PERGAMON Personality and Individual Differences 26 (1999) 129±140

The relation between learning styles, the Big Five

personality traits and achievement motivation in higher
education
Vittorio V. Busato a, *, Frans J. Prins b, Jan J. Elshout a, Christiaan Hamaker a
a
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Psychonomics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
b
University of Leiden, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Leiden, The Netherlands
Received 22 January 1998

Abstract

In his dissertation, Vermunt [Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in

het hoger onderwijs. (Learning styles and guidance of learning processes in higher education). Amsterdam/
Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger] postulated four di€erent learning styles: a meaning directed, a reproduction
directed, an application directed and an undirected style. Aim of this project is to investigate the relation
between these learning styles, the big ®ve personality traits and achievement motivation. Subjects were
about 900 university students. Extraversion correlated positively with the meaning directed, reproduction
directed and application directed learning style. Conscientiousness was associated positively with the
meaning, reproduction and application directed learning style, and negatively with the undirected
learning style. Openness to experience correlated positively with the meaning and application directed
learning style, and negatively with the undirected learning style. Besides, it was found that neuroticism
correlated positively with the undirected learning style and negatively with the meaning and
reproduction directed learning style. Agreeableness was associated positively with the reproduction and
application directed learning style. Positive correlations were found for achievement motivation with the
meaning, reproduction and the application directed learning style, and a negative one with the
undirected learning style. Regression analyses con®rmed these patterns. Although there was some
systematic overlap for the four learning styles with personality variables and achievement motivation,
the conclusion is that it certainly makes sense to measure these three groups of variables separately in
educational settings. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Learning style; Learning strategies; Personality; The Big Five personality traits; Achievement motivation;
Higher education

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-20-525-6724; Fax: +31-20-639-1656; e-mail: pn_busato@macmail.psy.uva.nl

S0191-8869/98/$19.00 # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 1 9 1 - 8 8 6 9 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 1 2 - 3
130 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

1. Introduction

In 1992 the Dutch psychologist Jan Vermunt published a dissertation study about the ways
university students learn, that received a lot of attention in the Dutch educational community
(e.g. Schouwenburg and Groenewoud, 1995; Kaldeway et al., 1996; Prins et al., 1996, 1998;
Kallenberg and van den Brink, 1997; Busato et al., 1998).
Vermunt considers the way a student learns as a learning style. In literature, learning styles
are very often considered as a kind of general strategy, for example characterized as surface-
level or deep-level processing (Marton and SaljoÈ, 1976), a holistic vs a serialistic style (Pask,
1976), deep processing, elaborative processing, fact retention and methodical study (Schmeck,
1983). But learning styles are also described as types of learning like, for example, concrete
experience, re¯ective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation,
resulting in four learning styles: divergers, accommodators, convergers and assimilators (Kolb,
1984), as orientations like achieving, meaning, reproducing and nonacademic (Entwistle, 1988),
or as approaches to learning like surface, deep and achieving (Biggs, 1993). (See Riding and
Cheema (1991), Rayner and Riding (1997) and Sadler-Smith (1997) for more thorough
reviews.)
Elaborating on these theories, Vermunt (1992, 1996, 1998) describes the concept of a
learning style as consisting of four aspects: processing strategies, regulation strategies, mental
models of learning and learning orientations. Processing strategies are thinking activities
students use to process information in order to obtain certain learning results like, for example,
knowing the most important points in the study material. (Metacognitive) regulation strategies
are activities students use to monitor, to plan and to control the processing strategies and their
own learning processes. Mental models of learning are conceptions and misconceptions students
have about learning processes. Learning orientations are personal aims, intentions, expectations,
doubts, etcetera, students may experience during their educational career.
Vermunt (1992) distinguishes four di€erent learning styles: an undirected, a reproduction
directed, an application directed and a meaning directed learning style. Students characterized
by an undirected learning style have, for example, problems to process the material for study,
experience diculties with the amount of study material and with discriminating what is
important and what is not. Students with a reproduction directed learning style are
characterized by study behaviour directed mainly at reproducing what is learnt at
examinations, in order to pass these successfully. Students with an application directed learning
style try to employ what they learn to actual, real-world settings. Finally, students with a
meaning directed learning style wish to ®nd out what is meant exactly in their study material,
interrelate what they have learned and try in a critical sense to develop their own view.
To measure these learning styles, Vermunt (1992) developed the inventory of learning styles
(ILS), a diagnostic instrument intended to measure aspects of study method, study motives and
mental models about studying in higher education (see for the English version Vermunt
(1994)). With this questionnaire, it is possible to express each of the four styles in a single
score. Students, therefore, show characteristics of each style but, as Vermunt assumes, one style
dominates. With a di€erent sample of university students, Busato et al. (1995) and
Schouwenburg (1996) replicated the ®ndings of Vermunt (1992) with remarkable exactness.
 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140 131

