The relationship among creative, critical thinking and thinking styles in Taiwan high school students.

The study investigated the relationships among demographic variables (class grades, school types, major field, parent's education level, etc.), psychological type, thinking style, critical thinking, and creative thinking in senior high school students. The study explored the extent to which students' inclinations and perceived competence to engage in creative thought, as well as their ability to think critically, can be predicted by one aspect of their personality and their psychological preferences. 1119 male senior high school students (grades 10 and 11) participated in the present study. The Thinking Styles Inventory, Chopsticks Creativity Test, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator were administered to the participants.

The present study, anchored in Sternberg's theory of mental self-government and Jung's theory of personality types, serves to lend partial support to the evidence of the relationships of thinking styles to personality types. The present findings show the scales across the TSI and MBTI inventories are, in general, related in predictable ways.

**********

It is widely recognized that the development of creative and critical thinking can be beneficial for both the individual student and society (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995). However, a range of views regarding the relationship between the two kinds of thinking exists in the literature. One of the most influential conceptions of critical thinking is proposed by Robert Ennis (1985). He defines critical thinking as "reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do," and he details numerous proficiencies, tendencies, and dispositions that constitute such reasonable reflective thinking. Creative thinking is associated with certain personal characteristics, such as flexibility and fluency. Some view the two kinds of thinking as being opposed to one another (Torch, 1993), others acknowledge complementary functioning (Bleedorn, 1993; Menssen, 1993), and it is also argued that there is a problem in attempting to distinguish two separate kinds of thinking. It is suggested simply that the focus should be on good thinking in the context of the rules, methods and criteria of specific domains (Bailin, 1993). For example, a number of researchers emphasize that critical thinking involves not only logical, but also creative (intuitive) aspects (Meyers, 1986; Brookfield, 1987; Garrison, 1991; Paul, 1993). Given this controversy, the study investigated the relationship between the two, namely whether a certain measurements of creativity are associated with specific measurements of critical thinking.

Sternberg and Lubart (1995) contend that thinking styles are one of the six major resources that give rise to creativity. Sternberg (1988a, 1988b, 1994, 1997) proposed a theory of mental self-government that defines intellectual styles as an interface between intelligence and personality. Analogous to the three branches of the U.S. government, the theory postulates 13 thinking styles that fall along five dimensions of mental self-government: function, form, level, scope, and leaning. Sternberg emphasized the five dimensions and 13 thinking styles, though not exhaustive; represent important stylistic aspects of intellectual functioning. The first dimension is the function of the mental self-government, including the legislative, executive and judicial thinking styles. The legislative function is concerned with formulating ideas and creating rules. The executive function is concerned with carrying out plans and implementing rules initiated by others. The judicial function mainly involves comparing and evaluating ideas, rules, and procedures. The second dimension, the form of mental self-government, concerns various styles of goal-setting and self-management behaviors, such as prioritizing (Hierarchic), pursuing goals single-mindedly (Monarchic), having multiple goal pursuits (Oligarchic), and taking a random approach to goals and problems (Anarchic). The third dimension is the level of mental self-government, which distinguishes between a preference for problems at a relatively high level of abstraction (Global) and a preference for problems that demand attention to details (Local). The fourth dimension is the scope of mental self-government, including a preference for tasks that allow one to work alone, independent of others (Internal), versus a preference for tasks that allow social interaction and collaboration (External). Finally, the fifth dimension, leanings of mental self-government includes the liberal and conservative thinking styles, with Liberal preferring tasks, projects, or situations which involve unfamiliarity and ambiguity and which require going beyond existing rules and procedures, while Conservative preferring familiarity or situations and tasks that require adherence to existing rules.

A number of research studies have supported meaningful relationships between certain thinking styles and creativity (Jacobson, 1993; Kim & Michael, 1995). For example, Kim and Michael (1995) identified a significant relationship between creativity measures and thinking style preferences. They found that students classified as using a thinking style preference believed to be associated with right-brain dominance were likely to achieve significantly higher scores on creativity measures than those who were classified as showing a thinking style preference hypothesized to be connected with either a left-brain dominance or an integrated-brain dominance. In Zhang's cross-cultural study of the relationships between thinking styles assessed by the TSI and a number of student characteristics (1999), she identified that legislative and liberal styles are creativity-relevant styles.

Furthermore, the relationship of Sternberg's thinking styles with other styles or personality types is also investigated. For example, Sternberg (1994) has reported some statistically significant relationships among thinking styles to two other inventories based on models of personality types, these being the MBTI and Gregorc's styles. In Zhang's investigation of the relationship between Sternberg's theory of thinking styles and Holland's theory of personality types, she found that thinking styles and personality types overlap to a degree as predicated by the theory (2000). A negative relationship is found between the artistic type and the executive, local and conservative thinking style, the social and enterprising scales are positively related to the external style, whereas they are negatively correlated with the internal thinking style. In addition, the social and enterprising scales are also positively related to the judicial thinking style.

