The Nature of Intellectual Styles

Li-fang Zhang, Robert J. Sternberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136500879
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book provides an up-to-date, panoramic picture of the field of intellectual styles through describing, analyzing, and integrating the major theoretical and research works on the topic. Readers will gain a broad understanding of the field--its nature, origins, historical development, theories, research, and applications, as well as the interrelationships among major theoretical constructs proposed by different theorists in the past few decades. In particular, three major controversial issues in the field are addressed by both empirical findings and literature review: styles as better versus worse or as equal in merit; styles as traits versus styles as states; and styles as different constructs versus styles as similar constructs with different style labels.Educators will find ideas on how to improve their teaching and assessment of student performance. Student development specialists will be interested in the book because intellectual styles, as evidenced by recent studies, play a critical role in many aspects of student development including cognitive, affective, psychosocial, and career development. Psychologists will gain an understanding of an important facet of the field at the interface between cognition and personality. Managers in business will find the book relevant to such issues as effective supervision and staff training and development. The Nature of Intellectual Styles is intended for anyone--particularly researchers and students in the fields of education, psychology, and business management--who is interested in understanding intellectual styles and their effects on daily life.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Some people prefer to think carefully and reflectively before they act. Others prefer to act quickly and on impulse. We sometimes refer to the latter kinds of people as ones who “shoot from the hip,” or “shoot first, and ask questions later.” These two types of people can be referred to as differing in their preferred intellectual styles, that is, in how they choose to use their intellects in solving problems and making decisions. Intellectual styles occur at the interface between personality and cognition.

Research results accumulated over the past half century indicate that intellectual styles play an important role in many aspects of our lives. Some of these aspects are learning performance, job performance, interpersonal interaction, communication, sense of morality, social behaviors, and psychological well-being. The differences made by intellectual styles have been documented in thousands of research articles and books. Under such a circumstance, one might naturally ask: “Why, if there is so much already written on intellectual styles, do we need another book on the nature of styles?” In the present chapter, we answer this question. Then, we define the concept of intellectual styles. Next, we put forward the major arguments of this book. The final part of this chapter lays out the structure of the book.

WHY SHOULD WE EXAMINE THE NATURE OF INTELLECTUAL STYLES?

Unresolved Issues

Until recently, the field of intellectual styles was characterized by the belief that different styles are supposed to be neither better nor worse than each other, but simply different from each other. In a similar vein, the field of styles has also generated two other controversial issues: styles as traits versus states, and diverse styles as different constructs versus similar constructs merely with different labels. One of the reasons styles research declined in the late 1970s and early 1980s is that many viewed the research as not living up to its promise. For the last two decades, however, scholars have expressed a renewed interest in styles. This recent renewal of interest in styles work has resulted in both better integrated models of styles and research studies that are more carefully designed and more theoretically based. However, these works still have not been understood within a unified scientific framework. Moreover, some of the major controversial issues in the study of styles (such as the three just mentioned) have yet to be systematically addressed.

Understanding these controversial issues within a unified scientific framework is important because their lack of resolution not only has inhibited the advancement of the field, but also has made practitioners, including educational and occupational psychologists as well as classroom teachers, hesitant to use the concept of styles in their work. For example, if styles represent fixed traits, any attempt to teach or develop particular styles would probably be in vain. If they are fluid, then attempts at teaching and development would make good sense. Thus, addressing these issues has the potential for both advancing the field of styles and providing clear guidelines for practitioners regarding how styles can be understood and used.

After a long period of research and theorization on styles, is there enough empirical evidence for us take an empirically defensible stand on each of the three aforementioned controversial issues over intellectual styles? Is there any way we can organize existing data on styles under a common scientific framework?

Goal of Book

This book presents a panoramic and updated picture of the field of intellectual styles. In particular, it addresses the aforementioned three major controversial issues in the field through both presenting our own empirical findings and portraying, analyzing, and integrating major theoretical and research works in the existing styles literature. After completing the book, readers will have a good understanding of the field of styles: its origins, historical development, theories, research, and applications, as well as the interrelationships among major theoretical constructs proposed by different theorists throughout the past few decades. In particular, this book will provide preliminary keys to unlocking the riddles relating to the nature of intellectual styles.