Not very much is known yet about the relation between learning styles, personality and
achievement motivation (Miller, 1991; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996; Ackerman and
Heggestad, 1997). For the ILS, no published studies exist which deal explicitly with the relation
between learning style and personality, or with the relation between learning style and
achievement motivation. In this study we investigate the relations of the four learning styles, as
measured by the ILS, with the big ®ve personality traits and achievement motivation.
For a relatively young science like psychology, there is nowadays a more or less unique
consensus about the description of personality based on ®ve universal traits (e.g. Elshout and
Akkerman, 1973, 1975; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Hofstee and de Raad, 1991; Costa and
McCrae, 1992, 1995; Furnham, 1996a; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996), although there are,
of course, also theorists who have doubts on the validity of this so called ®ve factor approach
(e.g. Eysenck, 1991, 1992; Zuckerman, 1992; Block, 1995). These ®ve personality factors are
usually named extraversion, agreeableness (also referred to as sociability), conscientiousness,
neuroticism and openness to Experience (also referred to as intellect or culture).
A few studies exist which deal explicitly with the relation between learning style and
personality. Furnham (1992), for example, investigated the relation between three learning style
instruments, the Honey and Mumford learning style questionnaire (LSQ), the Whetten and
Cameron cognitive style instrument (CST), the Kolb learning style inventory (LSI) and the
personality traits extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and lie (dissimulation), measured by
the Eysenck personality questionnaire (EPQ). For the LSQ, Furnham found positive
correlations between extraversion and the learning styles ``activist'' and ``pragmatist''.
Extraversion correlated negatively with the learning style ``re¯ector''. For the CST, Furnham
reported that the more active cognitive style correlated positively with extraversion, while
extraversion correlated negatively with the more re¯ective cognitive style. For the LSI,
Furnham found a positive correlation between extraversion and the learning styles ``converger''
and ``accomodator''. Neuroticism correlated negatively with the learning styles ``assimilator''
and ``accomodator''. Psychoticism correlated positively with the learning style ``diverger''. (For
a description of the above terms, we refer to Furnham (1992).) Jackson and Lawty-Jones
(1996) replicated the correlations reported by Furnham (1992), suggesting the same substantial
overlap between personality and learning style. Jackson and Lawty-Jones agree with Furnham
there is no need to measure both personality and learning style. In another investigation,
Furnham (1996b) studied the relation between the big ®ve inventory NEO-PI, developed by
Costa and McCrae, and the learning style questionnaire. He reported modest correlations
between these instruments, similar though overall lower than the correlations between the
Eysenck personality questionnaire and the LSQ (Furnham, 1992), suggesting less overlap
between these two measures. The activist learning style correlated with agreeableness,
conscientiousness and extraversion. Neuroticism did not correlate systematically with any of
the learning styles. So, considering these publications, some overlap might also be expected for
the ILS and the big ®ve personality factors.
It is well known that achievement motivation and the related concepts positive or negative
fear of failure are important variables in learning and education (e.g. Atkinson and Feather,
1964; Dweck, 1984; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996; de Raad and Schouwenburg, 1996). As far as
we are aware, though, no studies are published to date which systematically examine the
132 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

relation between learning style, achievement motivation and fear of failure. So, as a ®rst
attempt and for explorative purposes, we will study this relation for the ILS.
The aim of this project is as follows. In a correlational design we want to investigate the
relation between learning style, personality and achievement motivation. Considering the
similarities in description between the meaning-directed learning style and the re¯ector (LSQ)
and the more re¯ective cognitive style (CST), one might expect this learning style to correlate
negatively with extraversion. For the application-directed learning style, considering the
similarities with the pragmatist (LSQ), the more active cognitive style (CST) and the converger
and assimilator (both LSI), one might expect a positive relation with extraversion (see again
Furnham, 1992). According to de Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), the big ®ve factors
extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience are educationally relevant. So, we
will analyse how these factors relate to the four learning styles as proposed by Vermunt (1992).
Exploratively, we expect a negative relation between the undirected learning style and
conscientiousness and a positive one with neuroticism. Also exploratively, we expect fear of
failure negative to correlate positively with the undirected learning style and fear of failure
positive to correlate negatively with this learning style. We expect achievement motivation and
fear of failure positive to correlate with the meaning directed learning style.