Jung (1971) proposed that, according to their psychological disposition and certain environmental demands, people develop different natural preferences regarding the way in which they relate to the world. These preferences may be of particular significance also for investigating people's willingness and ability to engage in self-directed learning and critical thinking. Jung distinguished between two basic attitudes, introversion and extraversion, and four different psychological functions, thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. Four dimensions of the MBTI that can also be considered learning preferences, with their associated contrasting preferences, are: (1) orientation toward information and idea generation (extraversion and introversion); (2) perception of information or ideas (sensing or intuition); (3) judgment or decision making (thinking and feeling); and (4) orientation to environment (judgment and perception).

Research has established that specific preferences and characteristics are associated with MBTI types or other personality theories. For example, the study of Campbell & Davis (1988) demonstrated that "introvert-sensing-thinking-judgment" learners tend to be analytical, fact-minded, dependable, reflective, and practical. The key to developing a learner's ability to think critically is found in the order of the learner's preferences for perception and judgment. Given this, teaching may be improved by emphasizing learners' dominant ways of perceiving and judging. Furthermore, Kreber (1998) presents a study which examined the extent to which students' willingness and perceived capacity to engage in self-directed learning, and the ability to think critically, could be explained by their psychological type. No significant relationship was found between psychological type and critical thinking.

In the present study, researchers investigated whether students' ability to think critically can be predicted by one aspect of their personality: their psychological type (Jung, 1971). An investigation is also undertaken into whether students' ability to think critically or creatively could, in part, explain their preferences for thinking styles as suggested by the literature. To date, the complex relationships between people's willingness and capacity to engage in critical thinking, their creative ability, and their psychological type have not been empirically investigated.

Given that thinking styles and psychological types may well play such an important part in creative and critical thinking, and that the cultivation of creative/critical thinking is one of the important missions of higher education, the relationship among them needs to be investigated. With this background, the study investigated the relationships among demographic variables (class grades, school types, major field, parent' s education level, etc.), psychological type, thinking style, critical thinking, and creative thinking in senior high school students. The study explored the extent to which students' inclinations and perceived competence to engage in creative thought, as well as their ability to think critically, can be predicted by one aspect of their personality and their psychological preferences. An investigation was also undertaken to explore the relationships between creative and critical thinking.

Methods

Sample

During the 2000 school year, 1119 male senior high school students (grades 10 and 11) from 38 classes in 6 senior high schools in Taiwan volunteered to participate in the present study. Among these participants, 586 students were from two military high schools where educational settings and systems are about the same as other senior high schools, except for boarding school, future military career preparation, and academic cultural differences. The average age of the participants was about 18, ranging from 17 to 19 years old.

Instruments

The Thinking Styles Inventory, Chopstick Creativity Test, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and MBTI were administered to the participants.

Chopstick Creativity Test

Chopstick Creativity Test was used as the measure of creativity in the present study. The Unusual Functions of Wooden Chopsticks test, designed by Wu (1998), is a verbal creativity test from New Version of Creativity Test. It is used to investigate students' creative thinking ability and aims to encourage participants to think creatively about how to use chopsticks for different functions besides as an everyday utensil for lifting food. The participants were encouraged to feel at ease and take the test under a non-exam atmosphere. There was a 10 minutes time limit on the test. There are three measures of creative thinking, namely fluency, flexibility, and originality. The three measures can be summed to yield a total creativity score, the higher the score indicating the higher creativity.

To check on the accuracy of the scoring by two raters, a 76 sample of 3 intact classes randomly chosen from 75 participants of 3 intact classes. Correlations between the scores of the two raters for each of the three factors in the verbal creativity test of Fluency, Originality, and Flexibility were .99, .97, and .96, respectively.

Thinking Styles Inventory

The Thinking Styles Inventory (TSI, Sternberg & Wagner, 1992) is based on Sternberg's theory of mental self-government. The TSI is a self-report test in which respondents rate themselves on a seven-point scale, with 1 indicating that the statement does not describe them at all and 7 indicating that the statement characterizes them extremely well. There are 65 items, each five falling into one of the 13 different style scales. The TSI is carried out using the Chinese version adapted from Wong. Results indicated that the TSI proved to be reasonably reliable and valid for identifying the thinking styles of this sample of junior high students in Taiwan, except for the lower reliability estimates of Anarchic (Alpha=.47), Global (Alpha=.54), local (Alpha=.52). The observed internal consistency reliability estimates of the 13 TSI scales are as follows: Legislative (Alpha=.83), Executive (Alpha=.55), Judicial (Alpha =.66), Hierarchic (Alpha =.70), Monarchic (Alpha=.65), Oligarchic (Alpha=.70), Anarchic (Alpha=.47), Global (Alpha=.54), local (Alpha=.52), Internal (Alpha=.76), External (Alpha=.76), Liberal (Alpha=.76), Conservative (Alpha=.76).

