moderating effects of personality traits on emotional intelligence and cognitive styles of...

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


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


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


Self-Regulation from Object Cognitive Style and Agreeableness

Personality Trait

96


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


Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and Agreeableness

Personality Trait

104


Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and Extroversion

Personality Trait

106


Self-Awareness from Verbal Cognitive Style and


108


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



Extroversion Personality Trait

114



Agreeableness Personality Trait

116




118



Openness to Experience Personality Trait

120


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


University Students on Subscales of TIPI

125


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


University Students on Subscales of TIPI

132


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


97

4 Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in relationship


99

5 Moderating effect of openness to experience personality trait in

relationship between emotional self-regulation and object cognitive

style

101


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


109

9 Moderating effect of conscientiousness personality trait in relationship


110

10 Moderating effect of openness to experience personality trait in

relationship between emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive

style.

113


between interpersonal skill and spatial cognitive style.

115

12 Moderating effect of extroversion personality trait in the relationship


117

13 Moderating effect of agreeableness personality trait in the relationship 119

19


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


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.



Emotional Self-awareness and Verbal Cognitive Style.

74



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 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:



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).



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).




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).


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),



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.


will moderate the positive relationship between Emotional Self-awareness

and Verbal Cognitive Style of university students.

104


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:



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.



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.




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



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),



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)


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)


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


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*


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




.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-


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


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




.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


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


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*


Object * Conscientiousness .32*

Total R2 .56*

*p < .001




.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-


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*


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


.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).


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


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




.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


128

of agreeableness personality trait between emotional self-awareness and verbal


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,


that explained14% variance in emotional self-awareness.

129

Table 27


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




.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


130

of extroversion personality trait between emotional self-awareness and verbal


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


from Verbal Cognitive Style and Conscientiousness Personality Trait (N = 3500)

Predictor ΔR2 Β

Step I .04*

Verbal .20*

Step II .09*

Verbal .10*


Step III .03*

Verbal .25*


Verbal * Conscientiousness .26*

Total R2 .16*

*p < .001





emotional self-awareness {β = .32, t = 19.10, p = .001} and explained an additional


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


132

for the moderating role of conscientiousness personality trait between emotional

self-awareness and verbal cognitive style (see Figure 9).


emotional self-awareness and verbal cognitive style.

It is depicted in figure 9 that the positive relationship between emotional


are high in conscientiousness personality trait. Overall, verbal cognitive style,


model that explained 16% variance in emotional self-awareness.

133

Table 29


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*


Step III .01*

Verbal .15*


Verbal * Openness to Experience .05*

Total R2 .54*

*p < .001




.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


It is depicted in figure 10 that the positive relationship between emotional


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*


Step III .05*

Spatial .45*


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


.001}. In second step, emotional stability personality trait also predicted

interpersonal skill {β = -.52, t = -37.03, p = .001} and explained an additional


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).


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


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




.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 = -


(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


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


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




.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 = -



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


The results of Figure 13 indicated that the positive relationship between


who are low in agreeableness personality trait. Overall, spatial cognitive style,


that explained 62% variance in interpersonal skill.

141

Table 33


from Spatial Cognitive Style and Conscientiousness Personality Trait (N = 3500)

Predictor ΔR2 Β

Step I .05*

Spatial .23*

Step II .11*

Spatial .09*


Step III .01*

Spatial .15*


Spatial * Conscientiousness .33*

Total R2 .17*

*p < .001







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




The results of Figure 14 showed that the positive relationship between


who are high in conscientiousness personality trait. Overall, spatial cognitive style,


model that explained 17% variance in interpersonal skill.

143

Table 34


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*


Step III .02*

Spatial .08*


Spatial * Openness to

Experience

.15*

Total R2 .54*

*p < .001




.001}. In the second step, Openness to Experience personality trait also predicted



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


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


The results of Figure 15 showed that the positive relationship between


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



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


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


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


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



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


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


Agreeableness 11.21 1.55 11.27 1.70 1.09 .277 -.17 .05 0.03

df = 3498


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


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


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



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


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


Agreeableness 11.22 0.98 11.44 0.89 2.44 .015 -.32 -.03 0.08

df = 3498


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


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


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


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.


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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Chapman%20BP%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Duberstein%20PR%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Lyness%20JM%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/#B12






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/

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


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:

http://www.chabris.com/Chabris2006d.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Chapman%20BP%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Duberstein%20PR%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=S%26%23x000f6%3Brensen%20S%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Lyness%20JM%5Bauth%5D

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.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.paid.2007.04.028

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Lucas%20RE%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=18808245

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=18808245

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0012897

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.

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=L5aOr8PAT0QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=L5aOr8PAT0QC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

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.

http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195189766/student_resources/Supp_chap_mats/Chap10/Cognitive_Style/

http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195189766/student_resources/Supp_chap_mats/Chap10/Cognitive_Style/

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.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.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

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


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.

http://nmsjournal.com/?page=search&article_author_fname=Abdollah&article_author_mname=&article_author_lname=Omidi&do_search=1&type=authors

http://nmsjournal.com/?page=search&article_author_fname=Abolfazl&article_author_mname=&article_author_lname=Mohammadi&do_search=1&type=authors

http://nmsjournal.com/?page=search&article_author_fname=Fatemeh&article_author_mname=&article_author_lname=Zargar&do_search=1&type=authors

http://nmsjournal.com/?page=search&article_author_fname=Goodarz&article_author_mname=&article_author_lname=Akkashe&do_search=1&type=authors

http://nmsjournal.com/?page=search&article_author_fname=Hossein&article_author_mname=&article_author_lname=Akbari&do_search=1&type=authors

http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/nms.8304

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.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2451027

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2451027

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2451027

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier

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


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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=G%C3%BCler%20M%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=19757224

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Basim%20HN%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=19757224

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


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

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~plucasst/Cognitive%20Styles.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Weisberg%20YJ%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=DeYoung%20CG%5Bauth%5D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Hirsh%20JB%5Bauth%5D

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.

moderating effects of personality traits on emotional intelligence and cognitive styles of...

Documents

Transcript of moderating effects of personality traits on emotional intelligence and cognitive styles of...