Learning and Individual Differences 23 (2013) 267–271

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Thinking styles in implicit and explicit learning

Qiuzhi Xie a, b,⁎, 1, Xiangping Gao a, Ronnel B. King b, c
a
Department of Psychology, Shanghai Normal University, No. 100 Guilin Road, Shanghai, PR China
b
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
c
Department of Special Education and Counselling, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigated whether individual differences in thinking styles influence explicit and implicit learn-
Received 18 March 2012 ing. Eighty-seven university students in China participated in this study. Results indicated that performance
Received in revised form 23 September 2012 in the explicit learning condition was positively associated with Type I thinking styles (i.e. legislative and lib-
Accepted 18 October 2012
eral styles) and the internal style and negatively associated with a Type II thinking style (i.e. conservative
style) and the external style. There was no significant relationship between thinking styles and performance
Keywords:
Implicit learning
in the implicit learning condition. Taken together, these findings suggest that implicit and explicit learning
Explicit learning are distinct, each influenced by different individual difference variables. It also provides support to the
Thinking styles value-laden nature of styles, giving further evidence to the adaptiveness of Type I over Type II styles.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction & Cleeremans, 2001; Gebauer & Mackintosh, 2007; Mathews et al.,
1989).
1.1. Implicit learning

Reber (1967) categorized learning mechanisms into explicit and
implicit learning. Explicit learning refers to learning that involves
consciousness and effort. Implicit learning, on the other hand, is
largely independent of conscious awareness of either the learning
process or the learning products. Experimental tasks have been
designed to study implicit learning, the three most popular ones
being artificial grammar learning (Reber, 1976), sequence learning
(Lewicki, Czyzewska, & Hoffman, 1987), and process control (Berry
& Broadbent, 1988).
With regard to research on implicit learning, it is important to note
that implicit learning is distinct from explicit learning. The dissociation
between explicit and implicit learning has been supported by differ-
ences in verbal reports: participants can report explicitly acquired
knowledge, but fail to report implicitly acquired knowledge (e.g. Berry
& Broadbent, 1984; Cleeremans & McClelland, 1991). Several scholars
have criticized such evidence as weak, arguing that verbal reports may
not be sensitive enough to detect implicit learning (Dulany, Carlson, &
Dewey, 1985; Shanks & St. John, 1994). The dissociation between
these two learning modes, however, was also supported by studies
that documented differences in behavioral outcomes (e.g. Destrebecqz
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Tel.: +852 66876774; fax: +852 25471924.
E-mail address: qiuzhi-xie@hku.hk (Q. Xie).
1
Qiuzhi Xie conducted this study at Department of Psychology, Shanghai Normal
University.
1.2. Individual differences in implicit learning and explicit learning
Reber and Allen (2000) reviewed a large body of work on implicit
learning and concluded that individual differences in implicit learning
do exist. They also raised the question as to whether inter-individual
variation in implicit learning is distinct from that found in explicit
learning. From an evolutionary perspective, Reber and Allen (2000)
hypothesized that unlike explicit learning, implicit learning is inde-
pendent of psychometric intelligence.
Several studies have examined whether intelligence is related to im-
plicit and explicit learning. In general, it was found that intelligence was
positively related to performance on explicit learning tasks (e.g. Gebauer
& Mackintosh, 2007; Kaufman et al., 2010). However, the findings re-
garding the association between intelligence and performance on im-
plicit learning tasks were rather inconsistent. Some studies reported a
non-significant correlation between the two variables (e.g. Gebauer &
Mackintosh, 2007; Reber, Walkenfeld, & Hernstadt, 1991), while other
studies reported a significant relationship (e.g. Danner, Hagemann,
Schankin, Hager, & Funke, 2011). Kaufman et al. (2010) found that per-
formance on the implicit learning task was associated with some intelli-
gence dimensions (i.e. verbal reasoning), while being independent of
some other dimensions (i.e. perceptual reasoning and mental rotation
ability). Nevertheless, Kaufman et al. (2010) concluded that the relation-
ship between intelligence and performance was stronger for explicit
learning tasks and weaker for implicit learning tasks. The relationship
between intelligence and implicit learning is still equivocal; however,
based on previous research outlined above, it is possible that even if

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.014
268 Q. Xie et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 23 (2013) 267–271
there is a relationship between the two variables, the relationship would
be rather weak.
Several studies also examined the relationship between performance
on implicit learning tasks and basic cognitive functions. For instance, it
was found that implicit learning was related to processing speed, but
was independent of working memory capacity (e.g. Kaufman et al.,
2010). Rathus, Reber, Manza, and Kushner (1994) investigated the rela-
tionship of affective factors to both implicit and explicit cognitive pro-
cesses and found that: (1) anxiety interfered with explicit memory but
not implicitly acquired knowledge and (2) depressive symptoms were
related to neither explicit memory nor implicit learning. Several studies
also investigated the impact of personality on implicit learning. It has
been argued that implicit learning and intuition are closely associated
(e.g. Lieberman, 2000). Woolhouse and Bayne's (2000) study showed
that when people were unaware of the underlying rules, those who pre-
ferred intuition (seeking possibility and initiation) outperformed those
who preferred sensing (seeking reality and convention) in an implicit
learning task. Kaufman et al. (2010) reported the associations of two
lower facets of Openness to Experience – Intellect and Openness –
with performance on an implicit learning task. Intellect pertains to
quickness, ingenuity, and ideas, whereas Openness pertains to aes-
thetics, imagination, and fantasy. It was found that participants' perfor-
mance on the implicit learning task was related to Openness, but not
to Intellect. Kaufman et al. (2010) also claimed that implicit learning
and impulsivity share a common characteristic, in the sense that both
entail automatic processes. They found that the lack of premeditation
(one of the dimensions of impulsivity) was positively related to perfor-
mance on the implicit learning task. Pretz, Totz, and Kaufman (2010)
found that the rational cognitive style, rather than the experiential
one, predicted better performance on implicit learning tasks. In addition,
Kassin and Reber's (1979) study showed that performance in the implic-
it learning condition was positively related to locus of control: those
having an internal locus of control outperformed those with an external
locus of control on an implicit artificial grammar learning task.
To date, there is still a dearth of research about individual differ-
ences in implicit learning. In addition, extant studies are plagued by
a methodological problem. Most studies, except for two (Gebauer &
Mackintosh, 2007; Maybery, Taylor, & O'Brien-Malone, 1995), used
different tasks to measure performance under the implicit learning
condition and the explicit learning condition. Therefore, it is possible
that their different relationships to individual differences factors
might have been due to task differences (Gebauer & Mackintosh,
2007; Reber & Allen, 2000). This study addresses this weakness by
using the same task for both learning conditions.
1.3. Thinking styles
Sternberg's (1997) theory of thinking styles, also known as the
theory of mental self-government, is one of the most recent and influ-
ential theories on styles (Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). According to
Sternberg (1997), thinking styles refer to mental tendencies to ap-
proach tasks in a certain manner. Sternberg (1997) used societal or-
ganization as a metaphor for understanding thinking styles. He
proposed five dimensions of thinking styles: function (legislative, ex-
ecutive, and judicial styles), form (monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic,
and anarchic styles), level (global and local styles), scope (internal
and external styles), and leaning (liberal and conservative styles). De-
scriptions for each of these styles can be found in Appendix A.
Insomuch as the 13 thinking styles are subsumed into five dimen-
sions, the theory can furnish a general profile of styles, instead of
just relying on one or two style categories to describe an individual
(Sternberg, 1997).
Zhang and Sternberg (2005) categorized the 13 thinking styles
into three types. Thinking styles (i.e. legislative, judicial, hierarchical,
global, and liberal styles) pertinent to creativity and cognitive com-
plexity are classified as Type I. Thinking styles (i.e. executive,
monarchic, local, and conservative styles) which are related to a pref-
erence for norms and cognitive simplicity are categorized as Type II.
Type I thinking styles are regarded as more adaptive and are related
to some positive attributes such as higher cognitive-developmental
level and the use of a deep learning approach. Type II styles are
considered to be less adaptive and are related to lower cognitive-
developmental level and the use of a surface learning approach
(e.g. Zhang & Sternberg, 2005). The other four styles (i.e. oligarchic,
anarchic, internal, and external styles) are largely reckoned as value-
differentiated and, thus far, no clear relationship has been found be-
tween them and important educational outcomes. These styles are
labeled as Type III styles. They may express the characteristics of
either Type I or II styles, depending on situational contingencies.
The relationship between thinking styles and academic achieve-
ment has been widely investigated in Western and Eastern countries
(e.g. Cano-Garcia & Hughes, 2000; Zhang, 2004). It was consistently
found that thinking styles contribute to learning achievement beyond
intelligence. Furthermore, Zhang (2004, 2007) found that the contri-
bution of thinking styles to academic achievement varied as a func-
tion of subject matter. Although the predictive power of thinking
styles for learning performance has been widely investigated, in all
these studies, learning performance was tested through students' ex-
amination scores in schools rather than through learning tasks under
rigorous experimental controls. Therefore, the contribution of think-
ing styles to the specific underlying learning processes has not yet
been investigated.
1.4. Research purpose and hypotheses
The current study aims to investigate whether differences in think-
ing styles influence implicit and explicit learning. First, it was hypothe-
sized that Type I styles and the internal (Type III) style would be
positively related to performance on the explicit learning task, whereas
Type II styles and the external style would be negatively related to it.
This prediction was based on the cognitive-complexity/simplicity char-
acteristic of Type I and II styles. In addition, those preferring the internal
style tend to be more introverted, whereas those preferring the external
style tend to be more extraverted (Sternberg, 1997). The introverts usu-
ally have a higher resting level of arousal (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985)
and thus may outperform the extraverts in tasks requiring reflection
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Matthews, 1992). The explicit
learning task, therefore, would facilitate those preferring the internal
style to the external style.
Moreover, we did not expect any relationship between thinking
styles and performance on the implicit learning task. Because thinking
styles arise from both cognition and personality (Sternberg, 1997), we
reckoned that styles on the dimensions of function, level, and leaning
should be pertinent to the subscale of Intellect under the broader trait
of Openness to Experience. Additionally, thinking styles on the dimen-
sion of form should be relevant to the subscale of Orderliness under
the broader trait of Conscientiousness (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson,
2007). However, Intellect and Orderliness were found to be unrelated
to implicit learning (Kaufman et al., 2010; Norman, Price, & Duff,
2006). Thus, we did not posit any relationship between thinking styles
and performance on the implicit learning task.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and research design
Eighty-seven students (6 males and 81 females) between ages
20 years and 24 years (M = 21.3 years, SD = 1.03) in a university in
Shanghai, China participated in this research. Thirty-four students
were sophomores, 22 were juniors, and 31 were seniors. These stu-
dents majored in Humanities, Science, and Management.
 Q. Xie et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 23 (2013) 267–271
We adopted a between-subject design, because the same task was
employed for both implicit and explicit learning tasks. Forty-six
(Mage = 20.8 years, SD = 1.04) students were randomly assigned the
implicit learning task and forty-one (Mage = 21.9 years, SD = .65) stu-
dents were assigned the explicit learning task.
2.2. Materials and procedure
2.2.1. Thinking Styles Inventory-Revised II (TSI-R2, Sternberg, Wagner, &
Zhang, 2007)
The TSI-R2 contains 65 items with 13 scales corresponding to the
13 thinking styles. Each scale has 5 items. The questionnaire was
scored on a 7 point Likert scale with higher scores indicating a greater
endorsement of the item (1 = does not fit you at all; 7 = fits you ex-
tremely well).
The present study employed the Chinese version of this inventory
that was developed through translation and back translation. The
Chinese version has been used in a number of studies and has been
found to have good psychometric properties (e.g. Zhang, 2002, 2004,
2007). The Cronbach alpha coefficient for each scale typically ranged
from .60 to .80 in previous research, indicating acceptable internal con-
sistency reliability of this inventory.
2.2.2. Artificial Grammar Learning (AGL, Gebauer & Mackintosh, 2007)
The material and testing procedure of AGL was adopted from
Gebauer and Mackintosh's (2007) study. This computer-based task
consisted of two phases: the learning phase and the testing phase.
In the learning phase, each of the 20 letter strings following artifi-
cial grammar (see Fig. 1) was presented for 4 s on a computer screen
one by one. Participants were required to type each item (letter
string) right after its presentation was finished. If typed incorrectly,
the previous item would appear again until it could be correctly
typed. After the presentation of every 10 items, all the previous 10
items were presented in order altogether for 65 s for the participants
to review. All the participants were informed of such procedures be-
fore the task began.
In the following testing phase, 32 new items were presented one
after another. Half of these items followed the artificial grammar in
the learning phase and the other half violated the grammar. Partici-
pants were required to judge whether each of the new items followed
or violated the grammar. Each right answer deserved one point and a
total score of right answers was calculated. Different instructional
sets were used to dissociate implicit learning from explicit learning.
Participants in the implicit learning condition were informed at
the beginning that it was a memory task and that they were required
to memorize these letter strings, which were described as nonsense
and randomized. In the testing phase, they were informed that half
of the items had appeared in the learning phase and the other half
Fig. 1. Artificial Grammar from “Psychometric Intelligence Dissociates Implicit and Ex-
plicit Learning”, by G. F. Gebauer and N. J. Mackintosh, 2007, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), p. 38. APA as publisher.
269
were new. They were asked to judge whether each item was old or
new.
Participants in the explicit learning condition were informed at
the beginning that the letter strings were generated from a rule sys-
tem determining which letter could follow another and which letters
could appear at the beginning or the end of a letter string. Participants
were encouraged to discover as many rules as possible. In the follow-
ing testing phase, they were asked to judge whether the new letter
strings followed the previous grammatical rules.
2.2.3. Task order
All the participants commenced with the AGL task, followed by
the paper-and-pencil test measuring thinking styles. Participants
given the implicit instruction were tested prior to those given the ex-
plicit instruction.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary investigation
The mean score of percentage correct (Pc) of performance under
the implicit instruction was .57 (95% CI = .54 to .59) and that of per-
formance under the explicit instruction was .61 (95% CI = .58 to .64). 2
One sample t-tests showed that the proportions of correct answers in
both groups were significantly higher than what would have been
obtained by chance alone, thus suggesting that the performances
were above chance (timplicit = 5.30, p b .001; texplicit = 7.76, p b .001).
The standard deviation for learning under the implicit instruction
(2.76) was comparable to that for learning under the explicit instruc-
tion (2.90). Such result did not support Reber and Allen's (2000)
argument that the inter-individual variation of implicit learning
should be smaller than that of explicit learning. Moreover, in this
study, performance under the explicit instruction and implicit in-
struction was not correlated with age or year of study (see Table 1).
3.2. The relationships of thinking styles to performance under implicit
and explicit instructions
Bivariate correlations were used to examine the relationships of
thinking styles to performance on the learning task (see Table 1). As
expected, performance under the explicit instruction was correlated
positively with Type I styles (i.e. the legislative and the liberal styles)
and the internal style, whereas it correlated negatively with a Type II
style (i.e. the conservative style) and the external style. No significant
correlation was found between performance under the implicit in-
struction and thinking styles.
We also conducted stepwise regression to examine how individu-
al differences in thinking styles predict performance. Performance
under the explicit instruction was designated as the dependent vari-
able and thinking styles were designated as the independent variable
(see Table 2). The external style and the conservative style contribut-
ed negatively to and accounted for approximately 33% of the variance
in performance under the explicit instruction.
4. Discussion
The results of this study supported the hypothesis concerning the
relationships between thinking styles and performance upon the ex-
plicit learning task. The internal style and Type I styles – the ones
concerning the preferences for creating rules (i.e. the legislative
style) and going beyond existent rules (i.e. the liberal style) – were
positively related to performance under the explicit instruction. The
external style and the Type II conservative style, which pertain to
2
The mean scores of Pc in this study were not substantially higher than .60, meaning
that learning rates observed in this study were lower than typical.