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Psychological type was measured using the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, Form G (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), a forced choice self-report measure. The MBTI provides preference scores on four dimensions, originally postulated by Jung: extroversion-introversion (E-I), sensation-intuition (S-N), thinking-feeling (T-F),judgment-perception (J-P). Combinations of scores on these four two-part categories result in 16 possible personality types. Thus, an ENTJ type is a person whose dominant modes are Extraversion, Intuition, Thinking, and Judging; an ISFP type is a person whose predominant modes are Introversion, Sensing, Feeling, and Perceptive. Previous research has demonstrated the reliability and validity of the MBTI (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA)

The Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) is based on Dressel & Mayhew's (1954) definition of critical thinking, and includes five subtests, each measuring a different aspect of critical thinking: inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation. The test is frequently used to measure gains in critical thinking abilities resulting from instruction, to predict success in programs in which the ability to think critically is important, and to explore and determine relationships between critical thinking abilities and other abilities or traits. The first scale tested students' ability to 'recognize unstated assumptions or presuppositions in given statements or premises'; the second scale assessed their ability to 'weigh evidence and decide if generalizations or conclusions based on the given data are warranted'; and the third tested their ability to 'distinguish between arguments that are strong and relevant and those that are weak and irrelevant for a particular question at issue.' The forth scale.... The fifth scale.... (Watson & Glaser, 1980, p. 2). Each scale has a possible total score of 16.

Results and Discussion

TSI Scale Intercorrelations

Intercorrelations for the 13 TSI scales are performed. The absolute values of these scale correlations ranged from .034 to .70. Essentially, some correlations were in the direction predicted by the theory of mental self-government. Examples are Legislative versus Liberal (r=.70), Executive versus Conservative (r=.64), Judicial versus Hierarchical (r=.50), which were significant at the .001 level. However, some of the significant/insignificant correlations were in the direction that was not predicted by the theory of mental self-government. For example, the correlation between Monarchic and Hierarchical was 0.52 (p < .001). This result is consistent with that obtained in the study conducted by Zhang & Sachs (1997), Zhang (1999). In addition, Conservative versus Liberal (r=-.04), and Internal versus External (r=.06) were not in the direction predicted by the theory of mental self-government. Whether that was due to cultural differences warrants further study.

Pearson correlation between Creative and CriticalThinking

The finding shows no correlation between creative and critical thinking, except a weak positive correlation (rs =.070~.079, ps<.05) between interpretation and creative scores of fluency, flexibility, originality and total scores. This appears that two kinds of creative and critical constructs might be distinct. Whether this is due to the measurement instruments employed in the study needs further investigation.

Pearson correlation among Thinking Styles and Creative Thinking

Regarding the relationships between creative thinking and thinking styles, Pearson correlation analysis shows that liberal, legislative, judicial, hierarchical, anarchic, external thinking, local, liberal, and global have significant correlation with creative thinking. The results support Sternberg and Lubart (1995) that legislative and liberal styles are associated with using creative strategies as well as Zhang's cross-cultural studies (1999). Furthermore, it also shows strong association between liberal, anarchic and external thinking and creativity, which could be explained by the style's characteristics. Appearing to capture the essence of creative thinking, Liberal prefers unfamiliar tasks beyond existing rules and procedures, Anarchic tends to take a random approach to goals and problems, External prefers tasks that allow social interaction and collaboration.

Pearson correlation among Thinking Styles and CriticalThinking

Regarding the relationships between critical thinking and thinking styles, the study found that critical thinking has negative correlation respectively with local (r=-0.10, p < 0.01) and Conservative thinking (r=-0.08, p < 0.05), positive correlation with Legistrative (r=. 10, p < 0.01), Judicial (r=0.11, p < 0.001), Monarchic (r=0.11, p < 0.001), Oligarchic (r=0.08, p < 0.05), Internal (r=0.08, p < 0.05), External (r=0.11, p < 0.001); while no correlation with Hierarchical, Anarchic and Liberal thinking.

Pearson correlation among Psychological Types and Thinking Styles

With respect to the relationship between thinking styles and psychological types, 36 of 104 correlation coefficients were statistically positively significant, 40 of 104 negatively significant. It was higher than the 30 of 128 statistically significant correlation coefficients identified in Sternberg (1994). The study found that Pearson correlation analysis shows that external types have significant positive correlation with legislative, judicial, hierarchical, oligarchic, anarchic, global, external, and liberal, and a negative relationship with executive, internal and conservative. Internal types have significant negative correlation with legislative, judicial, hierarchical, oligarchic, anarchic, global, external, and liberal, and a positive relationship with executive, internal, and conservative.

Intuitive types have significant positive correlation with legislative, judicial, anarchic, global, internal, external, and liberal, and a negative relationship with executive, and conservative. Sensing types have significant negative correlation with legislative, judicial, monarchic, anarchic, global, internal, external, and liberal, and a positive relationship with executive, and conservative. Intuitive types have significant positive correlation with legislative, judicial, anarchic, global, internal, external, and liberal, and a negative relationship with executive, and conservative.

Thinking types have significant positive correlation with legislative, executive, judicial, monarchic, hierarchical, local, internal, and liberal, and a negative relationship with oligarchic. Feeling types have significant negative correlation with legislative, executive, judicial, monarchic, hierarchical, local, internal, and liberal, and a positive relationship with oligarchic.

Judging types have significant positive correlation with monarchic, hierarchical, oligarchic, local, and conservative, and a negative relationship with legislative, anarchic, internal and liberal. Perceiving types have significant negative correlation with executive, monarchic, hierarchical, oligarchic, local, and conservative, and a positive relationship with legislative, anarchic, internal, and liberal.

