Cognitive style: The role of personality and need for cognition in younger and older adults

Current Psychology (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Cognitive style seems to influence cognitive activities in many important ways. A recently proposed Cognitive style indicator (CoSI) operationalizes three cognitive styles: knowing, planning and creating style. This study was designed to investigate the relation of five factor personality traits and Need for Cognition (NFC) with regard to a preference towards a certain cognitive style, depending on the age of participants. A sample of students (n = 108) and middle-aged employed adults (n = 115) completed CoSI, Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI-10) and Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI). The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis have validated CoSI on an independent sample and confirmed its originally proposed 3-factor structure. Furthermore, the mediation model with multigroup structure for two age cohorts highlighted several significant connections between personality traits, NFC and three hypothesized cognitive styles. Results suggest that the relations between personality traits and cognitive style differ in different age groups, and are partially or totally mediated by NFC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878

  2. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1080–1107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.1080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cools, E., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). Development and validation of the Cognitive Style Indicator. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 141, 359–387. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.141.4.359-388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cools, E., & Van den Broeck, H. (2008). Cognitive styles and managerial behaviour: A qualitative study. Education and Training, 50, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/0040091081086209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cools, E., de Pauw, A. S., & Vanderheyden, K. (2011). Cognitive styles in an international perspective: Cross-validation of the Cognitive Style Indicator (CoSI). Psychological Reports, 109, 59–72. https://doi.org/10.2466/04.09.11.PR0.109.4.59-72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Kossowska, M. (2009). Age differences in conservatism: Evidence on the mediating effects of personality and cognitive style. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 51–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00538.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Stability and change in personality from adolescence through adulthood. In C. F. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 139–150). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  9. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Age changes in personality and their origins: Comment on Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006). Psychological Bulletin, 132, 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cuneo, F., Antonietti, J. P., & Mohr, C. (2018). Unkept promises of cognitive styles: A new look at old measurements. PLoS One, 13, e0203115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 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, 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012897

  12. Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gopnik, A., O’Grady, S., Lucas, C. G., Griffiths, T. L., Wente, A., Bridgers, S., et al. (2017). Changes in cognitive flexibility and hypothesis search across human life history from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 7892–7899. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700811114.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1994). Cognitive style and its relevance for management practice. British Journal of Management, 5, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1994.tb00068.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heinström, J. (2003). Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behavior. Information Research, 9 Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/9-1/paper165.htm. Accessed 10 Sept 2018.

  18. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903765913722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kageyama, T., & Sugiura, M. (2017). Relationship of cognitive style and job level: First demonstration of cultural differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01279.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim, M. (2011). The relationship between thinking style differences and career choices for high-achieving students. Roeper Review, 33, 252–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.603113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive style as environmentally sensitive individual differences in cognition: A modern synthesis and applications in education, business, and management. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614525555.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kumar, K., & Bakhshi, A. (2010). The five factor model of personality: Is there any relationship? Humanities and social sciences, 5, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lehmann, R., Denissen, J. J. A., Allemand, M., & Penke, L. (2013). Age and gender differences in motivational manifestations of the big five from age 16 to 60. Developmental Psychology, 49, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ma, H.-H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Magnavita, J. J. (2002). Theories of personality: Contemporary approaches to the science of personality. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  28. Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Mooradian, T., von Krogh, G., & Mueller, J. (2011). Personality traits, affective commitment, documentation of knowledge, and knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.540156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Miceli, S., de Palo, V., Monacis, L., Cardaci, M., & Sinatra, M. (2018). The Italian version of the Cognitive Style Indicator and its association with decision-making preferences. Creativity Research Journal, 30, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Norris, P., Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1998). The rational-experiential inventory, short form. Unpublished inventory. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  32. Poore, J. C., Forlines, C. L., Miller, S. M., Regan, J. R., & Irvine, J. M. (2014). Personality, cognitive style, motivation, and aptitude predict systematic trends in analytic forecasting behavior. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8, 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343414554702.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 30 Aug 2018.

  34. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sadowski, C. J., & Cogburn, H. E. (2010). Need for cognition in the Big-Five factor structure. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 131, 307–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989709603517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Soubelet, A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2017). Does need for cognition have the same meaning at different ages? Assessment, 24, 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116636449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Spotts, H. (1994). Evidence of a relationship between need for cognition and chronological age: Implications for persuasion in consumer research. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 238–243.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Volkova, E. V., & Rusalov, V. M. (2016). Cognitive styles and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Woods, S. A., & Hampson, S. E. (2005). Measuring the Big Five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 19, 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Zagreb, Ivana Lucica 3, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Andrea Vranic, Blaz Rebernjak & Marina Martincevic

Authors
  1. Andrea Vranic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Blaz Rebernjak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina Martincevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Vranic.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vranic, A., Rebernjak, B. & Martincevic, M. Cognitive style: The role of personality and need for cognition in younger and older adults. Curr Psychol (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00388-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive style indicator (CoSI)
  • Need for cognition
  • Personality
  • Mediation
  • Age differences