2. Method

2.1. Sample

Participants were ®rst-year psychology students at the University of Amsterdam. These

students participated obligatorily in the so-called ``test-week'', which is held every year for
freshmen psychology students at this university. During this ``test-week'', a great variety of
psychological tests are administered, including the tests measuring the variables under
consideration. For this research project, data on learning styles were available from psychology
students who started their study in 1993, in 1994 and in 1995. The data of 1994 and 1995 were
gathered in the respective ``test-week'', the data of 1993 were gathered in the Busato et al.
(1995) study. Altogether, from 1072 students' data on learning styles were known. Data on the
big ®ve personality factors and achievement motivation were available from psychology
students who started their study in 1992, 1993, 1994 and in 1995, all gathered in the respective
``test-weeks''. Altogether, data on personality and achievement motivation of 1701 students
were known.

2.2. Learning style

The learning styles were measured by the ILS (Vermunt, 1994). This questionnaire consists
of 20 subscales, containing 120 statements, measuring di€erent aspects of processing strategies,
regulation strategies, mental models of learning and learning orientations. Of each statement, a
student has to indicate on a ®ve point scale to what extent the statement is descriptive of his or
her study behaviour. Depending on the formulation of the item, answers can range from 1 ``I
do this seldom or never'' to 5 ``I do this almost always'', or from 1 ``disagree entirely'' to 5
 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140 133

``agree entirely''. An example of a processing strategy statement, belonging to the subscale

``relating and structuring'' is: ``I try to combine the subjects that are dealt with separately in a
course into one whole''. An example of a regulation strategy statement, belonging to the
subscale ``self-regulation of learning processes and results'' is: ``to test my learning progress, I
try to answer questions about the subject matter which I make up myself''. An example of a
learning orientations statement, belonging to the scale ``certi®cate directed'' is: ``the main goal I
pursue in my studies is to pass exams''. An example of a mental models of learning statement,
belonging to the scale ``stimulating education'' is: ``the teacher should motivate and encourage
me''. Vermunt (1992) reported good internal consistencies for the di€erent scales of the ILS,
with alpha coecients varying in between 0.68 and 0.93.
Principal components analyses of the twenty subscales of the ILS by Vermunt (1992) and by
Busato et al. (1995) resulted in identical factor structures, with four factors. These factors
correspond to Vermunt's four learning styles. Fig. 1 lists the ILS-subscales loading on each of
the four learning style factors, as well as the subscales which are not speci®c for one learning
style.

2.3. Personality

The ``vijf persoonlijkheids-factoren test, 5PFT'', developed by Elshout and Akkerman (1975),
is the ®rst published personality questionnaire ever, speci®cally designed to measure the
personality factors now known as the big ®ve, that were ®rst discovered by Tupes and Christal
(1992). Within the Dutch psychological community, it has been in successful use ever since (see
for example Evers et al., 1992). The 5PFT consists of 70 items, 14 for each of the factors
extraversion, sociability (or agreeableness), conscientiousness, neuroticism and culture (or
openness to experience). Each item consists of a short description, e.g. ``cultured, reads a lot
and has widely reaching intellectual interests''. The subject has to indicate on a seven-point
scale how well this description ®ts him or her. It's a reliable instrument, with alpha coecients
found in the ``test-week'' usually above 0.80.

2.4. Achievement motivation

The ``prestatie±motivatie±test, PMT'', developed by Hermans (1976), measures achievement

motivation, fear of failure positive and fear of failure negative. The items contributing to the
positive score refer to feelings of thrill when challenged, while the items referring to the
negative score deal with habitual feelings of worry, unpleasant tension and lack of con®dence
about future performance. These two scores correlate negatively, so they can be regarded as
di€erent measures for the same construct. The PMT is just like the 5PFT (Elshout and
Akkerman, 1975) one of the standard and most often used psychological tests in the
Netherlands (see again Evers et al., 1992). The PMT consists of 89 items, 47 for achievement
motivation, 26 for fear of failure negative and 16 for fear of failure positive. On a dichotomous
scale, the subject has to indicate how well the description ®ts him or her (e.g. ``most people feel
tension when taking an intelligence-test. I think this tension will rather improve/worsen my
performance on such a test''). It's a reliable instrument, with alpha coecients found in the
``test-week'' usually above 0.80.
134 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

Fig. 1. The ILS-subscales loading on Vermunts four learning styles and the subscales not speci®c for one learning
style.

