蒙汉族学生认知方式与人格特质的相关性及其发展研究
|
摘要
人作为一个整体,其人格与认知两个方面始终是相互联系、密不可分的整体,该整体包含了两者之间的相互作用及双向影响。我们在观察一个人、分析一个人的时候,也应当将人格与认知结合起来考虑。于是,认知与人格的研究者在寻求它们之间联结的界面。心理学家看到了将认知与人格结合起来的必要,认知风格(认知方式)就恰恰提供了一种可以满足这种需求的中间变量,它在认知与人格之间构建了一座桥梁。
本研究以蒙古族和汉族不同年级组(初三、高二、大一、大二、大三和大四)在校学生为被试,运用心理测量方法,从跨文化角度,研究了性别、民族和来源地因素对青少年认知方式和人格特质发展的影响,以及认知方式与人格特质的相互关系问题。在本研究条件下,得到如下结论:
1.蒙古族和汉族学生在认知方式上均不存在性别差异。
2.蒙古族和汉族学生在认知方式上均存在年级差异;只有大学二年级被试组的认知方式存在显著蒙汉族民族差异,其他年级组的认知方式不存在显著的民族差异。
3.蒙古族被试的认知方式不存在生源地差异,而汉族被试在认知方式上存在着非常显著的生源地差异;来自农村的被试在认知方式存在显著的民族差异,而来自城市的被试在认知方式上不存在差异。
4.蒙古族被试在认知方式上不存在出生顺序的差异,不同出生顺序的汉族被试在认知方式上存在着显著差异;蒙汉独生子女在认知方式上存在显著差异。
5.在人格特质分析中,不同性别被试在乐群性、稳定性、敏感性、恃强性、怀疑性、敢为性、怯懦与果断性等12个人格特质上存在显著性差异;蒙古族和汉族被试在聪慧性、在新环境中成长能力、创造能力3个人格因子上表现出不同水平;不同年级组蒙古族被试在乐群性、聪慧性、稳定性、敏感性、独立性、内向与外向性、创造能力等15个人格特质上存在显著的年级差异,而不同年级组汉族被试在乐群性、聪慧性、敢为性、自律性、恃强性、适应与焦虑性等13个人格特质上存在显著的年级差异。
6.蒙汉被试的认知方式仅与个别几项人格特质存在显著相关;在人格特质与认知方式三种不同水平的相关性上,仅初三和高二两个年级组表现出显著相关。
As a whole, man's personality and the cognition are interrelated and inseparable, this whole has contained the interaction between personality and the cognition. So when we observe and analyze a person, we should consider them together. Therefore, the cognition a nd the personality researcher seeks the contact surface which between them joins. The psychologist saw the necessity which unifies the cognition and the personality, the cognition style (cognitive style) exactly has provided one kind to be possible to satisfy this kind of demand the middle variable, it has constructed a bridge between the cognition and the personality.
This research take the Mongolian student and the Han Nationality different grade group student for (Grade three in middle school, Grade two in senior high school, Sophomore, Junior and Senior) as is tried in the school student, the utilization mental measurement method, from the Trans-Culture angle, has studied the sex, the nationality and the source factor to the young people cognitive style and the personality traits development influence, as well as cognitive style and personality traits reciprocity question. Under this research condition, obtains the following conclusion:
1. the Mongolian students and the Han Nationality students does not show significant differences between male and female in the cognitive style.
2. the Mongolian students and the Han Nationality students indica ted significant differences among all grade in the cognitive style; Only the university second grade is tried the group the cognitive style existence remarkable Mongolia- Han nationality difference, other grade group's cognitive style does not have the remarkable national difference.
3. the Mongolian students of the cognitive style which tries is not existed lives the source area difference, but the Han Nationality is tried to exist in the cognitive style the very remarkable fresh source difference; Is tried from the countryside in the cognitive style existence remarkable nationality difference, but is tried from the city not to exist in the cognitive style the difference.
4.The Mongolian students is tried not to exist in the cognitive style the birth order the difference, is birth order Han Nationality to try differently to save in the cognitive style exists the remarkable difference; Mongolian and Han nationality of single child to have the remarkable difference in the cognitive style.
