Associations of Personality and Emotional
Intelligence with Learning styles
Prof. Anju Kamal
Department of Management
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University
Kerala, 690525 India
kamal.anju@gmail.com
Abstract—The importance of learning in the field of management
arises out of individual approaches we adopt towards the process
of learning. Different individuals adopt different methods to
learn. Personality can be considered as the high level trait
associated with the way an individual interacts with other
individuals and groups. Learning can be defined as the processes
by which a person acquires new skills, knowledge, behaviors, or
understandings, often in a formal setting called education.
Personality can be considered as an element that affects
individuals’ interest, feelings and motivation towards learning.
The willingness to try new approaches in learning is determined
by the different Personality types of the individual. Emotional
Intelligence can be considered as the capacity to be aware of,
control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal
relationships judiciously and empathetically. The emotions of a
learner are considered valuable as it determines not only the
extent to which one is ready to take risks but also the ability to
portray creative expressions. Emotional Intelligence is critical in
scenarios where learners are required to exhibit excellent
decision making skills especially in the core fields of
management. The objective of the study is focused on examining
the associations of different Personality types and Emotional
Intelligence on the Learning styles of the individual. The study
has been conducted on 208 students of Business Management
studies.
The subjects were assessed on Personality, Emotional
Intelligence, and Learning styles. Pearson correlation and
hierarchical multiple regression were used to analyze the data.
Results revealed that Personality and Emotional Intelligence
emerged as strong predictors of Learning Style. This study
highlights the need for understanding Learning styles as an
important potential variable for enhancing the learning abilities
among the learners. The present study contributes to an
understanding of the associations of Personality traits and
Emotional Intelligence on Learning styles. Thus, this work
attempts to make a small contribution to theory and research in
Learning.
Keywords—Emotional Intelligence; Learning styles;
Personality;
I. INTRODUCTION
Learning is an important cognitive function which is a
continuous process. It is an art which facilitates further
probing into imbibing in-depth knowledge. Learning styles
Deepa H
Department of Management
Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University
Kerala, 690525 India
hdeepa1234@gmail.com
differ from one person to other depending on the learner’s
ability and willingness to undergo the process. In order to
enhance knowledge, a learner must be receptive. The openness
that a learner has towards the process describes the way in
which he perceives learning. This has a lot to do with the
psychological aspects associated with the person and his
immediate environment. Different people have different styles
of learning which they undergo depending not only on their
personality type but also on the level of emotional
intelligence. The outcome of learning could be expressed as
the knowledge, skills and abilities possessed by each
individual based on his style of learning.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Personality
The five-factor model of personality is generally referred to as
extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability,
conscientiousness, and openness to experience [1]. This model
could be explained as follows:
Openness - People who like to learn new things and enjoy new
experiences are usually high in openness. It includes traits like
being insightful and imaginative and has a wide range of
interests.
Conscientiousness - People who have a high degree of
conscientiousness are reliable and prompt. Common traits
include being organized, methodic, rigorous and thorough.
Extraversion - Extraverts derive energy from interacting with
others, while introverts get their energy from within
themselves. Extraversion includes the traits like being
energetic, talkative, and assertive.
Agreeableness - These individuals are generally friendly,
cooperative, and compassionate. People with low
agreeableness may be more distant. Traits include being kind,
affectionate, and sympathetic.
Neuroticism -This dimension relates to one’s emotional
stability and degree of negative emotions. Neuroticism can
also be referred in terms of Emotional Stability. People who
score high on neuroticism often experience emotional
instability and negative emotions. Traits include being moody
and tense.
B. Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence refers to the ability of an individual to
recognize his own feelings as well as those of others along
with the capacity to manage emotions while interacting with
people [2]. This could be assessed on the basis of four
dimensions namely, self awareness, self management, social
awareness, and relationship management. The different
dimensions of Emotional Intelligence are as follows [3]:
Appraisal and expression of emotion in the self (self emotional
appraisal) - This relates to the individual’s ability to
understand their deep emotions and be able to express these
emotions naturally.
Appraisal and recognition of emotion in others (others’
emotional appraisal) - This relates to peoples’ ability to
perceive and understand the emotions of those people around
them.
Regulation of emotion in the self (regulation of emotion) -
This relates to the ability of people to regulate their emotions,
which will enable a more rapid recovery from psychological
distress.
Use of emotion to facilitate performance (use of emotion) -
This relates to the ability of individuals to make use of their
emotions by directing them towards constructive activities and
personal performance.
C. Learning Styles
The individual learning styles helps us understand the best
way in which information is processed by human brains. The
Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory, based on a comprehensive
theory of learning and development is used to help individuals
identify the way in which they learn. According to Kolb,
experience is the source of learning. This concept was further
developed as Experiential Learning Theory(ELT) which
focuses on engaging the learners while undergoing the
learning process. It is said that knowledge results from the
combination of grasping and transforming experience [4].
Experiential learning is a process of constructing knowledge
that involves a creative tension among the four learning modes
namely, Concrete Experience(CE), Abstract Conceptualization
(AC), Reflective Observation(RO), and Active
Experimentation(AE), that is responsive to contextual
demands. Individual learning styles may vary from one person
to another depending on the learner’s preference as well as his
ability to learn. A learner may be considered as Divergent
when his learning style falls between CE and RO; Assimilator
when his learning style falls between RO and AC; Convergent
when his learning style falls between AC and AE;
Accommodating when his learning style falls between AE and
CE. A Divergent learner is likely to feel and watch while
learning with an open mind. An Assimilator is likely to think
and watch, thus learn by giving more importance to secondary
views. A Convergent learner is likely to think rationally and do
the appropriate action. An Accommodative learner is likely to
feel and do based on personal experiences.
D. Personality and Emotional Intelligence
The nature of emotional intelligence appears to focus
predominantly on the emotion based aspects of interpersonal
effectiveness, influence, and control. EI plays a great role
with regard to quality and problem solving conflict
resolution ,on individual performance, and Management
performance [5], [6], [7]. Considering the five factor model of
personality traits it has become empirically established fact
that the Emotional Intelligence measures have significant
correlations with extraversion and neuroticism with positive
and negative sign respectively, and have positive correlation
with agreeableness, openness to experience and
conscientiousness [8].
E. Learning and Emotional Intelligence
The modern method of teaching and learning encourages
students to be divided into groups for the purpose of sharing
knowledge. This gives high importance to the concept of
emotional intelligence while undergoing the learning process
[9]. A student is considered to be emotionally intelligent when
he has the ability to think constructively and behave wisely.
Wise and effective behavior requires the ability to regulate and
express emotions in healthy ways. EI skills synchronize the
cognitive and emotional minds and are essential to effective
behavior which helps students to deal with stressful and
conflict situations. Emotionally healthy students are happier,
more cooperative and learn more effectively [10]. EI prepares
a person to start learning in a specific style depending on his
ability to recognize his own feelings as well as those of others
along with the capacity to manage emotions while interacting
with people involved in the learning process. The learner with
a good EI (social awareness) is expected to realize the learning
environment based on which he reacts and interacts with
various aspects associated with the entire learning process. A
student might prefer studying in a group but if he is low on EI,
it would be difficult to convert his preference into a natural
ability. Thus, EI alone cannot be considered as a predictor of
learning styles, as there is a possibility of contradiction
between his preference and ability to learn. This could be
sorted out possible by mapping it with another variable,
namely personality.
F. Learning and Personality
The academic performance of students is highly dependent on
the relationship between personality of the individual as well
as his learning style. A student’s thought process could be
determined by finding out which personality type he fits in.
This further helps to determine how does the individual
process given information and to what extent does he uses the
cognitive ability in order to enhance the learning process. [11].
Studies say that relative to shallow processors, deep
processors are more likely to use appropriate methods of
study, draw conclusions effectively, and thus have a stronger
internal locus of control. Deep processors are also more likely
to have conscientiousness, are intellectually curious,
extraverted and emotionally stable [12]. Students who prefer a
structured learning environment and intuitive processing are
prone to anxiety and worry, whereas those preferring an
activist and pragmatist style are more extraverted [13]. The
big five personality type could be used as a key indicator to
study the four types of learning styles possessed by different
individuals.
III. CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The model helps to examine the associations of individual
personality and emotional intelligence by mapping it with the
appropriate learning styles. It depicts the relationship between
the two independent variables, namely Personality and
Emotional Intelligence, with the dependent variable, Learning
style
Personality
Personality
Learning
Learning
styles
styles
Emotional
Emotional
Intelligence
Intelligence
IV. METHODOLOGY
A quantitative, cross-sectional field study was conducted. The
participants were 208 students who were doing their Post
Graduate studies in Business. The students belonged to First
year and Second year batch of Business Management Studies.
The participants included 59 Females and Males with age
ranging from 21 to 32 years.
Three Instruments were used for data collection:
A. Measuring Emotional Intelligence
The Emotional Intelligence Scale used in this study developed
by Schutte et al. is a 33-item scale with a five-point Likert-
type scale [14]. As suggested in Salovey and Mayer’s theory
of emotional intelligence, the instrument has three categories:
(a) the appraisal and expression of emotion assessed by 13
items; (b) the regulation of emotion assessed by 10 items; and
(c) the utilisation of emotion assessed by 10 items.
Participants read each statement and decide whether they
‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, are ‘undecided’, ‘agree’, or
‘strongly agree’ with the statement. Schutte et al. reported a
Cronbach alpha (a) of 0.88.
B. Measuring Personality
The Instrument used for measuring Personality used in this
study was developed by Rammstedt, B. & John, O.P [15]. The
ten-item Big Five Inventory is an abbreviated version of the
well-established Big Five Inventory consisting of ten of the 44
standard BFI items. It assesses the Big Five with two items per
factor, one keyed in the positive and one in the negative
direction. It has a five-point Likert-type response options
ranging from fully agree to fully disagree. All ten items were
re-coded for the present analyses so that fully disagree was
scored as 1 and fully agree as 5.
C. Measuring Learning styles
For measuring Learning, the Kolb’s learning inventory was
used. Kolb's experiential learning theory works on two
levels: a four stage cycle of learning and four separate
learning styles. The four separate styles are ranked by
individuals based on their preferred choice and the set of
12 questions are evaluated based on individual
preferences. This is further mapped to fit into the four
stage learning cycle. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is
0.93.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Correlation Analysis
The correlation among the three variables namely Emotional
Intelligence, Personality and Learning styles was checked the
results of which are reported in the correlation matrix. All the
three variables in the study are found to be highly correlated
with each other. Throughout the analysis, Emotional
Intelligence is denoted by EI, The different Learning styles are
denoted by AC, CE, RO and AE which stands for Abstract
Conceptualization, Concrete Experience, Reflective
Observation and Active Experimentation respectively.
The mean and Standard deviations of Concrete Experience,
Abstract Conceptualization, Active Experimentation, and
Reflective Observation are 32.1(5.78), 29.4(6.3), 31.4(5.1),
28.7(6.0) respectively. Among the predictor variables the
highest mean value is of Emotional Intelligence 125(12.8)
followed by Agreeableness 7.7(1.39), Extraversion 6.9 (1.8)