The above findings show two constructs from the two theories, and although the correlations are not very strong, most of them are highly significant. Essentially, these correlations were in the direction predicted by the theory of mental self-government. Examples are External type versus External style, External type versus Internal style, Internal type versus External style, Sensing type versus Conservative style, Sensing type versus Global style, Judging type versus Hierarchical style and Conservative style. The finding indicate that the genesis of thinking styles may partially be explained by the nature of the relationship between thinking styles and personality types, however, the findings need further cross-validation.

Mean Differences in Critical Thinking on Background Variables

The results of the Hotelling's T2 procedure indicated that the participants' critical thinking was significantly different in terms of the following background variables: grade level, type of school attended, grades, and parents' educational level (p < .05), with the exception of birth order.

For exmple, Hotelling's T2 test revealed significant differences between grade levels (Hotelling's T2= 18.02, p<.01), father's and mother's educational level, as well as grades, on the The Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) (See Table #). Eleventh grade students performed better than 10th grade students on inference (F=4.47, p<.05), deduction (F=15.22, p<.01), and the whole (F=9.36, p<.001). It revealed that parents' higher educational levels and school grades (Wilks' _=.98, p<.001) tend to have higher critical thinking abilities.

Hotelling's T2 test revealed significant differences between school types (Military vs. General high school) on The Critical Thinking Appraisal (CTA) (Hotelling's T2=191.86, p<.001). General high school students outperformed military high school students on whole, and five, subscales of CTA, namely, inference (F=104.44, p<.001), recognition of assumptions (F=15.07, p<.001), deduction (F=74.82, p<.001), interpretation (F=96.68, p<.001), evaluation (F=28.09, p<.001), and whole scale (F=167.63, p<.001). In addition, students whose grades are above 1/3 in a class outperform those of under 1/3 in inference (F=5.31, p<.01), recognition of assumptions (F=3.67, p<.05), evaluation (F=3.69, p<.05).

Given the significantly lower scores reported by the Military high school students (when compared to the scores provided by the General high school students) it would appear that Military high school students might have difficulty with reading and comprehending the problems presented in the WGCTA, or it might be because of their lower educational level compared with General students. This may provide some clues to instructors and researchers in that the Military high school students need assistance in developing critical thinking skills.

Mean Differences in Creative Thinking on Background Variables

With respect to creativity measures, the study revealed no sigificance in terms of school type (Hotelling's T2=6.3). However, when ANOVA procedures were conducted individully, it was found that Military school outperformed General school on the original subscale (F=4.66, p<.05). The findings also show insignificant differences in the creative thinking scores with the following background variables: the grade levels, parents' educational level, and socioecomic status, with the exception of school grades (Wilks' _=.99, p<.05). Students whose grades were above 1/3 in a class outperformed those of the middle 1/3 in original subscale (F=4.31, p < .05).

Mean Differences in Thinking Styles on Background Variables

On the basis of Sternberg's notion (1988, 1997) that styles are in part socialized, a range of socialization variables were examined against the mean differences in participants' thinking styles. Results of these analyses showed that participants were not significantly different in any of the 13 thinking styles on the basis of such socialization variables as birth order, and parent's job. Significant differences were found with high, mid or low educational level, of fathers, in Legistrative (F=3.71, p<.001), Judicial (F=3.22,p<.01), Monarchic (F=2.21,p<.05), Hierarchical (F=2.17, p<.05), Global (F=5.12, p<.001), External (F=2.97, p<.01), and Liberal (F=2.63, p<.05) thinking styles.

Psychological Types, Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking

With respect to the relationship between MBTI and critical thinking, Hotelling's T2 test reveals significant differences between Extrovert/introvert (Hotelling's T2=13.77, p<.05), Sensing/Intuition (Hotelling's T2=23.32, p<.001) and critical measures. While Introvert types outperform Extrovert types in inference (F=9.19, p < .01), recognition of assumptions (F=5.09, p < .05) and interpretation (F=4.94, p < .05). Intuition has significantly higher inference (F=13.91, p < .001), and deduction (F_8.62, p < .001) and interpretation F_11.53, p < .01) more than sensing. The findings lent partial support to Jung's description of the introvert preference for inner worlds and ideas, and intuitive preferences for innovative ideas.

There is a growing body of literature in education, which emphasizes that critical thinking involves not only logical, but also creative (intuitive) and even emotive aspects (Meyers, 1986; Brookfield, 1987; Garrison, 1991; Paul, 1993). The results of the intuitive type with higher inference, deduction and interpretation appear partially to validate Jung's theoretical description of the characteristics of SN preference and the role intuition plays in relation to one's willingness and perceived capacity to engage in critical thinking. Further study might confirm the role that both intuitive and logical reasoning play in the process of critical reflection.

Regarding the relationship between MBTI and creative thinking, Hotelling's T2 test only reveals significant differences in Sensing/Intuition (Hotelling's T2=23.32, p<.001), with intuition outperforming sensing in flexibility (F=5.80, p < .05). However, when individual ANOVA were employed, the Extrovert type outperformed the Introvert type in fluency, flexibility, and originality. As Wheatley, Anthony and Maddix (1991) propose, the intuitive way of perceiving things, the extrovert orientation to life, and making decisions based on feelings will make a perceptive individual more positively related to the level of imagination and creativity in the strategic process of management. The findings of intuition outperforming sensing in flexibility partially support Wheatley et al. speculation.