5. In the personality special traits, the different sex is tried, in sociables the nature, stability, sensitivity, unyield, suspicion, courage, timid and courageous and so on 12 personality traits has the significance difference; The Mongolians students and the Han Nationality students is tried in intelligent, to grow ability in the new environment, the creation ability 3 personality factors to display the different level; The different grade group Mongolian student is tried to sociable the nature, intelligent, the stability, the sensitivity, the independence, introversion- extroversion, creation ability and so on 15 personality traits show the remarkable grade difference, but the different grade group Han Nationality is tried, in sociables the nature, intelligent, to dare for the nature, self-discipline, unyield, the adaptation and anxious and so on 13 personality traits has the remarkable grade difference.
6. the Mongolian -Chinese of the cognitive style which tries only and the individual several personality traits existence remarkable related; In the personality traits and in the cognitive style three kind of different level's relevances, only student for Grade three in middle school and Grade two in senior high school display obviously related.
本研究以蒙古族和汉族不同年级组(初三、高二、大一、大二、大三和大四)在校学生为被试,运用心理测量方法,从跨文化角度,研究了性别、民族和来源地因素对青少年认知方式和人格特质发展的影响,以及认知方式与人格特质的相互关系问题。在本研究条件下,得到如下结论:
1.蒙古族和汉族学生在认知方式上均不存在性别差异。
2.蒙古族和汉族学生在认知方式上均存在年级差异;只有大学二年级被试组的认知方式存在显著蒙汉族民族差异,其他年级组的认知方式不存在显著的民族差异。
3.蒙古族被试的认知方式不存在生源地差异,而汉族被试在认知方式上存在着非常显著的生源地差异;来自农村的被试在认知方式存在显著的民族差异,而来自城市的被试在认知方式上不存在差异。
4.蒙古族被试在认知方式上不存在出生顺序的差异,不同出生顺序的汉族被试在认知方式上存在着显著差异;蒙汉独生子女在认知方式上存在显著差异。
5.在人格特质分析中,不同性别被试在乐群性、稳定性、敏感性、恃强性、怀疑性、敢为性、怯懦与果断性等12个人格特质上存在显著性差异;蒙古族和汉族被试在聪慧性、在新环境中成长能力、创造能力3个人格因子上表现出不同水平;不同年级组蒙古族被试在乐群性、聪慧性、稳定性、敏感性、独立性、内向与外向性、创造能力等15个人格特质上存在显著的年级差异,而不同年级组汉族被试在乐群性、聪慧性、敢为性、自律性、恃强性、适应与焦虑性等13个人格特质上存在显著的年级差异。
6.蒙汉被试的认知方式仅与个别几项人格特质存在显著相关;在人格特质与认知方式三种不同水平的相关性上,仅初三和高二两个年级组表现出显著相关。
As a whole, man's personality and the cognition are interrelated and inseparable, this whole has contained the interaction between personality and the cognition. So when we observe and analyze a person, we should consider them together. Therefore, the cognition a nd the personality researcher seeks the contact surface which between them joins. The psychologist saw the necessity which unifies the cognition and the personality, the cognition style (cognitive style) exactly has provided one kind to be possible to satisfy this kind of demand the middle variable, it has constructed a bridge between the cognition and the personality.
This research take the Mongolian student and the Han Nationality different grade group student for (Grade three in middle school, Grade two in senior high school, Sophomore, Junior and Senior) as is tried in the school student, the utilization mental measurement method, from the Trans-Culture angle, has studied the sex, the nationality and the source factor to the young people cognitive style and the personality traits development influence, as well as cognitive style and personality traits reciprocity question. Under this research condition, obtains the following conclusion:
1. the Mongolian students and the Han Nationality students does not show significant differences between male and female in the cognitive style.
2. the Mongolian students and the Han Nationality students indica ted significant differences among all grade in the cognitive style; Only the university second grade is tried the group the cognitive style existence remarkable Mongolia- Han nationality difference, other grade group's cognitive style does not have the remarkable national difference.
3. the Mongolian students of the cognitive style which tries is not existed lives the source area difference, but the Han Nationality is tried to exist in the cognitive style the very remarkable fresh source difference; Is tried from the countryside in the cognitive style existence remarkable nationality difference, but is tried from the city not to exist in the cognitive style the difference.
4.The Mongolian students is tried not to exist in the cognitive style the birth order the difference, is birth order Han Nationality to try differently to save in the cognitive style exists the remarkable difference; Mongolian and Han nationality of single child to have the remarkable difference in the cognitive style.