INTELLECTUAL STYLES

Definition

In this book, intellectual style is used as a general term that encompasses the meanings of all “style” constructs postulated in the literature, such as cognitive style, conceptual tempo, decision-making and problem-solving style, learning style, mind style, perceptual style, and thinking style. An intellectual style refers to one's preferred way of processing information and dealing with tasks. To varying degrees, an intellectual style is cognitive, affective, physiological, psychological, and sociological. It is cognitive because whatever styles one uses to process information, one must be engaged in some kind of cognitive process. It is affective because one's way of processing information and of dealing with a task (i.e., employing an intellectual style) is partially determined by how one feels about the task. If one is genuinely interested in the task at hand (assuming that the task does require one to be creative and to have a deep understanding), one may, for example, use a style that is creativity-generating. On the contrary, if one feels indifferent about the task at hand, one may simply use a style that is more conservative. It is physiological because the use of a style is partially influenced by the way our senses (e.g., vision, hearing, and touch) take in the information provided to us. It is psychological because the use of a particular style is partially contingent upon how one's personality interacts with one's environment. Finally, it is sociological because the use of a style is affected by the preferences for various ways of thinking of the society in which one lives.

Concepts Underlying Intellectual Styles

A careful examination of the nature of the various intellectual styles indicates that any style may have one or more of the following concepts as part of its underpinnings. These are one's preference for high degrees of structure versus low degrees of structure, for cognitive simplicity versus cognitive complexity, for conformity versus nonconformity, for authority versus autonomy, and for group versus individual work. Although these dimensions of preference are stated in bipolar terms, the pair of descriptors for each dimension can be viewed as two ends of a continuum.

MAJOR ARGUMENTS

In this book, we make three major arguments, each addressing one of the three controversial issues regarding styles.

Style Value

Are some intellectual styles better or worse than are others? In the long history of styles research, scholars seem to have deliberately avoided the comparison of styles regarding their relative superiority or inferiority. However, in the case of many style constructs, some styles do seem to be more adaptive than others. For example, field independence—a propensity for being able to orient oneself in space without regard to one's particular surroundings—is generally more adaptive than field dependence—the propensity to orient oneself in accord with the surroundings in which one finds oneself. In case of poor visibility, a pilot who is field independent, for example, is at a big advantage over one who is field dependent. Similarly, a diver under water who is field independent is less likely to drown than one who is field dependent. Reflectivity, a tendency to ponder what to do before doing it, is generally more adaptive than blind impulsiveness. In general, some styles are more adaptive than others. That is, such styles are value-laden. At the same time, other styles seem truly to be neither better nor worse. For example, being internal or external—more introverted or extraverted in one's work orientation—can be seen as equally advantageous, although their usefulness can depend on the situation in which one finds oneself. The internal person may be at an advantage when working alone, the external person, when working in a group. That is, such styles are value-differentiated.

Through empirical evidence and theoretical conceptualization, we argue throughout this book that styles are largely value-laden and that they are at times value-differentiated. We classify all intellectual styles into three types. Type I styles are perceived as being more positive because they generally have more adaptive value. Type II styles are considered more negative because they generally carry less adaptive value. Therefore, Type I and Type II styles are considered value-laden. Type III styles are value-differentiated (i.e., they can be either positive or negative) because they may possess the characteristics of either Type I styles or Type II styles, depending on the requirements of a task or of a situation (see chapters 3 through 8 for details).

One may ask: “Whose values are you talking about?” In the context of this book, we are talking about the values of those in democratic societies, or, at least, societies that value innovation.

Style Malleability

When Yan Zi came to the state of Chu as an envoy from the state of Qi, he was received by the King of Chu at a banquet. While they were drinking, two soldiers brought a tied-up criminal to the King in the hall. “Who's the man you've tied up?”, asked the King of Chu. “He's a thief from the state of Qi,”replied the soldier. The king turned to Yan Zi and said, “Why, he's your countryman. Men in the state of Qi must all be fond of stealing!” Seeing that the King of Chu was being sarcastic, Yan Zi stood to his feet and said, “I heard that when oranges are planted south of the river, they bear sweet oranges. When they are planted north of the river, they turn into trifoliate orange trees. Although their leaves are similar, their fruit is quite different. Why is that so? Because water and soil on either side of the river is different. People in the state of Qi never steal. But when they come to the state of Chu, they learn to steal. May I ask, is this not the water and soil of the state of Chu that have turned people into thieves?” (Translation by Zhao & Tang, in Si-Tu, 1990, p. 174).

