ISSN 2348-1218 (print) International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research and Innovations ISSN 2348-1226 (online) Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp: (56-62), Month: April - June 2015, Available at: www.researchpublish.com Page | 56 Research Publish Journals Personological Basis for Higher Education Preferences in University Students Dr. Tarika Sandhu Asst. Professor, Dept. of Psychology Punjabi University, Patiala, India Abstract: Personality dynamics capture not only the interplay of traits in manifest behavior but also the influence of thinking styles and nature of intellectual functioning. It becomes interesting to note how inclination towards educational operationalization such as arts and science domains could indicate the aforesaid characteristics. The present study was designed to assess the personality types, Field Dependence/ Field Independence cognitive modes of functioning and Divergent/ convergent thinking styles of university students studying in science and arts streams. The sample comprised of 50 students each in the arts and science domain from the university, age ranging 20-23 years. The psychological tests administered on the two groups were Cattells’s 16PF (1973), TTCT by Torrance (1974), Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Cattell’s, 1973) and Embedded Figure Test (Witkins, 1971). The two groups presented a varied picture on the above mentioned indices of personality dynamics. Keywords: Arts/Science domain, Personality, Field Dependence-Independence, Convergent-Divergent thinking. I. INTRODUCTION Contemporary notions of personality can be best understood in the words of Mc Adams and Pal (2006) who explain it as an individual's unique variation on the general evolutionary design for human nature, expressed in a developing pattern of dispositional traits (extraversion, friendliness, dominance) characteristic dispositions (goals, strategies, motives, values, schemas) and self-defining narratives (individuals life stories that unify and create meanings) differentially situated in culture and social context. A comprehensive definition such as this leaves enough room for thought about the enduring differences that educational and vocational choices signify in an individual's life specifically such as in those people opting for science and arts streams which are inherently diametrically opposite in nature. Substantial classic research on this front has been conducted by stalwarts such as Roe (1953) and MacKinnon (1960) who concluded scientists to be more analytical, logical and high on convergent in thinking whereas writers were attributed qualities of emotional tender mindedness, ability to generate many solutions to single problem, engaging more in fantasy etc. Concentrated at one end of the pure sciences are domains that are more logical, objective, and formal and at the other end of Arts streams are domains that are more intuitive, subjective, and emotional. Analyzing the content of each stream the physical sciences emerge as rational, precise, collective, and constrained by a strong disciplinary consensus, whereas the arts disciplines promote expressiveness, ambiguity, individualism, and freedom from external constraints. The experiences associated with each end show marked differences because of not only the content but due to personality description of people aligned towards them also. The disciplinary differential makes perfect sense since objectivity, rationality and precision collectively ensure success in the science domains than would clustering of traits such as emotionality, subjectivity, ambiguity, and individualism characteristic of arts stream and vice versa. Research on the developmental differences between individuals opting for science and artistic endeavors brings to the fore interesting insights. Only a few studies have appeared in this context yet they indicate a similar pattern consistent with what is seen in the science-versus-art comparisons. Chambers (1964) suggested that creative psychologists tended to have a more rebellious relationship with their parents than did chemists. Post (1994) and Roe (1953) revealed tense family relationships persisting into adulthood among 64 eminent scientists, with 41% of the social scientists experiencing divorce, in comparison with only 15% of the biologists and only 5% of the physical scientists. Finally, when researchers