5. In the personality special traits, the different sex is tried, in sociables the nature, stability, sensitivity, unyield, suspicion, courage, timid and courageous and so on 12 personality traits has the significance difference; The Mongolians students and the Han Nationality students is tried in intelligent, to grow ability in the new environment, the creation ability 3 personality factors to display the different level; The different grade group Mongolian student is tried to sociable the nature, intelligent, the stability, the sensitivity, the independence, introversion- extroversion, creation ability and so on 15 personality traits show the remarkable grade difference, but the different grade group Han Nationality is tried, in sociables the nature, intelligent, to dare for the nature, self-discipline, unyield, the adaptation and anxious and so on 13 personality traits has the remarkable grade difference.
6. the Mongolian -Chinese of the cognitive style which tries only and the individual several personality traits existence remarkable related; In the personality traits and in the cognitive style three kind of different level's relevances, only student for Grade three in middle school and Grade two in senior high school display obviously related.
引文
[1][26][36][46] Witkin,H.A.& Goodenough.(1977).D.R. Field dependence and interpersonal Behavior [J]. Psychological Bulletin,84(4): 88-92;661-689;135-136;443.
[2]Endler,N.S. (2000).The interface between personality and cognition[J]. European Journal of Personality,14(5):332;377-389.
[3]王春雷.11-17岁汉族与哈尼族学生认知方式的发展及其与性格特质相互关系的文化研究[D].云南师范大学,2000:28-36.
[4][5]陈仲庚,张雨新.人格心理学[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987:36-42;42-45.
[6]L·A·珀文著.周榕,陈红,杨炳钧,梁秀清译.人格科学[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001:415.
[7] A.G.Asmolov,B.S.Bratus,B.V.Zeigarnik,V.A.Petrovskii,E.V.Subbotskii,A.U.Kharash and L.S.Tsvetkova.On Some Prospects of Research on Sense-Based Formations of the Personality[J].Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,2005,43(6):5–18.
[8]黄希庭,范 蔚.人格研究中国化之思考[J].西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2001,(27)6:45-50.
[9][12][45]郑 雪.人格心理学[M].广州:广东高等教育出版社,2004:7;143;275.
[10]郑 雪.人格心理学[M].广州:暨南大学出版社,2001:350-351.
[11]叶奕乾,祝蓓里主编.心理学(修订本)[M].上海:华东师范人学出版社,1996,3:258-261.
[13]马士海,时德兰,景丽荣.初中生 16 种个性因素调查分析[J].健康心理学,1995,3(4):28-29.
[14]聂衍刚,郑 雪.中学生人格特点和发展现状的研究[J],心理科学,2004,27(4):1019-1022.
[15]胡健,蔡太生,王志平. 高中生 16PF 测试结果的城乡及性别差异比较[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2006,14(3):38.
[16]秦凤华,王 凯. 汉族、蒙古族高中学生人格特征的比较研究[J]. 中国心理卫生协会第四届学术大会论文汇编 ,2003.
[17]张三萍.1000 例独生子女大学生人格的分析与启示[D].武汉理工大学,2002.5.
[18]王益明,刘会杰,耿爱英,沈士梅.在校大学生人格特点变化之研究[J].山东师范大学学报 (哲学社会科学版),2001(2):141-146.
[19]杨通宇.贵州省高校学生人格因素与创新精神调查研究[D].贵州师范大学,2006.5.
[20]高宝梅.蒙古族大学生人格特征形成与发展的影响因素研究[D].内蒙古师范大学,2003.5.
[21]郑莉君.蒙古族和汉族大学生人格特点的比较研究[J].《前沿》,2003(1):158-160.
[22]杨治良等.认知风格研究进展[J].心理科学,2001(3):326-329.
[23]李浩然等.认知风格结构模型的发展[J].心理学动态,2000(3):43-49.
[24]李力红,赵秋玲等.外显、内隐记忆与场依存—场独立认知风格关系的实验研究[J].心理科学,2002(5):614-615.
[25]张厚粲.关于认知方式的测验研究[J].心理科学通讯,1982(2):12-16.
[27]Dawson , J. L. M.(1967). Cultural and Psychological Influence Upon Spatial-perceptual Processes in West Africa , Part 1 and 2 .International Journal Psychology, 2.
