The history of style studies has gone through four stages. Before 1950¡¯s, styles were seen as part of individual differences (types). During 1950¡¯s - 1970¡¯s, various labels of styles were generated, such as cognitive styles, learning styles, teaching styles, etc. From mid 1980¡¯s to mid 1990¡¯s, the various labels were synthesized into comprehensive models. More recently and till now, these integrated style models were and are being applied in computerized and multi-cultural settings.
At the first stage, the research area of style studies was established relatedly to personality and cognition studies (Messick, 1987). According to Kagan and Kogan (1970), research on styles originated from the psychoanalytic influences, theories of cognitive development, and many other following theories. They believed that style studies were necessary stream of theoretical development of psychology (Kagan & Kogan, 1970). From the perspective of psychology, the concept of style/s, especially cognitive style/s, was one of the recurrent themes in the exploration of personality influences on cognition (Messick, 1987) because personality was usually conceptualized as a whole complex of cognition, conation, and affection. Therefore, when personality differentiations were highlighted by researchers, cognition would be inevitably considered as part of personality dynamics (Messick, 1987, p.36). According to Messick, individual¡¯s ¡°stylistic consistencies¡± can be seen as ¡°manifestations of personality in behavior¡± (p.37). Or in Allport¡¯s (1937) words, a style reflects ¡°the oblique mirroring of personal traits¡± (Messick, 1987, p.37). So, researchers believed that it is necessary for psychologists to take the angle of cognitive styles to approach to cognition as well as to personality (Messick, 1987).
At the second stage, style studies were mainly concerned in a relation to learning. The studies on relationships between styles and learning resulted from the development of learning theories. Locke (1894) said that a person learns through 5 senses (p.5). However, only from the beginning of the 20th century, learning drew much more attention from educational psychologists. For example, Thorndike¡¯s research centered on learners and contents, but not on teachers (Allen, 1988). Since then, educational psychologists have proposed lots of psychological systems, such as Gestalt psychology and behaviorism, to explain learning. However, according to Messick (1987), even as late as in the 1940s, there were still no comprehensive theories of learning. This situation stimulated many scholars to cultivate the area of learning. Therefore, during the next three decades learning theories were booming up so fast that by the late 20th century learning theories seemed ¡°to consist of a set of hypotheses of limited applicability¡± (Messick, 1987, p.37). Some researchers put their attention to the relationships between styles and learning intensively in the booming-up times of learning theories (1950s to 1970s).
At the third stage, style studies went downhill. The styles approach to learning in the late 70's came under attack because of the proliferation of styles and because popular measures of styles such as the Hidden Figures Test (Witkin & Asch, 1948a, 1948b) seemed to be more measures of ability than style. Also in the 70's a lot of work was done on the Aptitude X Treatment Interaction (APT) approach where different ways of teaching were matched with the preferred/better way for a student to learn based somewhat on the styles approach. Unfortunately, that approach led to disappointing applied results. In early 1980s, style studies were a minority interest until Sternberg and Riding tried to popularize the styles approach again but using a very different theory.
Sternberg was a more active advocate for styles being modified by teaching than most previous writers as well as a person who clarified styles as preferred ways of thinking rather than abilities. Sternberg and many other style advocates tried to re-think of the style studies before 1980s. This re-thinking thereafter gave birth to many integrated models of styles such as Riding¡¯s Cognitive Control Model (Riding, 1997; Riding & Cheema, 1991), Curry¡¯s Onion Model of Styles (Curry, 1987; 1991). At the same time Sternberg created the Theory of Mental Self-Government (Sternberg, 1988, 1997). However, it seemed that different researchers were not of the same meaning on styles as before. In the 1980s and 1990s, much of the styles work was in the area of adult education. The meaning of the term ¡®styles¡¯ was more likely modes of thinking in behavior. They were not in line with previous understanding of learning styles or cognitive styles. Because of the differences in theoretical perspectives, the efforts made in the field of style studies were generally considered rather weak.
And at the fourth stage, that is, in recent years, style studies are being emphasized again in educational psychology. Some new aspects about styles have been disclosed, including cross-cultural studies on thinking styles (e.g., Sternberg & Zhang, 2001), thinking styles of some special groups such as criminals (e.g., Walters, 2001), depressed patients (e.g., Dudek, Zieba, Jawor, Szymaczek, Opila, & Dattilio, 2001; Zieba, Jawor, & Dudek, 2000); impacts of computer, web, and informational technology on learning, cognitive, and thinking styles (e.g., Dewar & Whittington, 2000; Jones, 1994; Thomas, 1999; Yelland & Lloyd, 2001).

Allen, R. F. (1988). The Relationship between learning style and teaching style of secondary teachers in South Central Kansas. Kansas State University, Kansas, US.
Allfort, G. W. (1937). Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt & Co.
Curry, L. (1987). Integrating Concepts of Cognitive or Learning Style: A Review with Attention to Psychometric Standard. Ottawa, ON, Canadian: College of Health Service Executives.
Curry, L. (1991). Patterns of learning style across selected medical specialties. Educational Psychology, 11, 247-278.
Dewar, T., & Whittington, D. (2000). Online learners and their learning strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 385-403.
Dudek, D., Zieba, A., Jawor, M., Szymaczek, M., Opila, J., & Dattilio, F. M. (2001). The impact of depressive illness on spouses of depressed patients. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 15(1), 49-57.
Jones, W. P. (1994). Computer use and cognitive style. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(4), 514-523.
Kagan, J., & Kogan, N. (1970). Individual variation in cognitive process. In P. A. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1273-1378). New York: Willey.
Locke, J. (1894). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Messick, S. (1987). Structural relationships across cognition, personality, and style. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude. Learning. and Instruction Volume 3: Conative and Affective Process Analyses (Vol. 3, pp. 35-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Riding, R. J. (1997). On the nature of cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 17(1&2), 29-49.
Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles--an overview and integration. Educational Psycho

(This piece of article is from: Yunfeng He. (2006). Thinking Styles and Academic Achievement of Chinese University Students. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.)