Stat Final Paper BLSC (1)

Psychology 41 (Fundamental Statistics) Student Research1st Semester SY 2013-2014Ms. Yayetta de la Pena

Altruism Among Student Leaders and Personality Correlates

Bautista, Sheena Christy S. [email protected]

Cabanlit, Riza June [email protected]

Lim, Mae Angelica [email protected]

Silmonet, Rosemarie Ann [email protected]

Submitted:October 4, 2013Defended:October 9, 2013

1. Rationale

The Big Five personality traits are five broad domains or dimensions of personality that are used to describe human personality. The Big Five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. It has been preferably used, since it is able to measure different traits in personality. Personality may be altered by many values. One of the important values is altruism which is defined as one who helps others without reward. It is an expression of concern for the welfare of others without any obvious benefit or motivation on the part of the individual expressing the concern. The student leaders voluntarily ran for their position. Their duty is to serve the students under their council. Therefore, the student leaders are expected to be altruistic. The level of Altruism is then grouped according to Gender, Age, Birth Order, Religion, Family Income, and Type of Residence. It is to test if there is a significant difference if these factors are considered. The purpose of this research is to determine if the student leaders from different councils of Xavier University have high score in a standardized altruism test. Also, if there is significant correlation between the five personality factors and altruism level of the students.

Several studies performed by Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981) with a total of 464 student participants used a Self-Report Altruism Scale (SRA). The results showed that there is in fact a broad-based trait of altruism. Furthermore, a later study also conducted by Rushton (1984) revealed that there is a steady pattern of pro-social tendencies across various situations. Rushton (1984) proposed that these patterns and some of the differences between individuals and their enthusiasm and/or motivation to help others are due to dissimilarities in their personality traits.

1. Statement of the Problem, hypotheses, statistical tools

RESEARCH PROBLEMSHYPOTHESESSTATISTICAL TOOL

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents?a) Gender b) Birth Order c) Religion d) Family Income e) Type of Residence (Urban/Rural)Hypotheses-freeFrequency, percentage

2. What is the level of altruism of the respondents?Hypotheses-freeMean, standard deviation

3. Is there a significant difference in the level of altruism in the respondents when grouped according to:a) Genderb) Birth Orderc) Religiond) Family Incomee) Type of Place (Urban/Rural)H1: There is a significant difference in the level of altruism when grouped according to:a) Genderb) Birth Orderc) Religiond) Family Incomee) Type of Place (Urban/Rural)H0: There is no significant difference in the level of altruism when grouped according to:a) Genderb) Birth Orderc) Religiond) Family Incomee) Type of Place (Urban/Rural)T-testa) Genderb) Type of Place

F-testa) Birth Orderb) Family Incomec) Religion

4. What are the Personality Traits evident among the respondents in terms of the Big Five Dimensions of Personality:a) Extroversionb) Agreeablenessc) Conscientiousnessd) Neuroticisme) Openness to ExperienceHypotheses-freeMean, standard deviation

5. Is there a significant relationship in the level of altruism with any of the Big Five Traits? a) Extroversionb) Agreeablenessc) Conscientiousnessd) Neuroticisme) Openness to ExperienceH1: There is a significant relationship in the level of altruism with any of the Big Five Traits? a) Extroversionb) Agreeablenessc) Conscientiousnessd) Neuroticisme) Openness to Experience

H0: There is no significant relationship in the level of altruism with any of the Big Five Traits? a) Extroversionb) Agreeablenessc) Conscientiousnessd) Neuroticisme) Openness to ExperienceMultiple Regression

1. Methods

3.1 Participants

The researchers gathered a total of one hundred (100) respondents from Xavier University. One hundred (100) of the respondents are elected student leaders coming from different councils: Association of College Engineering Students (ACES), Agricultural Student Council (ASC), College of Integrated Technologies Student Council (CITSC), Council of Nursing Students (CONUS), Computer Science Student Council (CSSC), School of Business Management (SBMSC), Teachers Guild (TG), United Arts and Sciences Student Council (UNITASS) The researchers asked for permission from the Student Activities and Development (SACDEV) and the Office of Student Affairs (OSA) for the approval of the questionnaires to be answered by the Student Leaders from different councils . The student leaders from councils were chosen to be the respondents because they are the one who give aid, support and address the problems of the students from their college. They voluntarily ran for their position which may mean that they are more willing to serve and help.The lists of officers were obtained by the researchers through asking it from each council personally.