[28]Berry, J. W.(1976).Human Ecology and Cognitive Style: Comparative Students in Cultural and Psychological Adaptation. London: Sage.
[29]杨国枢.中国人的心理:中国人的人格及其改变[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,1990.
[30]Ferrari, M. & Sternberg, R. J.(1998).The development of mental abilities and styles. In: Kuhn,D.,Siegler, R. S.eds. Handbook of child Psychology(fifth edition).Vol .2: Cognition, Perception, and Language, John Wiley & Son. 899-946
[31]陈中永,郑 雪.中国多民族认知活动方式的跨文化研究[M].沈阳:辽宁民族出版社,1995(4):121-122;
[32] [49]颜 延等.中小学生的认知风格研究[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版),1997(1):81-86.
[33]Evans ,F . J.(1967).Field dependence and the Maudsley Personality Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 24,526.
[34]Loo,R. (1976) . Field dependence and the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills.43,614;
[35]Cegalis, J. A. & Leen, D. (1977) .Individual difference in reponse to induced Perceptual conflict. Perceptual and Motor Skills.44, 991-998.
[37]张厚粲,谢斯骏.认知方式一—一个人格维度的实验研究[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1988,9:70-72.
[38]邓 铸.场依存性与艾森克人格维度的相关研究[J].河南师范大学学报(哲社版),1995(5):14-16.
[39]张卫东.关于场依存性一独立性与催眠感受性及性格的比较研究[J].心理科学,1996,19(5):287-320.
[40]王春雷,张 锋.学生认知方式与性格特质相互关系的跨文化研究[J].心理科学,2001,6(24):757-758.
[41]邓 铸,李德俊,张秋菊.场依存性与卡特尔人格特质及学业成绩的相关分析[J].心理科学,2000(2): 234-235.
[42]王学臣.场独立性—依存性认知方式与人格特征关系的实验研究[J].山东师大学报(社会科学版),2000(4):70-71.
[43]丁小斌,徐国庆.场依存性—独立性认知风格与卡特尔人格特质的相关研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2006(10):43.
[44]Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. Cautions and considerations for the links between cognition and personality[J]. American Sociological Review, 1999, 7(5):370-382
[47]Jones A E.Reflection-lmpulsivity and Wholist—Analytic: two fledglings? or is R- 1 a cucckoo? Educational Psychology,1997,17: 5-77.
[48]马定松,何亚云,张 锋.人格与认知融合的尝试:历史与现实[J]. 云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,37(5):23-27.
[50]侯公林,章自量,吴晓山,沈浪泳.场独立性—场依存性认知方式性别差异的实验研究[J].心理科学,1997,20(4):367-368.
1.王春雷.11-17 岁汉族与哈尼族学生认知方式的发展及其与性格特质相互关系的文化研究[D].云南师范大学,2000.
2.R·赖丁,S·雷纳著,庞维国译.认知风格与学习策略——理解学习和行为中的风格差异[J].华东师范大学出版社,2003 年.
3.程 涛,张茂林.认知方式理论的整合与发展[J].济南大学学报,2000(2).
4.张利燕.认知操作、认知方式与人格特征的关系[D].华南师大博士学位论文,2004.
5.屈 强.军校学员认知方式与人格特质分析及其相关研究[D].山东师范大学,2004.
6.王 峻.初中学生认知方式特点的研究[D].苏州大学,2001.
7.谢斯骏,张厚粲.认知方式—一个人格维度的实验研究[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1988.
8.陈少华.人格与认知[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
9.邓 铸,李德俊,张秋菊.依存性与卡特尔人格特质及学业成绩的相关分析[J].心理科学, 2000(2).
10.侯公林,章自童,吴晓山,沈浪泳.场独立性—依存性认知方式性别差异的实验研究[J].心理科学,1997(4).
11.李寿欣,宋广文.场依存—独立性认知方式:理论演进及其应用研究[J].内蒙古师范大学学报(哲社,教育科学版),1999(2).
12.聂衍刚,郑 雪.中学生人格特点和发展现状的研究[J].心理科学 ,2004(4).
13.王孝玲.教育统计学[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1993.
14.舒 华.心理与教育研究中的多因素实验设计[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1994.
15.郑 雪.人格心理学[M].广东:广东高等教育出版社,2004.