3. Results

In Table 1, the relevant statistics are given for the scores on learning styles, the big ®ve
personality factors and the achievement motivation variables.
Table 2 shows modest correlations between learning styles and the big ®ve personality
factors, as well as modest correlations between learning styles and the achievement motivation
variables.
The meaning directed learning style correlated low but positively with extraversion, while
we predicted a negative relation. This learning style also correlated positively with
conscientiousness and surprisingly high with openness to experience. A negative relation was
found between the meaning directed learning style and neuroticism. The meaning directed
 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140 135

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, minimum, maximum, alpha coecients and sample sizes

Variables M S.D. Min Max a N

Meaning directed 111.06 19.43 36 180 0.91 1010

Reproduction directed 45.92 8.79 16 80 0.78 1051
Undirected 69.66 15.06 27 135 0.88 1025
Application directed 40.18 6.02 11 55 0.76 1051
Extraversion 62.67 11.1 14 98 0.84 1701
Agreeableness 69.08 9.43 14 98 0.85 1701
Conscientiousness 58.54 10.2 14 98 0.80 1701
Neuroticism 48.17 12.25 14 98 0.89 1701
Openness to experience 64.92 10.32 14 98 0.85 1701
Achievement motivation 16.52 6.83 0 47 0.83 1697
Fear of failure negative 11.28 5.37 0 26 0.88 1682
Fear of failure positive 10.05 4.1 0 16 0.89 1671

Deviant sample sizes because of missing values.

learning style indeed correlated with achievement motivation and negatively with fear of failure
negative. However, no positive relation was found with fear of failure positive.
Higher scores on the reproduction-directed learning style were associated with higher
scores on extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and achievement motivation. The
reproduction learning style correlated negatively with neuroticism.
The undirected learning style correlated, as expected, positively with neuroticism and fear of
failure negative and negatively with conscientiousness. Also negative relations with openness to
experience, fear of failure positive and achievement motivation were found.
The application-directed learning style correlated, as predicted, with extraversion. Higher
scores on this learning style were also associated with higher scores on conscientiousness,
agreeableness, openness to experience and achievement motivation.

Table 2
Correlations between learning styles, personality traits and achievement motivation

Variables Meaning directed Reproduction directed Undirected Application directed

Extraversion 0.08* (N = 870) 0.13*** (N = 909) 0.03 (N = 886) 0.16*** (N = 910)

Agreeableness 0.01 (N = 870) 0.21*** (N = 909) 0.06 (N = 886) 0.18*** (N = 910)
Conscientiousness 0.07* (N = 870) 0.23*** (N = 909) ÿ 0.09** (N = 886) 0.15*** (N = 910)
Neuroticism ÿ 0.10** (N = 870) ÿ0.11** (N = 909) 0.21*** (N = 886) ÿ 0.02 (N = 910)
Openness to experience 0.35*** (N = 870) ÿ0.06 (N = 909) ÿ 0.17*** (N = 886) 0.09** (N = 910)
Fear of failure negative ÿ 0.11** (N = 869) 0.03 (N = 908) 0.17*** (N = 887) 0.06 (N = 908)
Fear of failure positive 0.05 (N = 869) 0.01 (N = 908) ÿ 0.10** (N = 886) 0.01 (N = 909)
Achievement motivation 0.20*** (N = 874) 0.21*** (N = 914) ÿ 0.11** (N = 891) 0.15*** (N = 914)

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Deviant sample sizes because of missing values.
136 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

Table 3
Beta-weights of the big ®ve personality traits, achievement motivation, fear of failure positive and fear of failure
negative as predictors of the four learning styles

Variables Meaning directed Reproduction directed Undirected Application directed

Extraversion 0.11** 0.10**

Agreeableness 0.16*** 0.09* 0.14***
Conscientiousness 0.11**
Neuroticism 0.18***
Openness to experience 0.33*** ÿ 0.09** ÿ0.12*** 0.08**
Achievement motivation 0.15*** 0.15*** ÿ0.11** 0.10**
Fear of failure negative 0.09* 0.10**
Fear of failure positive
R 0.38 0.31 0.31 0.26
R2 0.15 0.10 0.09 0.07
F 73.11 23.58 15.08 13.36
df (2,854) (4,889) (6,867) (5,889)