2. MeasuresAltruism Measure

Altruistic Personality Scale.A 20-item test on Altruism Personality Scale (Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., &Fekken, G. C. (1981)) that measures a persons level of altruism. Respondents are instructed to rate the frequency with which they have engaged in the altruistic behaviors using the categories 'Never', 'Once', 'More Than Once, 'Often' and 'Very Often'. Each category has a corresponding answer of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively ranging from Never (0) to Very Often (4).The total possible score is 80. The higher the score indicates a higher altruistic attitude. The internal consistency of the scale is a =0.73. The Guttman split half coefficient of the scale is =0.78. Test re-test correlation of the total score is 0.88. Results revealed that the psychometric properties of the scale were sufficient.

Personality Measure

The Big Five Inventory. A 44-item test that yields five personality measures. These are an individuals Five Factors (dimensions) of personality which are Extroversion, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience (Oliver P. John, Ph.D. and V. Benet-Martinez (1998)). The 44 statements concern the perception of the respondents about themselves in a variety of situations. Each statement is assigned in determining the level of a specific dimension of personality. The respondents are tasked to indicate the strength of their agreement with each statement, utilizing a scale in which 1 denotes strong disagreement, 5 denotes strong agreement, and 2, 3, and 4 represent intermediate judgments. The scores are then added for each dimension of personality. Some items are scored in reverse by changing the answers 1 to 5, 2 to 4, 4 to 2, and 5 to 1. High scores reflect strong exhibition of a trait. The B5PQ has good internal consistency reliability with a median scale reliability of 0.79.The median test-retest reliability is 0.81 with a range of 0.73 to 0.91. In Criterion-related validity, the correlations between the trait scales and self-assessed job performance range from -0.14 to 0.48 with a median of 0.28.

1. Results

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Demographic DimensionFrequency Percent (%)

TOTAL100100%

Gender

Male5252%

Female4848%

Religion

Catholic8080%

Non-Catholic1212%

Atheists88%

Family Income

100,000 below3838%

100,000-200,00022%

200,000-300,0001717%

300,000-400,0001313%

500,000 above3030%

Birth Order

Eldest3737%

Second Child1010%

Middle Child1212%

Youngest3333%

Only Child88%

Type of Residence

Rural3131%

Urban6969%

Table 1 indicates the demographic profile of the respondents according to Gender, Religion, Family Income, Birth Order and the Type of Residence. The statistical tool used here are the Frequency and Percentage. From the total number of one hundred (100) respondents, there are fifty two (52) Males and forty-two (48) Females.

In terms of Religion, eighty (80) of them are Catholics while twelve (12) of them are Non-Catholics. The remaining eight (8) respondents are Atheist.

Most of the respondents family income range from one hundred thousand (100,000) and below. Thirty (30) of them has an income of five hundred thousand (500,000) and above. The family income of two hundred thousand to three hundred thousand (200,000-300,000) belongs to seventeen (17) of the respondents. Thirteen (13) of them has the family income of three hundred to four hundred thousand (300,000-400,000). There are only two (2) who has an income of two hundred to three hundred thousand (200,000-300,000).

According to Birth Order, there are thirty-seven (37) who are Eldest and thirty-three (33) are Youngest. Twelve (12) of the respondents are Middle Child, ten (10) are Second Child while there are only eight (8) who are youngest.

The two types of residence are the Urban and Rural. Thirty one (31) of the respondents are coming from the Rural area while the remaining sixty nine (69) are from the Urban area.