Thinking Styles and Psychological Types

With respect to the relationship between thinking styles and psychological types, significant differences were revealed between Extrovert/introvert (Hotelling's T2= 192.15, p<.001), Sensing/Intuition (Hotelling's T2=163.31, p<.001), Thinking/Feeling (Hotelling's T2=105.17, p<.001), Judging/ Perceiving (Hotelling's T2= 135.17, p< .001) and thinking types. While Extrovert types outperform introvert types in Legistrative (F=15.96, p < .01), Judicial (F=40.02, p < .001), Hierarchical (F=22.65, p < .001), Oligarchic (F=11.16, p < .01), Anarchic (F=33.57, p < .001), Global (F=16.99, p < .001), External (F=129.22, p < .001) and Liberal (F=42.24, p < .001).

Intuition has significantly higher scores than Sensing in the following thinking types: Legistrative (F=40.35, p < .001), Judicial (F=35.67, p < .001), Anarchic (F=35.67, p < .01), Global (F=4.94, p < .05), Internal (F=8.52, p < .01), External (F=9.46, p < .01), and Liberal (F=65.87, p < .001), while Sensing had higher scores in Executive and Conservative thinking (F=47.67, 69.04, p s< .001). This finding appears to correspond to MBTI and Sternberg's theory. According to MBTI, Intuitive types process incoming perceptual stimuli more deeply and prefer to work with abstract ideas, inferred meanings and hidden possibilities, therefore, its strong relationship with Legistrative, Anarchic, Global, Internal, External, and Liberal lend support to their theoretical speculations. Sensing type individuals focus on perceptual impressions they receive from the environment and prefer to deal with concrete details and dislike working with ill-structured problems and uncertain situations. The finding that Sensing significantly related to Executive and Conservative substantiated both MBTI and Sternberg's theory. Conservative's preferred familiar tasks that required adherence to existing rules and Executive's were concerned with carrying out plans initiated by others.

Thinking has significantly higher scores than Feeling in the following thinking types: Legistrative (F=5.37, p < .05), Executive (F=5.40, p < .05), Judicial (F=9.84, p < .01), Monarchic (F=12.82, p < .001), hierarchical (F=43.31, p < .001), Local (F=16.39, p < .001), Internal (F=16.12, p < .001), Liberal (F=5.33, p < .05), while the Feeling type had higher scores in Oligarchic thinking (F=9.76, p < .01). Feeling types tend to be very attuned to their own feelings and the feelings of others. They base their decisions on what is important to themselves and others. Therefore, it might make sense for Feeling to be significantly related to Oligarchic thinking, as Oligarchic's having multiple pursuits to consider. Thinking types, on the other hand, base their decisions on an objective, impersonal, and logical analysis of a situation, matching well with the characteristics of Judicial, hierarchical, Executive.

Judging had significantly higher scores than Perceiving in the following thinking styles: Executive (F=130.33, p < .001), Monarchic (F=22.88, p < .001), hierarchical (F=69.55, p < .001), Local (F=25.51, p < .001), and Conservative thinking (F=135.17, p < .001), whereas Perceiving had higher scores in Legistrative (F=5.60, p < .05) and Liberal thinking styles (F=10.86, p < .01). These findings support that on the one hand, Judgers prefer to work in a linear, orderly method, seek closure, tend to be organized, and want things settled (typical characteristics of Executive, hierarchical, Monarchic); and on the other hand, Perceiving individuals prefer a flexible, spontaneous life. They prefer to keep their options open and are often viewed as spontaneous.

Summary and Conclusion

The present study resulted in several major findings. First, the study examined the relationship between thinking styles as defined by the Sternberg theory of mental self-government and the MBTI personality types as defined by Jungian theory. Sternberg (1994) has reported some statistically significant relation ships between thinking styles to MBTI personality types. The present study, anchored in Sternberg's theory of mental self-government and Jung's theory of personality types, serves to lend partial support to the evidence of the relationships of thinking styles to personality types. It was found that the two constructs from the two theories strongly related as significant relationships were identified between particular thinking styles and certain personality traits. This indicates that the genesis of thinking styles may partially be explained by the nature of the relationship between thinking styles and personality types.

Secondly, the study investigates the relationship between critical and creative thinking, whether a certain component of creativity measurements (fluency, flexibility, and originality) are associate with a certain component of critical measurements (inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation, and evaluation. A growing body of literature emphasizing critical thinking involves not only logical, but also creative (intuitive) aspects. The findings revealed that no correlation between creative and critical thinking, except for a weak positive correlation between interpretation and creative scores of fluency, flexibility, originality and total scores. Whether critical and creative thinking are distinct or complementary constructs, remain to be investigated further.

