File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Further investigating thinking styles and psychosocial development in the Chinese higher education context

TitleFurther investigating thinking styles and psychosocial development in the Chinese higher education context
Authors
KeywordsEriksonian Stages
Psychosocial Development
Thinking Styles
Issue Date2010
PublisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
Citation
Learning And Individual Differences, 2010, v. 20 n. 6, p. 593-603 How to Cite?
AbstractMuch theorization and research have been done independently on thinking styles and psychosocial development. The primary objective of this research was to further investigate the predictive power of thinking styles for psychosocial development through replicating Zhang and He's (in press) study of Chinese university students in Shanghai, mainland China. Data were collected from two Chinese contexts: Nanjing (N= 362) in mainland China and Hong Kong (N= 117). All participants responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2, Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2007) and to the Measures of Psychosocial Development (MPD, Hawley, 1988). The TSI-R2 is grounded in Sternberg's (1997) theory of mental self-government, while the MPD is rooted in Erikson's (1968) theory of psychosocial development. Hierarchical multiple regression results confirmed Zhang and He's finding that Type I styles (typified by their creativity-generating characteristics) positively contributed to psychosocial development, whereas Type II styles (noted for their norm-favoring features), especially the monarchic and conservative styles, negatively contributed to psychosocial development. Two of the Type III styles (Type III styles may display the characteristics of either Type I or Type II styles, depending on the specific situation) consistently predicted psychosocial development: the external style positively contributed to psychosocial development, whereas the anarchic style did so negatively. Implications of these results are discussed for university students, faculty members, and for university student development educators. © 2010 Elsevier Inc.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175485
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.631
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.057
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZhang, LFen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-26T08:58:56Z-
dc.date.available2012-11-26T08:58:56Z-
dc.date.issued2010en_US
dc.identifier.citationLearning And Individual Differences, 2010, v. 20 n. 6, p. 593-603en_US
dc.identifier.issn1041-6080en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/175485-
dc.description.abstractMuch theorization and research have been done independently on thinking styles and psychosocial development. The primary objective of this research was to further investigate the predictive power of thinking styles for psychosocial development through replicating Zhang and He's (in press) study of Chinese university students in Shanghai, mainland China. Data were collected from two Chinese contexts: Nanjing (N= 362) in mainland China and Hong Kong (N= 117). All participants responded to the Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2, Sternberg, Wagner, & Zhang, 2007) and to the Measures of Psychosocial Development (MPD, Hawley, 1988). The TSI-R2 is grounded in Sternberg's (1997) theory of mental self-government, while the MPD is rooted in Erikson's (1968) theory of psychosocial development. Hierarchical multiple regression results confirmed Zhang and He's finding that Type I styles (typified by their creativity-generating characteristics) positively contributed to psychosocial development, whereas Type II styles (noted for their norm-favoring features), especially the monarchic and conservative styles, negatively contributed to psychosocial development. Two of the Type III styles (Type III styles may display the characteristics of either Type I or Type II styles, depending on the specific situation) consistently predicted psychosocial development: the external style positively contributed to psychosocial development, whereas the anarchic style did so negatively. Implications of these results are discussed for university students, faculty members, and for university student development educators. © 2010 Elsevier Inc.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/lindifen_US
dc.relation.ispartofLearning and Individual Differencesen_US
dc.subjectEriksonian Stagesen_US
dc.subjectPsychosocial Developmenten_US
dc.subjectThinking Stylesen_US
dc.titleFurther investigating thinking styles and psychosocial development in the Chinese higher education contexten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailZhang, LF: lfzhang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityZhang, LF=rp00988en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.011en_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-78149500628en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-78149500628&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume20en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.spage593en_US
dc.identifier.epage603en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000285275300010-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridZhang, LF=15039838600en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike7177362-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats