Theory of Mental Self-Government: Thinking Styles
from Roberjsternberg.com
The theory of mental self-government holds that styles of thinking can be understood in terms of constructs from our notions of government. On this view, the kinds of governments we have in the world are not merely coincidental, but rather are external reflections or mirrors of ways in which we can organize or govern ourselves. According to this theory, people can be understood in terms of the functions, forms, levels, scope, and leanings of government. People do not exhibit just one style or another, but they do have preferences across various kinds of tasks and situations. Many aspects of this thinking style derive from the work of Carl Jung.
Functions
Legislative: The legislatively oriented student has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require creation, formulation, planning of ideas, strategies, products, and the like. This kind of individual likes to decide what to do and how to do it, rather than to be told.
Executive: The executively oriented individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that provide structure, procedures, or rules to work with, and that, although modifiable, can serve as guidelines to measure progress. Whereas the legislatively oriented individual likes to decide what to and how to do it, the executively oriented student will often prefer to be told what to do, and will then give it his or her best shot at doing it well.
Judicial: The judicially oriented individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require evaluation, analysis, comparison–contrast, and judgment of existing ideas, strategies, projects, and the like. This individual tends to be evaluative of others, sometimes on the basis of minimal information.
Forms
Monarchic: The monarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow complete focus on one thing or aspect at a time until it is complete. A monarchically oriented individual is single-minded and often driven, and likes to finish one thing before moving on to the next.
Hierarchic: The hierarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow creation of a hierarchy of goals to fulfill. This individual likes to do multiple things in a given time frame, but assigns differential priorities for getting them done. Hierarchic people tend to be adaptive in many settings where it is necessary to set priorities for getting certain things done before others, or where it is necessary to decide that some things are more worthy of attention than are others.
Oligarchic: The oligarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow working with competing approaches, with multiple aspects or goals that are equally important. This individual, like the hierarchically oriented one, likes to do multiple things within a given time frame, but has trouble setting priorities for which to get done when. The oligarchically oriented individual thus adapts well if the competing demands are of roughly equal priority, but has more trouble if the things are of different priorities.
Anarchic: The anarchic individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that lend themselves to great flexibility of approaches, and to trying anything when, where, and how he or she pleases. This individual tends to be asystematic or even antisystematic. The individual tends to take a random approach to problems, and is sometimes difficult for other people to understand.
Levels
Local: The local individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require engagement with specific, concrete details. This individual likes to work with the nitty-gritty, but may lose the forest for the trees. Individuals displaying this style tend to enjoy tasks that require them to keep track of details and focus on concrete specifics of a situation.
Global: The global individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require engagement with large, global, abstract ideas. This individual likes to deal with big ideas, but sometimes can lose touch with the details—the individual may see the forest but lose track of the trees. People employing this style enjoy tasks that encourage them to think about major ideas and not have to worry about details.
Scope
Internal: The internal individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require activities that allow one to work independently of others. This individual prefers to work alone, is typically introverted, and is often uncomfortable in groups.
External: The external individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that allow working with others in a group or interacting with others at different stages of progress. This individual prefers to work with others, is typically extraverted, and is very comfortable in group settings.
Leanings
Liberal: The liberal individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that involve unfamiliarity, going beyond existing rules or procedures, and maximization of change. Sometimes the individual may prefer change simply for the sake of change, even when it is not ideal. People displaying a liberal style like new challenges and thrive on ambiguity.
Conservative: The conservative individual has a predilection for tasks, projects, and situations that require adherence to existing rules and procedures. This individual likes to minimize change and avoid ambiguity.
Key References
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31(4), 197–224.
Sternberg, R. J. (1994). Thinking styles: Theory and assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg and P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 105–127). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking styles. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 205–229). New York: Plenum.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L. (1995). Styles of thinking in school. European Journal for High Ability, 6(2), 201–219.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are cognitive styles still in style? American Psychologist, 52(7), 700-712.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In R. J. Sternberg, & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Thinking styles across cultures: Their relationships with student learning. In R. J. Sternberg, & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp.197–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53.
Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L.-F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3 (6), 486-506.
Zhang, L.-F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2012). Culture and intellectual styles. In L.-F. Zhang, R. J. Sternberg, & S. Rayner (Eds.), Handbook of intellectual styles (pp. 131-152). New York: Springer.