Table 2. The Altruism Score Group According to Gender

GenderNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Mean

Altruism ScoreMale5235.96159.317831.29215

Female4836.06259.200851.32803

Table 2.1 T-test for Altruism Score and Gender

Levene's Test for Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of Means

FSig.tDfSig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferenceStd. Error Difference

Altruism ScoreEqual variances assumed.057.812-.05498.957-.100961.85387

Equal variances not assumed-.05497.546.957-.100961.85292

On average, the altruism score of the female student leaders (M=36.06, SE=1.33) is greater than the scores of the males (M=35.96, SE=1.29). This mean difference, 1.0096 was not significant t(98)= .054. There is no significant difference in the Altruism scores under the Gender category because their probability is 0.957. This indicates that the gender of the student leaders cannot affect their Altruism scores.Table 3. Altruism Scores when Group According to Religion

NMeanStd. DeviationStd. ErrorMinimumMaximum

Catholic8036.87509.473981.0592219.0058.00

Non-Catholic1233.08336.815201.9673820.0043.00

Atheist831.75008.430392.9805917.0040.00

Total10036.01009.21516.9215217.0058.00

Table 3.1. ANOVA Results of Altruism Scores and Religion

Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.

Between Groups307.8232153.9121.843.164

Within Groups8099.1679783.497

Total8406.99099

Among the student leaders, the respondents who are Catholic has the greatest mean score (M=36.87). Second is the respondents who are Non-catholic (M=33.08) and Atheist (M=31.75). There is no significant difference of Birth Order on the Altruism score of the respondents F(2,97)=1.843, p=.164. This signifies that Religion cannot affect ones Altruism score.

Table 4. Altruism Scores when Grouped According to Family Income


100,000 below3833.39478.550451.3870719.0050.00

100,000-200,000241.00001.414211.0000040.0042.00

200,000-300,0001734.117610.588212.5680217.0056.00

300,000-400,0001339.61547.676142.1289827.0051.00

400,000 and above3038.50009.235431.6861523.0058.00

Total10036.01009.21516.9215217.0058.00

Table 4.1. ANOVA Results of Altruism Score and Family Income

Sum of SquaresDfMean SquareFSig.

Between Groups725.5694181.3922.243.070


Total8406.99099

The respondents who have a family income of one hundred thousand and below (100,000 below) got a mean of 33.39. Those who has an income of one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand (100,000- 200,000) obtained has a mean of 41. Two hundred to three hundred thousand (200,000-300,000) of income has a mean of 34.11 and the fourth range of income having three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand (300,000-400,000) has a mean of 39.61. Lastly, the respondents having the income of four hundred thousand and above got a mean of 38.50. There is no significant difference between the family income and the Altruism of the respondents F(4,95)= 2.243, p=0.70.

Table 5. Altruism Scores when Grouped According to Birth Order


Eldest3736.97309.382271.5424420.0058.00

Second Child1032.40005.660781.7901023.0039.00

Middle Child1235.750010.652573.0751317.0054.00

Youngest3335.12129.509071.6553219.0056.00

Only Child840.12508.288332.9303729.0058.00

Total10036.01009.21516.9215217.0058.00

Table 5.1. ANOVA Results of Altruism Scores and Birth Order

Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.

Between Groups326.977481.744.961.433


Total8406.99099

When group according to Birth Order, the Only Child has the greatest mean of the Altruism score (M=40.12), then the Eldest (M=36.97), followed by the Middle Child (M=35.75), the Youngest Child (M=35.12), then the Second Child (M=32.40). There is no significant difference of Birth Order on the Altruism score of the respondents F(4,95)=.961, p=.433.This indicates that Birth Order cannot affect ones Altruistic Scores.

Table 6. Altruism Scores when Grouped According to Type of Residence

Type of ResidenceNMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error Mean

Altruism ScoreRural3134.29038.544761.53468

Urban6936.78269.458691.13869

Table 6.1. T-test results for Altruism Scores and Type of Residence

Levene's Test for Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of Means

FSig.tdfSig. (2-tailed)Mean DifferenceStd. Error Difference

Altruism ScoreEqual variances assumed.208.649-1.25498.213-2.492291.98675

Equal variances not assumed-1.30463.617.197-2.492291.91099

The altruism score of student leaders who resides in urban area (M=36.78, SE=1.13) is greater than the scores of the student leaders who resides in rural area (M=34.29, SE=1.53). This mean difference, 2.492 was not significant t(98)= 1.254. It also represents a small effect, d= 0.020. There is no significant difference in the Altruism scores under the type of residence category because their probability is 1.304 . This indicates that the type of residence among the student leaders does not affect their Altruism scores.