The above is a story from Anecdotes of Yan Zi, recorded and compiled by writers of the Warring States Period (475–221 B.C.) in ancient China. The story illustrates the powerful impact of environment on human behaviors. Are intellectual styles malleable? Throughout this book, we present research evidence indicating that styles are malleable. They represent states, although they can be relatively stable over a period of time.

Style Overlap

In the literature, many style labels have been used. When reviewing the then-existing work on styles, Hayes and Allinson (1994) noted there were 22 different dimensions of cognitive style alone. Five years later, Armstrong (1999) identified 54 style dimensions, which he classified under the more encompassing term cognitive style. Some of these examples are field-dependent/independent (Witkin, 1954), scanning—focusing (Schlesinger, 1954), constricted—flexible control (Klein, 1954), intuitive—thinking (Myers, 1962), reflective—impulsive (Kagan, 1965a), splitters—lumpers (Cohen, 1967), serialist—holist (Pask & Scott, 1972), and activist—reflector (Kolb, 1976). Similarly, many style labels have been placed under the umbrella term learning style. Some of these examples include instructional preference (Friedman & Stritter, 1976), learning interest (Riechmann & Grasha, 1974), learning preference (Rezler & Rezmovic, 1974), study process (Biggs, 1979), and approach to study (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Each style label has at least one corresponding assessment tool.

Are there any relationships among these style labels, such as cognitive styles and learning styles? If one prefers to use a deep approach to study in a learning context, would one also tend to use an innovative decision-making style at work? Such questions have been puzzling not only to scholars in the field, but also to laypeople who are interested in the notion of styles.

There are two levels at which we can address such questions. One is at the conceptual level, and the other, the empirical level.

Conceptually, the relationships among different style labels can be deciphered by examining three types of scholarly efforts: defining styles, integrating existing style labels, and proposing more comprehensive style terms. Without going into the specific definition for each of the individual style labels, we did a quick survey of how cognitive style and learning style have been defined. Not surprisingly, we found that, in terms of definitions, cognitive styles and learning styles share much in common. Consider some of the definitions for each in turn:

The definitions of cognitive styles are based on the notion that people are inclined to characteristic ways of processing information in various contexts. For example, Anastasi (1988) defined cognitive styles as broad, systematic features affecting an individual's responses to a variety of circumstances. Messick (1984) believed that cognitive styles are characteristic modes of perception, memory, thought, and judgment that reflect an individual's information-processing regularities.

By the same token, the definitions of learning styles are also dominated by the idea that people have predilections for attending information in certain ways, but not in others. The major noticeable difference between the ways cognitive styles are defined and the ways learning styles are defined is that the former concern multiple contexts whereas the latter pertain to learning situations only. For instance, Gregorc (1979) defined learning styles as the distinctive behaviors that indicate how a person learns from and adapts to his or her environment. Kalsbeek (1989) noted that learning styles can be viewed as one's preferred approach to information processing, idea formation, and decision making.

It is worth noting, however, that some scholars do not seem to consider it necessary to distinguish the two frequently used style terms: cognitive style and learning style. As pointed out by Campbell (1991), cognitive style and learning style have often been used synonymously. For example, Tennant (1997) stated: “ ‘Cognitive style,’ ‘learning style,’ and ‘conceptual style’ are related terms which refer to an individual's characteristic and consistent approach to organizing and processing information” (p. 80). Indeed, some scholars do use the two terms interchangeably. For instance, Curry (1983) viewed her model as one of learning styles despite the fact that several style dimensions included in her model are cognition-centered. On the other hand, Miller (1987) referred to his model as one of cognitive style even though several style dimensions in his model concern learning activities. As a final example, although Kolb's (1976) work is normally discussed within the framework of learning styles, Hayes and Allinson (1994) classified Kolb's style dimensions as cognitive styles.

Efforts to clarify the relationships go beyond defining cognitive and learning styles. A number of scholars have attempted, and succeeded in varying degrees, in bringing order to the existing style labels. Sternberg (1997, see also Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1995) conceptualized the existing style labels int...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• PART I: THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL STYLES
• PART II: EMPIRICAL STUDIES: INDIVIDUAL MODELS
• Part III: EMPIRICAL STUDIES: INTEGRATIVE MODELS AND THE THEORY OF MENTAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
• Part IV: INTELLECTUAL STYLES: RECONCEPTUALIZATION AND APPLICATION
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index