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Also stepwise regression analyses have been carried out for each learning style separately,
with the big ®ve personality traits and the achievement motivation variables as predictors. The
results are displayed in Table 3.
Students with a meaning directed learning style may be characterized as also having more
openness to experience and more achievement motivation. Students with a reproduction
directed learning style may be characterized as also having more agreeableness, achievement
motivation and conscientiousness and less openness to experience. Students with an undirected
learning style may be characterized as also having more neuroticism, extraversion,
agreeableness and fear of failure and less openness to experience and achievement motivation.
Students with an application-directed learning style, ®nally, may be characterised as also
having more agreeableness, extraversion, achievement motivation, fear of failure negative and
openness to experience. However, the amount of explained variance in learning style based on
the predictors is rather small.

4. Discussion

The aim of this project was to investigate the relation between learning style, personality and
achievement motivation. According to de Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), especially the big
®ve factors extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience are educationally
relevant. The correlations found in this project might be seen as a con®rmation of this notion.
Extraversion correlated positively with the meaning directed, the reproduction directed and the
application directed learning style. Conscientiousness was associated positively with the
meaning directed, reproduction directed and application directed learning style, and negatively
with the undirected learning style. Openness to experience correlated positively with the
 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140 137

meaning directed and the application directed learning style and negatively with the undirected
learning style. Besides, it was found that neuroticism correlated positively with the undirected
learning style and negatively with the meaning directed and reproduction directed learning
style. Agreeableness was associated positively with the reproduction directed and application
directed learning style.
The magnitude of these correlations correspond to those between learning style and the big
®ve personality traits reported by Furnham (1996b). However, Furnham (1992) and Jackson
and Lawty-Jones (1996) reported considerable higher correlations between personality (as
measured by the Eysenck personality questionnaire) and learning style, and suggested there was
no explicit need to measure both. According to Furnham (1996b, p. 296), ``if well-established
and theoretically sound personality variables related closely and coherently to learning style or
interpersonal behaviour (accounting for between 10 and 25% of the variance), some may argue
that it may simply be more valuable to measure only the former. Parsimony both of theory
and measurement would require fewer, rather than more, overlapping measurement
instruments''. Although there is also some systematic overlap for the ILS with personality
variables, this is however not so large that it would make no sense to measure only personality.
The same might be concluded for learning style and the achievement motivation variables. Low
positive correlations were found for achievement motivation with the meaning directed,
reproduction directed and the application directed learning style, and a negative one with the
undirected learning style. Fear of failure negative was associated negatively with the meaning
directed learning style and positively with the undirected learning style. Fear of failure positive
was associated negatively with the undirected learning style. Further inspection of the content
of the three questionnaires does not reveal a striking semantic overlap. So, the ILS seems to
have a surplus value in educational settings, although there still remains a lot of variance to be
explained.
The highest, as well as unpredicted, correlation was between the meaning directed learning
style and openness to experience. According to McCrae and Costa (1997) openness to
experience may be characterized in terms of the structure of consciousness. Open individuals
have access to more thoughts, feelings, impulses in awareness and are able to maintain many
of these simultaneously. ``Openness involves motivation, needs for variety, cognition, sentience
and understanding'' (McCrae and Costa, 1997, p. 839). Considered in this way, the positive
association between the meaning directed learning style and achievement motivation is very
understandable. Apparently, the meaning directed learning style shares some important
characteristics with openness to experience and achievement motivation.
The results of this research might have some diagnostic implications for students
characterized by an undirected learning style, because a clearer picture of these students is
beginning to emerge. Earlier research showed these students to be the most ``academically at
risk'', i.e. this learning style was found to be a negative predictor for academic success (Busato
et al., 1995; Schouwenburg, 1996; Busato et al., 1998). Prins et al. 1998 suggested that students
with this learning style experience many feelings of uncertainty about their own learning
processes. Apparently, these students are also characterized by more neuroticism and a
negative fear of failure, as well as less conscientiousness and openness to experience and less
positive fear of failure and achievement motivation. According to Ackerman and Heggestad
(1997), it seems reasonable to propose that development of personality-interest-intelligence
138 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