Table 7. The Mean of the Altruism Score and the Big Five Personality Traits

MeanStd. DeviationN

Altruism Score36.01009.21516100

Extravertness27.39004.48993100

Agreeableness32.74005.55163100

Conscientiousness29.76004.86613100

Neuroticism24.07004.66505100

Openness36.03004.59788100

The mean of the student leaders Altruism Score is thirty six (36) with an sd=9.22. The Openness score has the highest mean (M=36.03, sd=4.598) among the Big Five Personality Traits. Second is the Agreeableness score (M=32.74, sd=5.55), followed by the mean of the Conscientiousness score (M=29.07, sd=4.86). Then, the mean score of Extravertness (M=27.39,sd=4.49). And lastly, the mean score of Neuroticism (M=24.07, sd=4.07).

Table 8. Model Summary of the Multiple Regression

ModelRR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd. Error of the EstimateChange Statistics

R Square ChangeF Changedf1df2Sig. F Change

1.204a.042.0329.06658.0424.271198.041

A multiple regression was run to predict Altruism level from Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness. Only the independent variable, conscientiousness, statistically significantly predicted the dependent variable, Altruism level,F(1, 98) = 4.271,p< .041,R2= .042. The rest of the variables were excluded. The result shows that the correlation strength is a weak positive (R= .204). It means that the Conscientiousness which is one of the Big Five Personality Traits is directly proportional to and affects the student leaders level of Altruism and has a significant relationship (p=.041). Result shows that the R squared (R2 =.042) signifies that the Conscientiousness only accounts for 4.2 % of the student leaders level of Altruism. Since it only accounts for 4.2 %, there are also other variances that account the remaining 95.8 % of the student leaders level of Altruism. As such, the higher the score in Conscientiousness a student leader got, the more altruistic the person would be.

1. Discussion

The sample utilized in this study had a relatively low level of altruism. In terms of the personality traits, they exhibit the five personality traits (Extravertness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness) averagely. The t-test analyses done between the respondents' altruism scores and the groupings according to gender and to type of residence did not yield significant findings. Agreeing to the null hypotheses, the gender and the type of residence of the student leaders did not matter in the level of their altruism.The f-test analyses done between the respondents' altruism scores and the groupings according to the religion, the birth order and the annual income of the family also did not reveal any significant findings. The Multiple regression analysis, on the contrary, showed certain significant findings. When relating Altruism level and the Big five factors of personality of the student leaders, it was found that conscientiousness significantly predicted altruism level. Specifically, the stronger the exhibition of the trait, conscientiousness, the more altruistic the person would be.

Low level of Altruism among Student Leaders

What is your purpose as a leader? Do you lead to teach, to take, to help, to win?Altruism is about being genuinely concerned about other people's needs and being prepared to give selflessly to help them. When you hear about servant leadership/ altruistic leadership, this is it. Contrary to what was hypothesized, the mean of the results of the student leaders' Altruistic Personality Scale is relatively low. It was expected that as student leaders who are in the service of their respective colleges; they would have high altruism. This study revealed otherwise. Altruistic leadership is defined as guiding others with the ultimate goal of improving their wellness. Student Leaders who have high Altruism is ideal. But the study shows that just because you are in the position doesn't directly mean you are Altruistic. In picking leaders, it is important to consider this trait. A probability that would have caused low scores in altruism among the respondents is that the questionnaire wasn't applicable to the respondents.