Conscientiousness 6.6(1.5) Openness 6.6 (1.4) and
Neuroticism 5.5 (1.8). Normality of the collected data is
established through skewness and kurtosis. These values
indicate that the study variables are reasonably close to normal
as its skewness and kurtosis have values between –1.0 and
+1.0.
B. Regression Analysis
From the output of the hierarchical Regression Analysis in
Table 3 for model 1 the value of R2 of control variables is .04
which indicates that control variables accounted for four
percent of the variance in Concrete Experience which is a
learning style. The data also reported that when control
variables were entered in the equation together with
personality dimensions in the second model the value of R2
secured more variance 0.071.This indicated that when the
personality dimensions were entered the change in R2 was
0.038. In the third model with the inclusion of Emotional
Intelligence the value of R2 has increased to 0.074. This
implies that the control variables along with the predictor learning styles. This suggests that students who are organized,
variables accounted for 19% variance in the Concrete disciplined, determined, and intellectually curious are more
Experience. From table 3.1 we can see that the Model 2 and likely to use all four learning styles in maximizing their
Model 3 is statistically significant at p <.05. From Table 3.2 learning. Such students are likely to be very thorough, relate
The beta value show that Openness to experience has a what they are learning to previous knowledge and to their own
positive significant effect on Concrete Experience (β =.14; p lives, and to study in a systematic way, thus, excelling on
<.05) followed by Extraversion (β = .13; p <.05). exams. On the other hand, the negative relationships between
In Table 4 for model 1 the value of R2 of control variables is neuroticism and all four learning styles suggest that students
0.2 which indicates that control variables accounted for two who are given to worry and anxiety are likely to disengage
percent of the variance in Abstract Conceptualization. The from the learning process and fail to organize and categorize
data also reported that when control variables were entered in what they are learning into meaningful units.
the equation together with personality dimensions in the
second model the value of R2 secured more variance 0.26.This
indicated that when the personality dimensions were entered
the change in R2 was 0.071. In the third model with the
inclusion of Emotional Intelligence, the value of change in R2
0.271. This implies that the control variables along with the
predictor variables accounted for 73% variance in the Abstract
Conceptualization. From table 4.1 we can see that the Model 2
and Model 3 is statistically significant at p <.05. From Table
3.2 The beta value show that Conscientiousness has a positive
significant effect on Abstract Conceptualization (β = .548; p
<.01) in Model 3.
In Table 5 for model 1 the value of R2 of control variables is .
010which indicates that control variables accounted for one
percent of the variance in Active Experimentation which is a
learning style. The data also reported that when control
variables were entered in the equation together with
personality dimensions in the second model the value of R2
secured more variance 0.038.This indicated that when the
personality dimensions were entered the change in R2 was
0.039. This implies that the control variables along with the
predictor variables accounted for 17 percent variance in Active
Experimentation. From table 5.1 we can see that the Model 2
and Model 3 is statistically significant at p <.05. From Table
5.2 The beta value show that Openness to Experience has a
positive significant effect on Active Experimentation (β = .
025; p <.05)
In Table 6 for model 1 the value of R2 of control variables is .
001 which indicates that control variables accounted for .01
percent of the variance in Reflective Observation which is one
of the learning style. The data also reported that when control
variables were entered in the equation together with
personality dimensions in the second model the value of R2
secured more variance ie 0.068.This indicated that when the
personality dimensions were entered the change in R2 was
0.036. In the third model with the inclusion of Emotional
Intelligence the value of R2 is 0.070 and change in R2 is
0.032.This implies that the control variables along with the
predictor variables accounted for 13 % variance in the
Reflective Observation. From table 6.1 we can see that the
Model 2 and Model 3 is statistically significant at p<.05. From
Table 3.2 the beta value show that Openness to Experience
and Agreeableness has a positive significant effect on RO with
(β = .151; p <.01) and (β = .104; p <.01)
From our Analysis out of the five personality styles
conscientiousness and openness predicted each of the four
 C. and Figures Tables