16.Witkin, H.A.,Moore,C.A.,Goodenough,D..R.&Cox, P.W. (1977) . Field dependent and field independent cognitive style and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research.
17.Evans,F.J. (1967) . Field dependence and the Maudsley Personality Inventory- Perceptual and Motor Skills.
18.Loo,R . (1976) . Field dependence and the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
19.Witkin, H. A.&Berry. J. W. (1975). cultural perspective. TournalPsychological differentiation in cross of Cross cultural Psychology.
20.陈仲庚,张雨新.人格心理学[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1986:36-42.
21.贺 雯.认知方式研究的进展[J].心理科学,2001(5).
22.陈中永,郑 雪.中国多民族认知活动方式的跨文化研究[M].沈阳:辽宁民族出版社,1995.
23.李寿欣,宋广文.关于高中生认知方式的测验研究[J].心理学报,1994.
24.邓 铸.场依存性与艾森克人格维度的相关研究[J].河南师范大学学报(哲社版),1995 (5).
25.徐国庆,丁小斌.场依存性—独立性认知风格与卡特尔人格特质的相关研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2006(10).
26.高宝梅.蒙古族大学生人格特征形成与发展的影响因素研究[D].内蒙古师范大学,2003.5.
27.王学臣.场独立性—依存性认知方式与人格特征关系的实验研究[J] .山东师大学报(社会科学版),2000(4).
28.郑莉君.蒙古族和汉族大学生人格特点的比较研究[J].《前沿》,2003(1).
29.颜延等.中小学生的认知风格研究[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版),1997(1).
30.王洪礼,周玉林.城乡高中生认知方式与创造力关系的比较研究[J].心理科学,2006(1).
31.林耀华.民族学通论[M]中央民族大学出版社,2007.
32.许 燕,钱 筠.大学生人格因素的性别差异研究[J].心理学探新,1999(4).
33.樊富珉.当代大学生心理素质现状调查[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
34.刘运芳.卡特尔人格特质理论述评[J].孝感学院学报,2002(2).
35.陈仲庚,张雨新.人格心理学[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987.
36.胡 健,蔡太生,王志平.高中生 16PF 测试结果的城乡及性别差异比较[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2006(3).
37.刘 惠,胡振江.人格特质理论述评[J] .牡丹江师范学院学报(哲学社会科学报),2005(2).
38.叶奕乾,祝蓓里主编.心理学(修订本)[M].上海:华东师范人学出版社,1996,3.
39.马士海,时德兰,景丽荣.初中生 16 种个性因素调查分析[J].健康心理学,1995(4).
40. 王益明,刘会杰,耿爱英,沈士梅.在校大学生人格特点变化之研究[J].山东师范大学学报 (哲学社会科学版),2001(2).
[2]Endler,N.S. (2000).The interface between personality and cognition[J]. European Journal of Personality,14(5):332;377-389.
[3]王春雷.11-17岁汉族与哈尼族学生认知方式的发展及其与性格特质相互关系的文化研究[D].云南师范大学,2000:28-36.
[4][5]陈仲庚,张雨新.人格心理学[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987:36-42;42-45.
[6]L·A·珀文著.周榕,陈红,杨炳钧,梁秀清译.人格科学[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001:415.
[7] A.G.Asmolov,B.S.Bratus,B.V.Zeigarnik,V.A.Petrovskii,E.V.Subbotskii,A.U.Kharash and L.S.Tsvetkova.On Some Prospects of Research on Sense-Based Formations of the Personality[J].Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,2005,43(6):5–18.
[8]黄希庭,范 蔚.人格研究中国化之思考[J].西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2001,(27)6:45-50.
[9][12][45]郑 雪.人格心理学[M].广州:广东高等教育出版社,2004:7;143;275.
[10]郑 雪.人格心理学[M].广州:暨南大学出版社,2001:350-351.
[11]叶奕乾,祝蓓里主编.心理学(修订本)[M].上海:华东师范人学出版社,1996,3:258-261.
[13]马士海,时德兰,景丽荣.初中生 16 种个性因素调查分析[J].健康心理学,1995,3(4):28-29.
[14]聂衍刚,郑 雪.中学生人格特点和发展现状的研究[J],心理科学,2004,27(4):1019-1022.
[15]胡健,蔡太生,王志平. 高中生 16PF 测试结果的城乡及性别差异比较[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2006,14(3):38.
