A STUDY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS OF MALE AND FEMALE PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS by Shafeeqa bano[1]

Abstract

The present study aimed at investigating the Personality Traits of male and female Prospective Teachers. The sample of the study consisted of 138 male and 198 female  prospective teachers from different colleges of Aligarh. NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI; by Costa,et.al (1992) was used for  the study. t-test when applied on data revealed that  a significant difference at 0.05 level was found on the different factors of personality traits(viz., Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeable, and Neuroticism). But on the overall personality traits the result is not significant at any level of confidence.

Key words: Personality traits, Prospective teachers.

Introduction

Personality has been conceptualized from a variety of theoretical perspectives, and at various levels of abstraction or breadth (John, Hampson, & Goldberg, (1991). Each of these levels has made unique contributions to our understanding of individual differences in behaviour and experience. However, the number of personality traits, and scales designed to measure them, escalated without an end in sight (Goldberg, 1971). Personality psychology was a descriptive model, or taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, taxonomy would permit researchers to study specified domains of personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique.

After decades of research, the field is approaching consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the “Big Five” personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality description in a common framework . It thus provides a starting place for vigorous research and theorizing that can eventually lead to an explication and revision of the descriptive taxonomy in causal and dynamic terms.

Review of related studies

Chaplin et.al (1988) argued for a prototype conception where each category is defined in terms of its clear cases rather than its boundaries; category membership need not be discrete but can be defined as continuous. Goldberg (1990) conducted two additional studies using abbreviated sets of more common terms. In one study, Goldberg obtained self and peer ratings of 475 very common trait adjectives which he had grouped into 131 sets of “tight synonym” clusters. In four samples, the five-factor structures were very similar to each other and to the structure obtained in the more comprehensive list of 1,710 terms, and the results in the self-rating data were virtually indistinguishable from  those in the peer ratings. Wiggins (1995) used personality trait adjectives to elaborate both the conception and the measurement of the two major dimensions of interpersonal behaviour, dominance (or agency) and nurturance (or communion). Szirmak and De Raad (1994) examined Hungarian personality descriptors and found strong support for the first four of the Big Five but failed to obtain a factor resembling the fifth of the Big Five; instead, when they forced a five factor solution, the Agreeableness factor split into two factors. An Intellect/Openness factor emerged only when six factors were rotated. Again, one wonders about the selection rules which used a “trait versus state rating.”

 

Objectives:

  1. To make comparison between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Openness.
  2. To make comparison between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Conscientiousness.
  3. To make comparison between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Extraversion.
  4. To make comparison between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Agreeable.
  5. To make comparison between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Neuroticism.
  6. To make comparison between male and female prospective teachers on the overall personality traits.

Hypotheses

  1. There will be no significant difference between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Openness.
  2. There will be no significant difference between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Conscientiousness.
  3. There will be no significant difference between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Extraversion.
  4. There will be no significant difference between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Agreeable.
  5. There will be no significant difference between male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Neuroticism.
  6. There will be no significant difference between male and female prospective teachers on the overall personality traits.

Sample

The total sample consisted of 138 male and 198 female  prospective teachers from different colleges of Aligarh.  Purposive sampling technique was adopted for the present study.

Description of the tool used

NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) by Costa, et.al (1992), was used for the present study. The inventory consisted of 60 items based on likert rating type  and judged on five (5) point scale. The reliability was 0.82. For validity, the authors of the inventory  ensured content and face validity. To the extent possible, existing valid scales were chosen to capture some aspects of the various domains of personality traits.

Statistical techniques used:

t-test was used to find out the significant  difference between Means of the prospective teachers(i.e., male and female).

Analysis and interpretation:

Table 1: Tabular presentation of the factor Openness of male & female Prospective Teachers.

Groups No. of prospective teachers Mean S.D Degree of freedom t-Value Level of significance
Male 138 88.27 11.67 334 2.23 0.05
Female 198 84.82 15.52

Table 1 shows the comparison of male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Openness  of personality of traits. The Mean score on openness of female prospective teachers is 84.82 with S.D 15.52 and  for male prospective teachers the mean score is 88.27 with S.D. 11.67. The calculated t- value is 2.23, which is  significant  at 0.05 level of confidence.

Table 2: Tabular presentation of the factor Conscientiousness of male & female Prospective Teachers.