TABLE 1
Op Co Ex Ag Ne EI CE AC AE RO
N Valid 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 6.68 6.65 6.95 7.80 5.55 125.19 32.12 29.41 31.40 28.74
Median 7.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 125.50 33.00 29.00 31.00 29.00
a
Mode 6 7 7 8 5 117 35 32 29 28a
Std. Deviation 1.423 1.509 1.898 1.389 1.875 12.860 5.781 6.316 5.141 6.079
Skewness .046 -.417 -.192 -.386 .439 -.228 -.346 .148 -.088 .028
Std. Error of Skewness .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169 .169
Kurtosis .397 .578 -.550 .169 -.428 -.203 -.505 -.077 .068 -.505
Std. Error of Kurtosis .336 .336 .336 .336 .336 .336 .336 .336 .336 .336
Minimum 2 2 2 3 2 90 16 13 15 16
Maximum 10 10 10 10 10 156 44 46 45 45
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

TABLE 2

Op Co Ex Ag Ne EI CE AC AE RO
Op Pearson Correlation 1 .064 .051 .082 .066 .182** -.061 -.016 .003 .160*
Sig. (2-tailed) .358 .460 .240 .340 .008 .384 .821 .962 .021
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
Co Pearson Correlation .064 1 .095 .247** -.181** .276** .109 -.010 -.112 .150*
Sig. (2-tailed) .358 .171 .000 .009 .000 .118 .891 .108 .031
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
Ex Pearson Correlation .051 .095 1 .187** -.363** .339** -.022 -.089 -.110 .130
Sig. (2-tailed) .460 .171 .007 .000 .000 .753 .199 .112 .060
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
Ag Pearson Correlation .082 .247** .187** 1 -.234** .271** -.024 .033 -.099 .157*
Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .000 .007 .001 .000 .736 .634 .156 .023
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
Ne Pearson Correlation .066 -.181** -.363** -.234** 1 -.232** -.033 -.002 .035 -.099
Sig. (2-tailed) .340 .009 .000 .001 .001 .640 .981 .620 .155
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
EI Pearson Correlation .182** .276** .339** .271** -.232** 1 -.038 .097 -.055 .087
Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .000 .000 .000 .001 .581 .165 .430 .209
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 TABLE 3
CE Pearson Correlation -.061 .109 -.022 -.024 -.033 -.038 1 -.379** -.259** -.287**
Model R Change Statistics
Sig. (2-tailed) .384 .118 .753 .736 .640 .581 .000 .000 .000
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
AC Pearson Correlation -.016 -.010 -.089 .033 -.002 .097 -.379** 1 -.005 -.109
Sig. (2-tailed) .821 .891 .199 .634 .981 .165 .000 .943 .116
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
AE Pearson Correlation .003 -.112 -.110 -.099 .035 -.055 -.259** -.005 1 -.153*
Sig. (2-tailed) .962 .108 .112 .156 .620 .430 .000 .943 .027
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
RO Pearson Correlation .160* .150* .130 .157* -.099 .087 -.287** -.109 -.153* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .031 .060 .023 .155 .209 .000 .116 .027
N 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
 Std.
Error of R
R Adjusted the Square F Sig. F
Square R Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .200a .040 .031 5.691 .040 4.277 2 205 .015
2 .266b .071 .038 5.669 .031 1.320 5 200 .257
c
3 .271 .074 .036 5.675 .003 .624 1 199 .431
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Ag, Op, Ex, Co, Ne
c. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Ag, Op, Ex, Co, Ne, EI

TABLE 4

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 42.024 3.905 10.761 .000
Age -.433 .190 -.156 -2.282 .023
Gender -1.650 .880 -.128 -1.875 .062
2 (Constant) 46.441 5.730 8.106 .000
Age -.487 .191 -.176 -2.548 .012
Gender -2.061 .922 -.160 -2.235 .027
Op -.314 .281 -.077 -1.117 .265
Co .496 .273 .130 1.820 .070
Ex -.043 .226 -.014 -.191 .849
Ag -.317 .303 -.076 -1.045 .297
Ne -.265 .242 -.086 -1.091 .277
3 (Constant) 48.859 6.501 7.516 .000
Age -.489 .191 -.176 -2.556 .011
Gender -2.070 .923 -.161 -2.243 .026
Op -.277 .285 -.068 -.971 .333
Co .541 .279 .141 1.942 .054
Ex .005 .234 .002 .022 .983
Ag -.281 .307 -.067 -.915 .362
Ne -.280 .244 -.091 -1.152 .251
EI -.028 .035 -.061 -.790 .431
a. Dependent Variable: CE

TABLE 5
Change Statistics
Std. Error
R Adjusted R of the R Square Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Change
1 .036a .001 -.008 6.105 .001 .132 2 205 .877
2 .262b .068 .036 5.969 .067 2.884 5 200 .015
c
3 .264 .070 .032 5.981 .001 .234 1 199 .629
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Ag, Op, Ex, Co, Ne

c. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Ag, Op, Ex, Co, Ne, EI

TABLE 6

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 28.019 4.189 6.689 .000
Age .019 .203 .006 .092 .927
Gender .479 .944 .035 .507 .613
2 (Constant) 16.647 6.033 2.759 .006
Age .017 .201 .006 .083 .934
Gender .352 .971 .026 .362 .718
Op .620 .296 .145 2.099 .037
Co .411 .287 .102 1.432 .154
Ex .258 .238 .081 1.087 .278
Ag .432 .319 .099 1.353 .178
Ne -.097 .255 -.030 -.378 .706
3 (Constant) 18.206 6.852 2.657 .009
Age .015 .201 .005 .076 .939
Gender .346 .973 .026 .355 .723
Op .644 .300 .151 2.146 .033
Co .440 .294 .109 1.498 .136
Ex .289 .247 .090 1.173 .242
Ag .455 .323 .104 1.407 .161
Ne -.107 .257 -.033 -.416 .678
EI -.018 .037 -.038 -.483 .629
a. Dependent Variable: RO