[16]秦凤华,王 凯. 汉族、蒙古族高中学生人格特征的比较研究[J]. 中国心理卫生协会第四届学术大会论文汇编 ,2003.
[17]张三萍.1000 例独生子女大学生人格的分析与启示[D].武汉理工大学,2002.5.
[18]王益明,刘会杰,耿爱英,沈士梅.在校大学生人格特点变化之研究[J].山东师范大学学报 (哲学社会科学版),2001(2):141-146.
[19]杨通宇.贵州省高校学生人格因素与创新精神调查研究[D].贵州师范大学,2006.5.
[20]高宝梅.蒙古族大学生人格特征形成与发展的影响因素研究[D].内蒙古师范大学,2003.5.
[21]郑莉君.蒙古族和汉族大学生人格特点的比较研究[J].《前沿》,2003(1):158-160.
[22]杨治良等.认知风格研究进展[J].心理科学,2001(3):326-329.
[23]李浩然等.认知风格结构模型的发展[J].心理学动态,2000(3):43-49.
[24]李力红,赵秋玲等.外显、内隐记忆与场依存—场独立认知风格关系的实验研究[J].心理科学,2002(5):614-615.
[25]张厚粲.关于认知方式的测验研究[J].心理科学通讯,1982(2):12-16.
[27]Dawson , J. L. M.(1967). Cultural and Psychological Influence Upon Spatial-perceptual Processes in West Africa , Part 1 and 2 .International Journal Psychology, 2.
[28]Berry, J. W.(1976).Human Ecology and Cognitive Style: Comparative Students in Cultural and Psychological Adaptation. London: Sage.
[29]杨国枢.中国人的心理:中国人的人格及其改变[M].昆明:云南人民出版社,1990.
[30]Ferrari, M. & Sternberg, R. J.(1998).The development of mental abilities and styles. In: Kuhn,D.,Siegler, R. S.eds. Handbook of child Psychology(fifth edition).Vol .2: Cognition, Perception, and Language, John Wiley & Son. 899-946
[31]陈中永,郑 雪.中国多民族认知活动方式的跨文化研究[M].沈阳:辽宁民族出版社,1995(4):121-122;
[32] [49]颜 延等.中小学生的认知风格研究[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版),1997(1):81-86.
[33]Evans ,F . J.(1967).Field dependence and the Maudsley Personality Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 24,526.
[34]Loo,R. (1976) . Field dependence and the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills.43,614;
[35]Cegalis, J. A. & Leen, D. (1977) .Individual difference in reponse to induced Perceptual conflict. Perceptual and Motor Skills.44, 991-998.
[37]张厚粲,谢斯骏.认知方式一—一个人格维度的实验研究[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1988,9:70-72.
[38]邓 铸.场依存性与艾森克人格维度的相关研究[J].河南师范大学学报(哲社版),1995(5):14-16.
[39]张卫东.关于场依存性一独立性与催眠感受性及性格的比较研究[J].心理科学,1996,19(5):287-320.
[40]王春雷,张 锋.学生认知方式与性格特质相互关系的跨文化研究[J].心理科学,2001,6(24):757-758.
[41]邓 铸,李德俊,张秋菊.场依存性与卡特尔人格特质及学业成绩的相关分析[J].心理科学,2000(2): 234-235.
[42]王学臣.场独立性—依存性认知方式与人格特征关系的实验研究[J].山东师大学报(社会科学版),2000(4):70-71.
[43]丁小斌,徐国庆.场依存性—独立性认知风格与卡特尔人格特质的相关研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2006(10):43.
[44]Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. Cautions and considerations for the links between cognition and personality[J]. American Sociological Review, 1999, 7(5):370-382
[47]Jones A E.Reflection-lmpulsivity and Wholist—Analytic: two fledglings? or is R- 1 a cucckoo? Educational Psychology,1997,17: 5-77.
[48]马定松,何亚云,张 锋.人格与认知融合的尝试:历史与现实[J]. 云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,37(5):23-27.
[50]侯公林,章自量,吴晓山,沈浪泳.场独立性—场依存性认知方式性别差异的实验研究[J].心理科学,1997,20(4):367-368.
1.王春雷.11-17 岁汉族与哈尼族学生认知方式的发展及其与性格特质相互关系的文化研究[D].云南师范大学,2000.