Thirdly, the study explores the extent to which psychological types may predict people's capacity to engage in creative and critical thinking. The findings reveal that liberal, legislative, judicial, hierarchical, monarchic, anarchic, global, local, liberal, and external thinking have significant correlation with creative thinking. Critical thinking has negative correlation respectively with oligarchic, internal, conservative, executive thinking. Inconsistent with Kreber (1998), no significant relationship between psychological types and critical thinking was found, although the study found a significant relationship between psychological types and critical/creative thinking. While introverted types outperformed extroverted types in inference, recognition of assumptions and interpretation. Intuitive showed significantly higher inference, deduction, and interpretation, as well as flexibility, than sensing.

The present findings show the scales across the TSI and MBTI inventories are, in general, related in predictable ways. It also demonstrates preference for a particular style of thinking and personality type might be potentially predictive of the manifestation of creative and critical endeavor to some extent. The results of this study shed light on these relationships and suggest some interesting considerations for teaching practice in education. Further research with different samples and different instruments to measure creative/critical thinking, personality types, or thinking styles, is needed to validate the results obtained in this study. Furthermore, the use of an inferential rather than a correlational design is recommended in future studies in order to test the results obtained here.

Table 1
Intercorrelations of the 15 Subscales of the Thinking Styles Inventory
and the MBTI Inventory (N = 1119)

                 LEG       EXE       JUD       MON       HIE

E               .094     -.070      .168      .033      .102
p-value         .003      .025      .000      .288      .001
I              -.110      .078     -.188     -.044     -.122
p-value         .000      .013      .000      .162      .000
S              -.243      .272     -.271     -.093     -.010
p-value         .000      .000      .000      .003      .749
N               .237     -.269      .244      .056     -.021
p-value         .000      .000      .000      .074      .495
T               .091      .103      .147      .112      .179
p-value         .004      .001      .000      .000      .000
F              -.070     -.116     -.153     -.123     -.210
p-value         .025      .000      .000      .000      .000
J              -.131      .396     -.003      .175      .340
p-value         .000      .000      .913      .000      .000
P               .138     -.385      .032     -.153     -.271
p-value         .000      .000      .305      .000      .000

                 OLI       ANA       GLO       LOC       INT

E               .117      .151      .100      .004     -.117
p-value         .000      .000      .001      .902      .000
I              -.143     -.159     -.095     -.027      .127
p-value         .000      .000      .003      .386      .000
S              -.046     -.114     -.093     -.003     -.118
p-value         .140      .000      .003      .929      .000
N               .037      .093      .141     -.056      .130
p-value         .239      .003      .000      .073      .000
T              -.096      .023      .032      .119      .157
p-value        -.002      .466      .311      .000      .000
F               .072     -.009     -.021     -.147     -.125
p-value         .021      .782      .499      .000      .000
J               .107     -.083     -.042      .205     -.074
p-value         .001      .008      .180      .000      .018
P              -.109      .085      .045     -.180      .076
p-value         .000      .006      .152      .000      .016

                 EXT       LIB       CON

E               .347      .202     -.119
p-value         .000      .000      .000
I              -.378     -.210      .110
p-value         .000      .000      .000
S              -.192     -.345      .323
p-value         .000      .000      .000
N               .147      .320     -.337
p-value         .000      .000      .000
T              -.035      .102      .045
p-value         .258      .001      .148
F              -.002     -.098     -.045
p-value         .950      .002      .153
J               .013     -.155      .414
p-value         .679      .000      .000
P              -.011      .160     -.397
p-value         .721      .000      .000

Table 2
Summary of Findings Between Critical Measures and Demographic Variables

Subscale           Wilks' [lambda] [??]               inference
Variable           Hotelling's [T.sup.2]

School Type        Hotelling's [T.sup.2]              104.44 ***
                   = 191.86 ***                       general >
                                                      military
Class Grades       Hotelling's [T.sup.2]                4.47 *
                   = 18.02 **                         11>10
Major Field        Wilks' [lambda] =.88 ***            29.14 ***
                                                      Natural >
                                                      Social Science
                                                      Natural >
                                                      others
Children           Wilks' [lambda] =.98                 1.19
Ranking
Grades             Wilks' [lambda] =.97 **              5.31 **
                                                      1/3>2/3
Father's           Wilks' [lambda] =.91 ***             7.79 ***
education                                             college >
level                                                 elementary
                                                      Univ. >
                                                      elementary
                                                      Univ. > high
                                                      school
Mother's           Wilks' [lambda] =.95 *               5.59 ***
education                                             college >
level                                                 elementary
                                                      Univ. >
                                                      elementary
Father's job       Wilks' [lambda] =.95                 3.12 **
                                                      Education >
                                                      Agriculture
Mother's job       Wilks' [lambda] =.93 **              4.25 ***
                                                      Education >
                                                      Agriculture
Father's           Hotelling's [T.sup.2] =4.97           .21
existence
Mother's           Hotelling's [T.sup.2] =7.46          4.66 *
existence

Subscale           recognition of                     deduction
Variable           assumptions