traits proceeds along mutually causal lines. ``That is, abilities, interests, and personality develop
in tandem, such that ability level and personality dispositions determine the probability of
success in a particular task domain, and interests determine the motivation to attempt the task.
Thus, subsequent to successful attempts at task performance, interest in the task domain may
increase. Conversely, unsuccessful attempts at task performance may result in a decrement in
interest for that domain'' (Ackerman and Heggestad, 1997, p. 239). The development of the
undirected learning style is perhaps fostered in a comparable way. Unsuccessful studying may
result in more neurotic feelings and an increasing sense of failure, which results in a less
conscientious working method, less openness for studying and less achievement motivation in
general. It might be a challenging task for counsellors to develop training programmes to
change that pattern, although it is known that personality is rather stable in time (e.g. Costa
and McCrae, 1986) and that it is not easy to obtain long lasting e€ects with students who are
at academic risk (e.g. Kulik et al., 1983; Kaldeway and Korthagen, 1994; Purdie and Hattie,
1995; Busato and Prins, 1997).
Geisler-Brenstein et al. (1996, p. 89) wrote: ``Yet, we feel that it is possible to create a
taxonomy of person characteristics at a higher level of abstraction which does contribute to an
understanding of learner motivations and behaviours''. The present research, like the work of
Furnham (1992, 1996b) and Jackson and Lawty-Jones (1996), can be seen as a contribution to
such a further understanding. It will be interesting now to develop a structural model, as a
next contribution, in which academic success at the end of the ®rst study-year is predicted by
learning style, the big ®ve personality factors, intellectual ability and achievement motivation
(Busato et al., in preparation). For example, Minnaert and Janssen (1992) developed such a
model, in which study success and progress in higher education was predicted by cognitive and
motivational variables. Their model, which imitated, by means of a content valid study-skill
test, the study situation of a ®rst year student in miniature, explained ®fty-one percent of the
variance. It will be interesting to test our proposed model in an ecologically valid situation.

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological
Bulletin, 121(2), 219±245.
Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (Eds.) (1964). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley.
Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students' learning processes really measure?A theoretical review and clari®cation. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 3±19.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the ®ve-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187±215.
Busato, V. V., & Prins, F. J. (1997). Leerstijlverandering door de studievaardigheidscursus Begeleid Studeren `93; de inventaris
leerstijlen diagnostisch gebruikt (Change in learning style by the studyskill course ``Guided Studying `93''). In A. J. Kallenberg &
W. A. van den Brink (Eds.) Succesvol studeren (pp. 36±48). Proceedings Landelijke Dag Studievaardigheden. Rotterdam:
Copynomie.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Hamaker, C., & Visser, K. H. (1995). Leerstijlenonderzoek gerepliceerd; de samenhang tussen intelligentie
en leerstijlen. [Research on learning styles replicated; the relation between intelligence and learning styles]. Tijdschrift voor
Onderwijsresearch, 20(4), 332±340.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. 1998. Learning styles: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study in higher
education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 427±441.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (in preparation). Learning style, personality, achievement motivation,
intellectual ability and academic success in higher education: a structural model.
 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140 139