Altruism grouped by Gender, Type of residence, Religion, Family income and Birth Order have no significant difference?This study has revealed that all groupings analyzed in the study have no significant difference in their level of altruism.On the basis of studies about gender difference in altruism, it cannot be concluded that one gender is constantly more helpful than the other one. (Pandey & Griffit, 1977). It relies on the nature of the experiment; some studies demonstrate that men have higher degree of displayed helpfulness. In contrast, there are other tests that provide information indicating that women have greater altruistic tendencies. There are citing variations across experimental situations as a factor leading to the inconsistencies of results in this investigation of the role of gender in altruism. Most, if not all, of the world'sreligionspromote altruism as a very important moral value. The religions like Buddhism or Christianity focuses on kindness towards others which may be defined as an altruistic behaviour. One of the major factors that influence the altruism slope is religiosity, the level of religious belief that a person possesses. All major religious texts explicitly encourage altruism, therefore, the stronger a persons religious belief, the more the person should be altruistic (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). On the data gathered, religion does not affect persons level of altruism. This depends on the person whether he/she will follow the teachings of his religion or if his actions are into helping others. Thru the teachings and ones attitude, a person may be high in altruism. Family income has no significant difference to Altruism. This does not predict the level of altruism the person may possess. The people with higher income do not signify how a person be helpful to others. From a study conducted by Monroe (1996), birth order has no significant influence on altruism. Some altruists were firstborn in the families; some were middle children; some were the youngest. Some altruists had close ties to siblings, while others did not. As the researchers found that indeed, there is no significant correlation between birth order and altruistic personality.

Helping may be influenced by economic environment within the culture. Small towns are said to be safer and friendlier but it is only a myth and has yet to be proven. From a meta-analytical study by Nancy Steblay, it was found out that this belief is not usually applicable to all. The number of people and type of place a person is living (rural and urban) does not affect altruism. It depends more on what kind of people who are residing and their attached tradition, lifestyle and values.

In summary, in this study, an individual's Gender, Type of residence, Religion, Family income and Birth Order cannot account for differences in altruism level.

Personality traits: Extravertness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness are not predictors?

The personality traits: Extravertness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness were excluded from the variables that would predict Altruism. Reasons to accept the null hypotheses are suggested.

Dr. John A. Johnson defined Extraversion as marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extroverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves. Extraverts would appear more altruistic as it is logical that extraverts seek out additional human involvement and view volunteering with various organizations as a direct way to channel such outward focused energy (Trudeau & Devlin, 1996). But this phenomenon of being an extrovert would not mean that they have higher altruistic behavior. Extraverts opt to do activities which are rewarding and stimulating in which altruistic situations may not be one it. They choose activities that are more rewarding for them than for others. This domain may not predict a persons level of altruism. It has been a result from a number of studies, for an instance, the studies conducted by Tait& Whiteman and Kilpatrick and McCullough, that individual with high score in Agreeableness personality value getting along with others. They are therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others'. As such, high level of altruism and high score in agreeableness are positively proportional to each other. While people who have low scores in agreeableness indicates less concern with others needs. For them, requests for help feel like an obligation rather than an opportunity for self-fulfilment. These individuals may mimic high agreeableness if necessary. This may happen especially when a person has an obligation and/ or expected to extend help. Thus, this predictor is not accounted as one of the most significant predictors. A person can extend help even if he has a low score in agreeableness.A person who has a high score in Neuroticism tends to be emotionally reactive. Their reactions are more intense than normal and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. In need circumstances, they may over think the situation and internalize first if they will take part on it. But having a high score on Neuroticism does not certify that it increases the chance for an individual to engage in altruistic behavior and is more likely to help. Neuroticism has a lot of facets like anxiety, self-consciousness and anger. Of all the big five personality traits, neuroticism is believed to have the least connection to altruism compared to the other traits.Openness includes active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, a preference for variety, intellectual curiosity and independence of judgement. But this doesn't necessarily mean that they are more likely open to experience altruistic related situation. They choose to experience by judging its excitement or they are drawn by their curiosity. Also, they experience both positive and negative emotions more keenly. Depending on the emotion, it could increase or decrease the likelihood to do altruistic acts. People scoring low on openness, on the other hand, tend to be conventional in behaviour and conservative in outlook. They prefer the familiar to the novel, and their emotional responses are somewhat muted. The characteristics of someone who strongly or weakly exhibit this trait can't exactly relate with altruism. Therefore it cannot strongly predict altruistic behavior.All the personality traits have a list of different facets that make up the trait. It is possible, although unusual, to score high in one or more facets of a personality trait and low in other facets of the same trait. This variation in the facets may be a cause of unreliable result. One facet may likely contribute to altruism, but there are also many other facet that are also considered and are not related toward altruistic behavior.Thus, in this study, it can be said that, Extravertness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness are dimensions of an individual's personality but they can't predict a person's altruism level.