School Type        15.07 ***                           74.82 ***
                   general > military                 general >
                                                      military
Class Grades        2.88                               15.22 ***
                   11>10                              11>10
Major Field        13.28 ***                           40.20 ***
                   Natural > Social                   Natural >
                   Science                            Social Science
                   Natural > others                   Natural >
                                                      others
Children             .73                                 .72
Ranking
Grades              3.67 *                              2.16
                   1/3>3/3
Father's            2.49 *                              4.58 ***
education          Univ. >
level              elementary
                   Univ. > high
                   school
Mother's             .88                                2.47 *
education
level
Father's job        1.63                                1.96
Mother's job        2.03 *                              1.64
Father's             .49                                 .22
existence
Mother's             .31                                2.24
existence

Subscale           interpretation                     evaluation
Variable

School Type        96.68 ***                           28.09 ***
                   general >                          general >
                   military                           military
Class Grades        2.04                                1.69
                   11>10                              11>10
Major Field        21.82                                7.91 ***
                   Natural >                          National >
                   Social Science                     undecided
                   Natural >
                   undecided
Children            1.50                                 .98
Ranking
Grades               .95                                3.69 *
Father's            7.89                                3.46 **
education          college >                          college >
level              elementary                         junior high
                   Univ. >
                   elementary
                   Univ. > high
                   school
Mother's            3.83 **                              .89
education          Univ. >                            college >
level              elementary                         elementary
                                                      Univ. >
                                                      elementary,
                                                      junior high
Father's job        1.68                                 .91
Mother's job        2.79 **                             2.35 *
                   Education >
                   Agriculture
Father's            2.81                                1.01
existence
Mother's             .01                                 .03
existence

Subscale           Total score
Variable

School Type       167.63 ***
                   general >
                   military
Class Grades        9.36 **
                   11>10
Major Field        53.02 ***
                   Natural >
                   Social Science
                   Natural >
                   others
Children            1.50
Ranking
Grades              3.01
Father's           11.75 ***
education          college >
level              elementary
                   junior high
                   Univ. >
                   elementary
                   Univ. > high
                   school
Mother's            5.85 ***
education
level
Father's job        3.58 **
                   Education >
                   Agriculture,
                   Business
Mother's job        5.25 ***
                   Education >
                   Agriculture,
                   Business and
                   others
Father's            1.17
existence
Mother's            1.25
existence

Table 3
Summar of Findings Between Creative Measures and Demographic Variables

Subscale                  Wilks' [lambda] /
Variable                  Hotelling's [T.sup.2]

School Type               Hotelling's [T.sup.2]=62.94
Class Grades              Hotelling's [T.sup.2]=41.96
Major Field               Wilks' [lambda] =.99
Birth Ranking             Wilks' [lambda] =.99
Grades                    Wilks' [lambda] =.99 *
Father's education        Wilks' [lambda] =.97
level
Mother's education        Wilks' [lambda] =.98
level
Father's job              Wilks' [lambda] =.97
Mother's job              Wilks' [lambda] =.98
Father's existence        Hotelling's [T.sup.2]=8.22
Mother's existence        Hotelling's [T.sup.2]=24.69

Subscale                  Fluency              Flexibility
Variable

School Type               1.77                 0.58
Class Grades               .90                 2.08
Major Field               1.91                 3.56 *
                                               natural
                                               science>
                                               undecided
Birth Ranking             1.15                 1.22
Grades                    2.00                 2.71
Father's education        2.12 *               1.53
level
Mother's education        1.69                 1.53
level
Father's job              1.54                 1.75
Mother's job              2.41 *               1.76
Father's existence         .07                  .47
Mother's existence        1.70                 0.82

Subscale                  Originality          Creativity total
Variable

School Type               4.66 *               2.88
                          military>
                          general
Class Grades              1.85                 1.65
Major Field               1.96                 2.36
Birth Ranking              .82                 1.10
Grades                    4.31 *               3.32 *
                          1/3>2/3              1/3>2/3
Father's education        2.49 *               2.29 *
level
Mother's education        2.12 *               2.04
level
Father's job              1.18                 1.42
Mother's job              2.17 *               2.38 *
Father's existence         .06                  .12
Mother's existence         .67                 1.17

Table 4
Summary of Relationship Between Creative, Critical measures and
Psychological Type

                     EI               SN               TF       JP

Fluency             4.45 * (E>I)     .71              .40      .88
Flexibility         5.71            5.80 * (N>S)     1.43      .35
Originality         4.87             .77              .00      .23
Creativity total    6.29           11.54 *            .20     2.10
Inference           9.19 ** (I>E)  13.91 *** (N>S)   2.72      .21
Recognition Of      5.09 * (I>E)     .03             0.36      .41
Assumptions
Deduction           2.52            8.62 ** (N>S)     .16      .09
Interpretation      4.94 * (I>E)   11.53 ** (N>S)     .66      .61
Evaluation          2.39            2.83             1.28      .89
Total score        13.77 *         23.32 ***         6.36     3.18

Table 5
Summary of Relationship Between Psychological Type/Thinking Styles
and Creative/Critical Thinking