2.R·赖丁,S·雷纳著,庞维国译.认知风格与学习策略——理解学习和行为中的风格差异[J].华东师范大学出版社,2003 年.
3.程 涛,张茂林.认知方式理论的整合与发展[J].济南大学学报,2000(2).
4.张利燕.认知操作、认知方式与人格特征的关系[D].华南师大博士学位论文,2004.
5.屈 强.军校学员认知方式与人格特质分析及其相关研究[D].山东师范大学,2004.
6.王 峻.初中学生认知方式特点的研究[D].苏州大学,2001.
7.谢斯骏,张厚粲.认知方式—一个人格维度的实验研究[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1988.
8.陈少华.人格与认知[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
9.邓 铸,李德俊,张秋菊.依存性与卡特尔人格特质及学业成绩的相关分析[J].心理科学, 2000(2).
10.侯公林,章自童,吴晓山,沈浪泳.场独立性—依存性认知方式性别差异的实验研究[J].心理科学,1997(4).
11.李寿欣,宋广文.场依存—独立性认知方式:理论演进及其应用研究[J].内蒙古师范大学学报(哲社,教育科学版),1999(2).
12.聂衍刚,郑 雪.中学生人格特点和发展现状的研究[J].心理科学 ,2004(4).
13.王孝玲.教育统计学[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1993.
14.舒 华.心理与教育研究中的多因素实验设计[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1994.
15.郑 雪.人格心理学[M].广东:广东高等教育出版社,2004.
16.Witkin, H.A.,Moore,C.A.,Goodenough,D..R.&Cox, P.W. (1977) . Field dependent and field independent cognitive style and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research.
17.Evans,F.J. (1967) . Field dependence and the Maudsley Personality Inventory- Perceptual and Motor Skills.
18.Loo,R . (1976) . Field dependence and the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
19.Witkin, H. A.&Berry. J. W. (1975). cultural perspective. TournalPsychological differentiation in cross of Cross cultural Psychology.
20.陈仲庚,张雨新.人格心理学[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1986:36-42.
21.贺 雯.认知方式研究的进展[J].心理科学,2001(5).
22.陈中永,郑 雪.中国多民族认知活动方式的跨文化研究[M].沈阳:辽宁民族出版社,1995.
23.李寿欣,宋广文.关于高中生认知方式的测验研究[J].心理学报,1994.
24.邓 铸.场依存性与艾森克人格维度的相关研究[J].河南师范大学学报(哲社版),1995 (5).
25.徐国庆,丁小斌.场依存性—独立性认知风格与卡特尔人格特质的相关研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2006(10).
26.高宝梅.蒙古族大学生人格特征形成与发展的影响因素研究[D].内蒙古师范大学,2003.5.
27.王学臣.场独立性—依存性认知方式与人格特征关系的实验研究[J] .山东师大学报(社会科学版),2000(4).
28.郑莉君.蒙古族和汉族大学生人格特点的比较研究[J].《前沿》,2003(1).
29.颜延等.中小学生的认知风格研究[J].南京师大学报(社会科学版),1997(1).
30.王洪礼,周玉林.城乡高中生认知方式与创造力关系的比较研究[J].心理科学,2006(1).
31.林耀华.民族学通论[M]中央民族大学出版社,2007.
32.许 燕,钱 筠.大学生人格因素的性别差异研究[J].心理学探新,1999(4).
33.樊富珉.当代大学生心理素质现状调查[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002.
34.刘运芳.卡特尔人格特质理论述评[J].孝感学院学报,2002(2).
35.陈仲庚,张雨新.人格心理学[M].沈阳:辽宁人民出版社,1987.
36.胡 健,蔡太生,王志平.高中生 16PF 测试结果的城乡及性别差异比较[J].中国临床心理学杂志,2006(3).
37.刘 惠,胡振江.人格特质理论述评[J] .牡丹江师范学院学报(哲学社会科学报),2005(2).
38.叶奕乾,祝蓓里主编.心理学(修订本)[M].上海:华东师范人学出版社,1996,3.
39.马士海,时德兰,景丽荣.初中生 16 种个性因素调查分析[J].健康心理学,1995(4).
40. 王益明,刘会杰,耿爱英,沈士梅.在校大学生人格特点变化之研究[J].山东师范大学学报 (哲学社会科学版),2001(2).