Conscientiousness is predictive of an individual's Altruism

Conscientiousness is the only trait from the big five personality that has a correlation relationship to altruism. Conscientiousness refers to being responsible, careful and implies the desire to do a task well. It is also based on a realistic recognition of the complexity of self, others and social relation. It is usually associated with altruism. Sometimes it is termed as conscientiousness altruism, which is more oriented on self-defining and obligation in maintaining the institution of one society (Embracing the Other, Oliner et.al). Its central goal is to fulfill internalized social responsibility.Altruism by this context is defined more as a norm and behavior attached with duty and responsibility. A person with a high score in Conscientiousness are likely more altruistic because they perceived that they are accountable with their selves and especially to the people society. They will likely to give aid and support to those who are in need for they think that it is part of their responsibility to help. Leaders hold bigger responsibility on serving their people; their conscientious trait can likely contribute to their altruistic behavior.

1. Recommendation

Based on the findings of this study several recommendations for further studies and future researches of the topic are given. First of all, other tests measuring altruism and personality (such as the NEOPersonality Inventory and the Jackson Personality Inventory) might give a better understanding on how these two are related. There is a weakness and limitation in the findings when only the big five traits were studied without analyzing their facets. An examination of the facet scales of each dimension might produce clearer results. It is also suggested to adapt into the Philippine settings the situations in the items of the Altruistic Personality Scale used in this study to better fit the Filipino respondents. Researchers should consider the role of biological factors when examining the level of altruism of an individual. This is to examine if there is a strong genetic impact in altruism. For example, by conducting twin studies it may be that the level of altruism between twins are similar. The introduction of other environment variables might also enrich the findings. Introducing such factors as religiosity and age would broaden the knowledge on altruism.

REFFERENCES

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R.D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism sale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 292-302. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History,measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102138). New York: Guilford Press. Subhashini,T., & Hemalatha Kalaimathi,D. (2013, July 7).Relationship Between Altruism and Personality Type Among Higher Secondary School Students -A Survey. Retrieved from http://theglobaljournals.com/paripex/file.php?val=MTM3NA==Big Five Personality Traits - Psychological Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=8948Edinburgh Research Archive: Personality Traits of Altruistic People: Empathy and the Big Five Factors. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/3547The Institute for Research on Unlimited Love. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.unlimitedloveinstitute.org/publications/pdf/annotated/Annotated_Bibliography.pdfAgreeableness: sociability and near psychopathy in the five factor model of personality. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://alexk2009.hubpages.com/hub/Agreeableness-nice-or-nastyThe Big 5 Aspects of Personality. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.psychometric-success.com/personality-tests/personality-tests-big-5-aspects.htmStudies into Human Altruism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://deanmcdonnell.hubpages.com/hub/Altruism-dmdRetrieved from http://www.unlimitedloveinstitute.org/publications/pdf/annotated/Annotated_Bibliography.pdfPaulhus Personality Lab. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://neuron4.psych.ubc.ca/~dellab/research/altruism.htmlBig Five Personality Assessment | myskillsprofile.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.myskillsprofile.com/tests/b5pqThe Teacher Altruism Scale: Development, Validity and Reliability - Tags: ALTRUISM TEACHERS. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/23541815/teacher-altruism-scale-development-validity-reliabilityJohn,O.P., Naumann,L.N., & Soto,C.J. (n.d.).Chapter 4: Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Five Big Trait Taxonomy (History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues). Retrieved from http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/2008chapter.pdf

Van Hook,S.R. (1995, May 30).Sex Differences in Altruism /Steven R. Van Hook. Retrieved from http://walden.wwmr.org/altruism.htmRothman,S., & Coetzer,E. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ianrothmann.com/pub/mandyn_v11_n1_a4%5B1%5D.pdfAltruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). RetrievedOctober4, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism

Lu Zhao. (2012). Exploring Religiositys Effects on Altruistic Behavior. Accepted March 4, 2012