270 Q. Xie et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 23 (2013) 267–271

Table 1 2010). This study showed that people's thinking styles are associated
Pearson correlations of learning performances with age, year of study, and thinking with explicit learning but not with implicit learning.
styles.
Further, the findings have significant implications to the theory of
Implicit Explicit thinking styles, proposed to explain individual differences in learning
Age .07 −.73 performance. This is the first study that investigates the contributions
Year of study .13 .25 of thinking styles to performance on an experimental learning task
legislative .10 .46⁎⁎ and, thus, the findings can suggest the contributions of thinking styles
Executive .01 −.07
to specific learning processes. This study implies that thinking styles
Judicial .04 −.01
Global −.01 .01 are more strongly associated with the conscious learning process (in
Local −.03 −.24 explicit learning condition) rather than the unconscious learning pro-
Liberal −.12 .31⁎ cess (in implicit learning condition).
conservative −.15 −.43⁎⁎ Also, the results imply that those having Type I thinking styles
hierarchic .03 .13
seem to be at a considerable advantage in the acquisition of knowl-
monarchic −.06 −.06
oligarchic −.05 −.30 edge entailing reasoning and reflection. The results support Zhang
Anarchic −.04 −.09 and Sternberg's (2005) argument that Type 1 styles are more adap-
Internal .24 .37⁎ tive compared to Type II styles.
External −.08 −.52⁎⁎⁎
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that investigat-
Note. Implicit = performance under implicit instruction and Explicit = performance ed whether thinking styles are related to implicit and explicit learn-
under explicit instruction. ing. Future studies that use other types of tasks to assess implicit
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01. and explicit learning and those involving larger sample sizes are
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. needed to replicate our findings.

Appendix A. Descriptions of thinking styles

the preference for adhering to existing rules, were negatively associ-
ated with performance under the explicit instruction. Results of the
regression equation indicated that the external thinking style was
the strongest predictor of performance on the explicit learning task. Dimension Thinking style Description
The negative contributions of the external and the conservative
Function Legislative Preference for creating rules and autonomy
thinking styles exceeded the positive contributions of the internal
Executive Preference for following rules
and Type I thinking styles. Also as expected, thinking styles were Judicial Preference for evaluating rules
not found to be related to performance in the implicit learning Form Monarchic Tendency to be single-minded and driven
condition. Hierarchic Tendency to set hierarchy for goals and tasks
Because the same task was employed for both implicit and explicit Oligarchic Tendency to be motivated by several things with
equally perceived importance
learning conditions, the findings rule out the possibility that the dif- Anarchic Tendency to be driven by an assortment of needs
ferent relationships of thinking styles to performance under the two and goals with disorder
learning modes were due to task differences. It presents a consider- Level Global Preference for something abstract and large
able improvement over previous research which has failed to disen- Local Preference for something concrete and with details
Scope Internal Inclination to work independently
tangle effects due to task differences from that due to different
External Inclination to work with others
learning processes. Leaning Liberal Liking for going beyond rules and maximizing
This study has implications for both the literature on implicit and changes
explicit learning and the theory of thinking styles. First, this study Conservative Liking for adhering to existing rules and minimizing
supported the dissociation between explicit and implicit learning. In changes

line with extant research, this study showed that there was a perti- Adapted from "Thinking styles" by Sternberg, 1997.
nent consequential behavioral difference between explicit and im-
plicit learning: the performance under explicit instruction was
related to thinking styles, whereas the performance under implicit in-
struction was not. This finding is also congruent with Evans and
Frankish's (2009) dual-process theories about two distinguishable References
processing systems. Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and
Second, this study showed that individual differences variables associated verbalizable knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
that influence implicit learning are distinguishable from those that A: Human Experimental Psychology, 36(2), 209–231.
Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1988). Interactive tasks and implicit–explicit distinc-
impact explicit learning. Previous studies have indicated that implicit tion. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 252–272.
learning and explicit learning are associated with different individual Cano-Garcia, F., & Hughes, E. H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of
differences factors (e.g. Gebauer & Mackintosh, 2007; Kaufman et al., their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psy-
chology, 20, 413–430.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cleeremans, A., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). Learning the structure of event sequences.
Table 2
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 120(3), 235–253.
Stepwise regression for predicting explicit learning task score from thinking styles.
Danner, D., Hagemann, D., Schankin, A., Hager, M., & Funke, J. (2011). Beyond IQ: A
Adj. R2 F Beta t latent state-trait analysis of general intelligence, dynamic decision making, and
implicit learning. Intelligence, 39(1), 323–334.
1 External .255 92.082⁎⁎⁎ −1.124 −3.835⁎⁎⁎ Destrebecqz, A., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Can sequence learning be implicit? New ev-
2 External .328 6.805⁎⁎⁎ −.949 −3.286⁎⁎ idence with the process dissociation procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,
Conservative −.992 −2.286⁎ 8(2), 343–350.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10
Note. aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896.
⁎ p b .05. Dulany, D. E., Carlson, R. A., & Dewey, G. I. (1985). On consciousness in syntactic learning
⁎⁎ p b .01. and judgement: A reply to Reber, Allen, and Regan. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. General, 114(1), 25–32.
 Q. Xie et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 23 (2013) 267–271
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural
science approach. New York: Plenum.
Gebauer, G. F., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2007). Psychometric intelligence dissociates implicit
and explicit learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 33(1), 34–54.
Kassin, S. M., & Reber, A. S. (1979). Locus of control and the learning of an artificial lan-
guage. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(1), 112–118.
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. J.
(2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.
Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M., & Hoffman, H. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of complex
procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 13(4), 523–530.
Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Intuition: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 126, 109–137.
Mathews, R. C., Buss, R. R., Stanley, W. B., Blanchard-Fields, F., Cho, J. R., & Druhan, B.
(1989). Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples: A syner-
gistic effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
15(6), 1083–1100.
Matthews, G. (1992). Extraversion. In A. P. Smith, & D. M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of
human performance, Vol. 3. (pp. 95–126)London: Academic.
Maybery, M., Taylor, M., & O'Brien-Malone, A. (1995). Implicit learning: Sensitive to
age but not IQ. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47, 8–17.
Norman, E., Price, M. C., & Duff, S. C. (2006). Fringe consciousness in sequence learning:
The influence of individual differences. Consciouness and Cognition, 15, 723–760.
Pretz, J. E., Totz, K. S., & Kaufman, S. B. (2010). The effects of mood, cognitive style, and
cognitive ability on implicit learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 20,
215–219.
Rathus, J. H., Reber, A. S., Manza, L., & Kushner, M. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning:
Differential effects of affective states. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 163–184.
271
Reber, A. S. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior, 6, 855–863.
Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic languages: The role of instructional
set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2(1), 88–94.
Reber, A. S., & Allen, R. (2000). Individual differences in implicit learning: Implications for
the evolution of consciousness. In R. G. Kunzendorf, & B. Wallace (Eds.), Individual dif-
ferences in conscious experience. Advances in consciousness research (pp. 227–247).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reber, A. S., Walkenfeld, F. F., & Hernstadt, R. (1991). Implicit and explicit learning:
Individual differences and IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 17(5), 888–896.
Shanks, D. R., & St. John, M. F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning sys-
tems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367–395.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Zhang, L. F. (2007). Thinking style inventory-Revised II:
Unpublished test, Tufts University.
Woolhouse, L. S., & Bayne, R. (2000). Personality and the use of intuition: Individual
differences in strategy and performance on an implicit learning task. European
Journal of Personality, 14, 157–169.
Zhang, L. F. (2002). Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring personality
traits? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 445–458.
Zhang, L. F. (2004). Revisiting the predictive power of thinking styles for academic perfor-
mance. Journal of Psychology, 138(4), 351–370.
Zhang, L. F. (2007). Intellectual styles and academic achievement among senior secondary
school students in rural China. Educational Psychology, 27(5), 675–692.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational
Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53.