Groups No. of prospective teachers Mean S.D Degree of freedom t-Value Level of significance
Male 138 26.76 4.02 334 2.15 0.05
Female 198 25.67 4.91

Table 2 depicts the comparison of male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Conscientiousness of personality of trait. The Mean score on Conscientiousness of female prospective teachers is 25.67 with S.D 4.91 and for male prospective teachers the mean score is 26.76 with S.D 4.02.The calculated t- value is 2.15, which is significant at 0.05 level of confidence.

Table 3: Tabular presentation of the factor Extraversion of male & female Prospective Teachers.

Groups No. of prospective teachers Mean S.D Degree of freedom t-Value Level of significance
Male 138 100.44 18.47 334 2.23 0.05
Female 198 100.97 23.46

Table 3 shows the comparison of male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Extraversion of personality of trait. The Mean score on extraversion  for female prospective teachers is 100.97 with S.D 23.46 and for male prospective teachers  the mean value is 100.44 with S.D 18.47.  The calculated t-value is 2.23, which is significant at 0.05 level of confidence.

Table 4: Tabular presentation of the factor Agreeable of male & female Prospective Teachers.

Groups No. of prospective teachers Mean S.D Degree of freedom t-Value Level of significance
Male 138 58.57 11.90 334 1.98 0.05
Female 198 60.53 16.40

The perusal of the table 4 shows the comparison of male and female prospective teachers on the factor of Agreeable of personality traits the mean score for female prospective teachers is 60.53 with S.D 16.40 and for male prospective teachers mean is 58.57 with S.D 11.90. The calculated t-value is 1.98, which is significant (at 0.05 level) of confidence.

 

Table 5: Tabular presentation of the factor Neuroticism of male & female Prospective Teachers.

Groups No. of prospective teachers Mean S.D Degree of freedom t-Value Level of significance
Male 138 53.67 10.28 334 1.75 0.05
Female 198 56.00 13.00

Table 5 shows the comparison of male and female prospective teachers on the factor of neuroticism of personality traits. The Mean score for female prospective teachers is 56.00 with S.D 13.00 and that of male prospective teachers the mean is 53.67 with S.D 10.28. The calculated t-value is 1.75, which is significant at  0.05 level of confidence.

Table 6: Tabular presentation of the overall personality traits of male & female Prospective Teachers.

Groups No. of prospective teachers Mean S.D Degree of freedom t-Value Level of significance
Male 138 327.73 48.53 334 0.043 0.05
Female 198 328.02 65.57

Table 6 depicts the comparison of male and female prospective teachers on the total score of personality traits. The Mean score for female prospective teachers is 328.02  with S.D 65.57 and that of male prospective teachers   the mean score is 327.73 with S.D 48.53. The calculated t-value is 0.043, which is not significant at any level of confidence.

Conclusion of the study

In the quest to find out the difference in the personality traits of male and female prospective teachers, the investigator found that there is a significant difference on the factor of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeable & Neuroticism of personality traits between  male and female prospective teachers. And the mean score of male prospective teachers is more than the female prospective teachers on the factor of Openness, Conscientiousness and Extraversion but on the factor of Agreeable & Neuroticism the mean score of female prospective teachers is slightly higher than male prospective teachers. There is no significant difference on the overall personality traits between male and female prospective teachers. But the mean score of female prospective teachers is more than the male prospective teachers.

Suggestions

Research and explorations are not the ending results but these always open the way for future endeavours. Similarly the present work is not the end in this area. In fact all the variables can never be studied in a single research. Certain humble suggestions are therefore given for further investigations.

  • For obtaining greater generality of the findings such studies may be conducted on another sample.
  • Large samples provide better results, but the present research work is confined to only 336 prospective teachers. It cannot claim for its comprehensiveness. Future research may be conducted on even large sample.
  • This study was confined to prospective teachers only; its finding cannot be applied to all the stages of education. Thus there is a need to generalize this study by taking a sample of all level of education to corroborate the findings of the study.

References

Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 541-557.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI).  Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Goldberg, L. R. (1971). A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. In P. McReynolds  (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 2) (pp. 293-336). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behaviour Books.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

John, O. P., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (1991). Category-breadth and social-desirability values for 573 personality terms. European Journal of Personality, 1, 241-258.

Szirmak, Z., & De Raad, B. (1994). Taxonomy and structure of Hungarian personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 8, 95-117.

Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Professional manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

******

[1] Shafeeqa bano (Research scholar). Department of education A.M.U.Aligarh