                          EI                     SN

Fluency                  4.45 * (E>I)            .71
Flexibility              5.71 * (E>I)           5.80 * (N>S)
Originality              4.87 * (E>I)            .77
Creativity total         6.29                  11.54 *
Inference                9.19 ** (I>E)         13.91 *** (N>S)
Recognition Of           5.09 * (I>E)            .03
Assumptions
Deduction                2.52                   8.62 ** (N>S)
Interpretation           4.94 * (I>E)          11.53 ** (N>S)
Evaluation               2.39                   2.83
Critical Total score    13.77 *                23.32 ***
Leg                     15.96 *** (E>I)        40.35 *** (N>S)
Exe                       .96                  47.67 *** (S>N)
Jud                     40.02 *** (E>I)        35.67 *** (N>S)
Mon                      3.08                   1.94
Hie                     22.65 *** (E>I)          .05
Oli                     11.16 ** (E>I)           .00
Ana                     33.57 *** (E>I)         8.01 ** (N>S)
Glo                     17.99 *** (E>I)         4.94 * (N>S)
Loc                      2.18                    .00
Int                      2.96                   8.52 ** (N>S)
Ext                    129.22 *** (E>I))        9.46 ** (N>S)
Lib                     42.24 *** (E>I)        65.87 *** (N>S)
Con                      2.08                  69.04 *** (S>N)
Thinking styles        192.15 ***             163.31 ***

                          TF                      JP

Fluency                   .40                    .88
Flexibility              1.43                    .35
Originality               .00                    .23
Creativity total          .20                   2.10
Inference                2.72                    .21
Recognition Of           0.36                    .41
Assumptions
Deduction                 .16                    .09
Interpretation            .66                    .61
Evaluation               1.28                    .89
Critical Total score     6.36                   3.18
Leg                      5.37 * (T>F)           5.60 * (P>J)
Exe                      5.40 * (T>F)         133.03 *** (J>P)
Jud                      9.84 ** (T>F)           .03
Mon                     12.82 *** (T>F)        22.88 *** (J>P)
Hie                     43.41 *** (T>F)        69.55 *** (J>P)
Oli                      9.76 ** (F>T)          4.93 *
Ana                       .28                   1.41
Glo                       .37                    .02
Loc                     16.39 *** (T>F)        25.51 *** (J>P)
Int                     16.12 *** (T>F)         1.18
Ext                       .02                    .25
Lib                      5.33 * (T>F)          10.86 ** (P>J)
Con                       .01                 135.17 *** (J>P)
Thinking styles        105.17 ***             275.84 ***

References

Bailin, S. (1993). Problems in conceptualizing good thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 156-163.

Bleedorn, B. D. (1993). Toward an integration of creative and critical thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 10-21.

Brookfield, S. (1987) Developing critical thinkers. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, D.E., & Davis, C.L. (1988). Improving learning by combining critical thinking skills with psychological type. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: School of Systems and Logistics, Air Force Institute of Technology. (Eric No. ED 306 250)

Dressel, P., & Mayhew, L. (1954). General education: Exploration in evaluation. Final report of the study of evaluation in general education. Washington, DC, American Council on Education.

Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. B. Baron & R. J. Steinberg (Eds.) Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9-26) New York: Freeman.

Garrison, D.R. (1991). Critical thinking and adult education: A conceptual model for developing critical thinking in adult learners, International Journal for Lifelong Education, 10, 287-303.

Jacobson, C. M. (1993). Cognitive styles of creativity: Relations of scores on the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator among managers in the USA. Psychological Reports, 72, 1131-1138.

Jung, C.G. (1971) Psychological types. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Kim, J., & Michael, W. B. (1995). The relationship of creativity measures to school achievement and to preferred learning and thinking style in a sample of Korean high school students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(1), 60-74.

Kreber, C. (1998). The relationships between self-directed learning, critical thinking, and psychological type, and some implications for teaching in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 71-87.

Menssen, S. (1993). Critical thinking and the construction of knowledge. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 85-93.

Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching students to think critically. A guide for faculty in all disciplines. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. (3rd Ed.). Robnert Park, CA: The Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique. Sonoma State University.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988a) Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197-224.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988b). A three-facet model of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 125-147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R.J. (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Intelligence and Personality (pp. 169-187). New York, Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R.K. (1992). Thinking styles inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University.

Toren, K. (1993). Toward an integration of creative and critical thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 112-120.

Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (1980). Critical thinking appraisal manual. Educational Significance. Orlando, FL, Harcourt Jovanovich.

Wheatley, W. J., Anthony, W. J., & Maddix, E. N. (1991). Selecting and training strategic planners with imagination and creativity. Journal of Creativity, 25, 52-60.

Wu, J-J. (1998). The study on new version of creativity test. Six Year Project Report of Guidance by Ministry of Education.

Zhang, L. F. & Sachs, J. (1997). Assessing thinking styles in the theory of mental self-government: A Hong Kong validity study. Psychological Reports, 81, 915-928.

Zhang, L. F. (1999). Further cross-cultural validation of the theory of mental self-government. Journal of Psychology, 133, 165-181.

Zhang, L. F. (2000). Are thinking styles and personality types related? Educational Psychology, 20, 271-283.

Shu Ching Yang and Wen Chaun Lin, Graduate Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-Sen University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Shu Ching Yang, Graduate School of Education, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lien-hai Rd. Kaohsiung, Taiwan, R.O.C. 80424; Email: [e-mail]