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGYXAVIER UNIVERSITY

CONSENT FORM

I agree to answer the questionnaires on the comparison between the student leaders and non-student leaders Altruistic level and their Personality Type. I do understand that my participation is entirely voluntary. I have read and been informed about the following points: 1. The purpose of this research is to compare the Altruistic level and Personality Type between the student leders and non-student leaders. I will be completely honest in answering the questionnaires. 2. The procedure will involve completing a total of approximately 10-15 minutes answering a paper-pencil questionnaire.3. All of the data collected, including demographic profile will remain strictly confidential. Only people associated with this study will see my data (my responses and demographic profile). This consent form will be detached from the questionnaire by the researchers and will be converted to a code number when the researchers store the data.4. The researchers will answer any question and concern about the research if I address these questions and concerns to the researchers (e-mail address: ____________: telephone number:____________: XU Psychology Department)6. Upon completion of my participation, I will receive a written explanation about the rationale and expectations underlying this study

____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Participants Printed Name Signature Date Researchers Name

_______________ _____________________________________________

PROFILE FORM

Name (Optional): __________________________________

Age: ____

Gender:___Male___Female

Religion: _________________________________________

Family Income (Annual, Combined):

___100,000 below___100,000-200,000___200,000-300,000___300,000-400,000___500,000 above

Birth Order___Eldest___Second Child___Middle Child___Youngest___Only Child

Type of Place:___Rural___Urban

ALTRUISTIC PERSONALITY SCALE

Scale: Using the following scale, please select the category that conforms to the frequency with which you have carried out the following acts.

12345

NeverOnceMore than onceOftenVery Often

1.) I have helped push a stranger's car that was broken down or out of gas.2.) I have given directions to a stranger.3.) I have made change for a stranger.4.) I have given money to a charity.5.) I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it).6.) I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.7.) I have done volunteer work for a charity.8.) I have donated blood.9.) I have helped carry a stranger's belongings (books, parcels, etc).10.) I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.11.) I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a line-up (in the supermarket, at a copy machine, at a fast-food restaurant).12.) I have given a stranger a lift in my car.13.) l have pointed out a clerk's error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in undercharging me for an item.14.) I have let a neighbor whom I didn't know too well borrow an item of some value to me (eg, a dish, tools, etc).15.) I have bought 'charity' holiday cards deliberately because I knew it was a good cause.16.) I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with an assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.17.) I have, before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor's pets or children without being paid for it.18.) I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.19.) I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.20.) I have helped an acquaintance to move households.

The Big Five Inventory (BFI)

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.

12345

Disagree stronglyDisagree a littleNeither agree nor disagree Agree a littleAgree Strongly

I see Myself as Someone Who..

____1. Is talkative____2. Tends to find fault with others____3. Does a thorough job____4. Is depressed, blue____5. Is original, comes up with new ideas____6. Is reserved ____7. Is helpful and unselfish with others____8. Can be somewhat careless____9. Is relaxed, handles stress well ____10. Is curious about many different things____11. Is full of energy____12. Starts quarrels with others ____13. Is a reliable worker ____14. Can be tense ____14. Can be tense____15. Is ingenious, a deep thinker ____16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm____17. Has a forgiving nature____18. Tends to be disorganized____19. Worries a lot ____20. Has an active imagination____21. Tends to be quiet____22. Is generally trusting____23. Tends to be lazy____24. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset ____25. Is inventive____26. Has an assertive personality____27. Can be cold and aloof____28. Perseveres until the task is finished____29. Can be moody____30. Values artistic, aesthetic experiences ____31. Is sometimes shy, inhibited ____32. Is considerate and kind to almost____33. Does things efficiently ____34. Remains calm in tense situations ____35. Prefers work that is routine____36. Is outgoing, sociable____37. Is sometimes rude to others____38. Makes plans and follows through with ____39. Gets nervous easily____40. Likes to reflect, play with ideas____41. Has few artistic interests ____42. Likes to cooperate with others____43. Is easily distracted ____44. Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature

Stat Final Paper BLSC (1)

Documents

Transcript of Stat Final Paper BLSC (1)