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1986). Personality stability and its implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review,
6, 407±423.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways ®ve factors are basic. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13, 861±865.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Solid grounds in the wetlands of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 216±220.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the ®ve-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417±440.
Dweck, C. S. (1984). Motivational processes a€ecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040±1048.
Elshout, J. J., & Akkerman, A. E. (1973). Een Nederlandse test voor vijf persoonlijkheidsfactoren, de 5PFT (A Dutch test for ®ve
personality traits, the 5PFT). In P. J. D. Drenth, P. J. Willems & Ch. J. de Wol€, Arbeids- en organisatiepsychologie (p. 49±65).
Deventer: Kluwer.
Elshout, J. J., & Akkerman, A. E. (1975). Vijf persoonlijkheids-faktoren test 5PFT. Nijmegen: Berkhout Nijmegen.
Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students' approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning
styles (pp. 21±51). New York: Plenum Press.
Evers, A., van Vliet-Mulder, J. C., & ter Laak, J. (1992). Documentatie van tests en testresearch in Nederland (Documentation of tests
and research on tests in The Netherlands). Assen: Van Grocum and Comp.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Di€erences,
12, 773±790.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four ways ®ve factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13, 667±673.
Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: a study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13(4), 429±438.
Furnham, A. (1996a). The big ®ve vs the big four: the relationship between the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) and NEO-PI ®ve
factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 21(2), 303±307.
Furnham, A. (1996b). The FIRO-B, the learning style questionnaire and the ®ve-factor model. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 11(2), 285±299.
Geisler-Brenstein, E., Schmeck, R. R., & Hetherington, J. (1996). An individual di€erence perspective on student diversity. Higher
Education, 31, 73±96.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ``description of personality'': the big-®ve factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216±1229.
Hermans, H. (1976). PMT prestatie motivatie test, handleiding. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Hofstee, W. K. B., & de Raad, B. (1991). Persoonlijkheidsstructuur: de AB5C-taxonomie van Nederlandse eigenschapstermen.
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 46, 262±274.
Jackson, C., & Lawty-Jones, M. (1996). Explaining the overlap between personality and learning style. Personality and Individual
Di€erences, 20(3), 293±300.
Kaldeway, J., Haenen, J., Wils, S., & Westho€, G. (1996). Leren leren in didactisch perspectief (Learning to learn in a didactic
perspective). Proceedings Landelijke Dag Studievaardigheden. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof.
Kaldeway, J., & Korthagen, F. A. J. (1994). Training in studeren aan het hoger onderwijs: doelen en e€ecten (Training in studying in
higher education: aims and e€ects). Pedagogische StudieÈn, 71, 94±107.
Kallenberg, A. J. and van den Brink, W. A. (1997). Succesvol studeren (Succesful studying). Proceedings Landelijke Dag
Studievaardigheden. Rotterdam: Copynomie.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cli€s, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Shwalb, B. J. (1983). College programs for high-risk and disadvantaged students: a meta-analysis of
®ndings. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 397±414.
Marton, F., & SaljoÈ, R. (1976). On qualitative di€erences in learning. I. Outcomes and processes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 46, 4±11.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson & S. R.
Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825±847). San Diego: Academic Press.
Miller, A. (1991). Personality types, learning styles and educational goals. Educational Psychology, 11(3,4), 217±238.
Minnaert, A., & Janssen, P. J. (1992). Success and progress in higher education: a structural model of studying. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 62, 184±192.
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128±148.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: theory, research and applications. Englewood Cli€s, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Prins, F. J., Busato, V. V., Hamaker, C., & Visser, K. H. (1996). Een bijdrage tot validatie van het (meta)cognitieve deel van de
inventaris leerstijlen. [A contribution towards validation of the (meta)cognitive part of the inventory of learning styles].
Pedagogische StudieÈn, 73(2), 108±122.
Prins, F. J., Busato, V. V., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. 1998. Een nieuwe bijdrage tot validatie van het (meta)cognitieve deel van de
inventaris leerstijlen. [A new contribution towards validation of the (meta)cognitive part of the inventory of learning styles].
Pedagogische StudieÈn, 75, 73±93.
Purdie, N. M., & Hattie, J. A. (1995). The e€ect of motivation training on approaches to learning and self-concept. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 65, 227±235.
140 V.V. Busato et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 129±140

de Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: a review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303±
336.
Rayner, S., & Riding, R. (1997). Towards a categorisation of cognitive styles and learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 5±27.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: an overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193±215.
Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). ``Learning style'': frameworks and instruments. Educational Psychology, 17(1/2), 51±63.
Schmeck, R. R. (1983). Learning styles of college students. In R. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck (Eds.), Individual di€erences in cognition, 1
(pp. 233±279). New York: Academic Press.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Een onderzoek naar leerstijlen. (An investigation into learning styles). Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch,
2, 151±161.
Schouwenburg, H. C., & Groenewoud, J. T. (Eds.) (1995), Studievaardigheid en leerstijlen (Study skill and learning styles.) Proceedings
Landelijke Dag Studievaardigheden. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225±251
(Original work published in 1961).
Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1992). Leerstijlen en sturen van leerprocessen in het hoger onderwijs. (Learning styles and guidance of learning
processes in higher education). Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Vermunt, J. D. H. M. (1994). Inventory of learning styles in higher education; scoring key for the inventory of learning styles in higher
education. Tilburg: Tilburg University, Department of Educational Psychology.
Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and a€ective aspects of learning styles and strategies: a phenomenographic analysis.
Higher Education, 31, 25±50.
Vermunt, J. D. 1998. The regulation of constructive learning processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149±171.
Zuckerman, M. (1992). What is a basic factor and which factors are basic?. Personality and Individual Di€erences, 13, 675±681.