal of Personality, 19, 1–15.
Witkin, H. A., & Ash, S. E. (1948). Studies in space orientation: IV. Further
experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual field. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 43, 58 – 67.
Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K., Bretnall, P. M., &
Wapner, S. (1954). Personality through perception: An experimental and
clinical study. Harper & Brothers: New York.
Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A.
(1962). Psychological differentiation. Wiley: New York.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field
dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational
implications. Review of Educational Research, 47, 1– 64.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive style: Essence and origins.
International Universities Press: New York.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of
women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 699–727.
Zhang, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles.
Educational Psychology, 17, 1−53.
Zadel, A. (2004). Impact of personality and emotional intelligence on successful
training in competences. Managing Global Transitions, 4 (4), 363-376.
223