TABLE 7
Change Statistics

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .098a .010 .000 5.141 .010 .987 2 205 .374
2 .196b .038 .005 5.128 .029 1.201 5 200 .310
3 .196c .039 .000 5.141 .000 .042 1 199 .838
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Ag, Op, Ex, Co, Ne
c. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Age, Ag, Op, Ex, Co, Ne, EI

TABLE 8

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 31.147 3.527 8.830 .000
Age -.027 .171 -.011 -.157 .875
Gender 1.107 .795 .097 1.393 .165
2 (Constant) 35.568 5.183 6.862 .000
 Age .004 .173 .002 .022 .982
Gender 1.267 .834 .111 1.519 .130
Op .098 .254 .027 .384 .701
Co -.312 .247 -.092 -1.267 .207
Ex -.286 .204 -.105 -1.399 .163
Ag -.217 .274 -.059 -.792 .429
Ne -.009 .219 -.003 -.040 .968
3 (Constant) 34.999 5.889 5.943 .000
Age .004 .173 .002 .025 .980
Gender 1.269 .836 .111 1.518 .131
Op .089 .258 .025 .344 .731
Co -.323 .253 -.095 -1.279 .202
Ex -.297 .212 -.110 -1.401 .163
Ag -.226 .278 -.061 -.812 .418
Ne -.005 .221 -.002 -.023 .982
EI .006 .032 .016 .205 .838
a. Dependent Variable: AE

References
[1] Digman, J.M., 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor
model. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), pp.417-440.
[2] Doe, R., Ndinguri, E. and Phipps, S.T., 2015. Emotional Intelligence: The
Link to Success and Failure of Leadership. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 19(3), p.105.
[3] Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D., 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination,
cognition and personality, 9(3), pp.185-211.
[4] Kolb, D.A., Boyatzis, R.E. and Mainemelis, C., 2001. Experiential learning
theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on thinking,
learning, and cognitive styles, 1(2001), pp.227-247.
[5] Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C., 2004. Managing emotions during team
problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human
performance, 17(2), pp.195-218.
[6] Lam, L.T. and Kirby, S.L., 2002. Is emotional intelligence an advantage?
An exploration of the impact of emotional and general intelligence on
individual performance. The journal of social Psychology, 142(1), pp.133-
143.
[7] Langhorn, S., 2004. How emotional intelligence can improve management
performance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 16(4), pp.220-230.
[8] Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A., 2001. Trait emotional intelligence:
Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies.
European journal of personality, 15(6), pp.425-448.
[9] Hasanzadeh, R. and Shahmohamadi, F., 2011. Study of emotional
intelligence and learning strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 29, pp.1824-1829.
[10] Shatalebi, B., Sharifi, S., Saeedian, N. and Javadi, H., 2012. Examining the
relationship between emotional intelligence and learning styles. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, pp.95-99.
[11] Komarraju, M., Karau, S.J., Schmeck, R.R. and Avdic, A., 2011. The Big
Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic
achievement. Personality and individual differences, 51(4), pp.472-477.
[12] Zhang, L.F., 2003. Does the big five predict learning approaches?.
Personality and individual differences, 34(8), pp.1431-1446.
[13] Zhang, W.X., 2003. Nanoscale iron particles for environmental
remediation: an overview. Journal of nanoparticle Research, 5(3), pp.323-
332.
[14] Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T.,
Golden, C.J. and Dornheim, L., 1998. Development and validation of a
measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and individual
differences, 25(2), pp.167-177.
[15] Rammstedt, B. and John, O.P., 2007. Measuring personality in one minute
or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and
German. Journal of research in Personality, 41(1), pp.203-212.