Psychological Reports, 1976, 39, 21 5-220. @ Psychological Reports 1976 PERSONALITY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEVELS OF PSYCHOLOGY MAJORS RUTH E. MURRAY AND RICHARD P. WALSH Southern Illinois University at Edzuardsville Summury.-The purpose was to identify personality traits of those individuals who might have the necessary psychological commitment to pursue actively an advanced degree in psychology. 35 graduate students. 39 undergraduates, and 22 applicants to a Master's program were administered the California Psychological Inventory to study personality trait differences at these levels. Oneway analyses of variance indicated significantly higher scores for graduates than undergraduates on the scales of Dominance, Social Presence, Self-acceptance, lntellectual Efficiency, and Psychological-mindedness. The only differences between applicants and graduates showed the former to be higher on the Responsibility scale. One-way analyses of covariance, covarying for age of the subject, showed age less important in personality change of the college graduate students than their educational experience. These results suggest a means of identifying potentially successful graduate students i n psychology early i n their educational experience. Increased interest on the part of students to obtain degrees beyond the baccalaureate has resulted in psychology school programs experiencing large increases in applicants (Monitor,1 9 7 3 ) . Because of the cost of graduate education, both in terms of manpower and finances, this study was an attempt to identify personality characteristics of those individuals who might have the necessary psychological commitment to pursue actively an advanced degree in this field. Numerous studies have been undertaken to determine how successful someone might be in particular academic programs (Demos & Weijola, 1966; Mehrabian, 1969; Southern & Plant, 1968). However, many of these studies have led to conflicting and debatable conclusions. T o this point, Rawls, Rawls, and Harrison ( 1 9 6 9 ) found that only a few variables showed promise in predicting success for graduate students in psychology. Biographical information was much more encouraging than the traditional variables such as Miller Analogies Test and Graduate Record Examination for differentiating successes from failures. This suggested that success was dependent upon some factor other than just intellectual abiliry, such as interest, motivation o r personality. Taylor (1974) and Morgan ( 1 9 5 2 ) studied the relationship of the academic achievement of high ability college students and personality variables. Since students who aspire to and obtain graduate standing should be motivated by high achievement orientations, similar personality traits that distinguish high and low achievers may be significant in predicting a student's success in fulfilling his educational aspirations.
2 16
R. E. MURRAY & R. P. WALSH
Findings in some studies showed changes in students at different levels of preparation of graduate work in counseling (Kassera & Sease, 1970; Mordock & Patterson, 1965). Their results indicated the advanced students to be more tolerant, flexible, sociable, self-confident, and intellectually efficient than beginning students. Other studies by Goldschmid (1967) with undergraduate students and Norman and Redlo (1952) with advanced students also attempted to assess the personality patterns of various college majors. Although these studies were interesting, they failed to tell us much about personality characteristics which will help identify the potentially successful graduate student. The aging process also effects the personality characteristics of an individual. However, to what degree and direction these changes are going to develop is not readily agreed upon by researchers. A study by Dyer, Monson, and VanDrimmelen (1971 ) illustrated some of the problems which exist in that certain changes in personality characteristics were exhibited as a function of the educational process and others as a result of age. The present study was an attempt to study this developmental process for the psychology student. This information can give some insight into the personality characteristics of students committed to the advancement of their educational experiences. Specifically, the following null hypxheses were tested: ( 1 ) Among psychology majors, there are no personality trait differences between undergraduates, applicants to the graduace program, and graduace students as measured by the California Psychological Inventory. ( 2 ) Among psychology majors, there are no personality trait differences when age is controlled between undergraduates, applicants to the graduate program, and graduate students as measured by the inventory.
The first subsample included 39 graduate students, and the second 22 applicants to a Master's level psychology graduate program, and the third 4 sophomore, 13 junior, and 22 senior undergraduates. The California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1964) was administered to all subjects. The 480-item inventory yields 18 scores which are intended for diagnosis and evaluation of individuals with emphasis upon interpersonal behavior and dispositions relevant to social interaction. The purpose of each scale as stated by Gough is to predict what an individual will do in a specified context and/or to identify individuals who will be described in a certain way.
Pro cediwe The analyses of variance and covariance designs were employed to study the 18 scales of the inventory on the graduate, applicant, and undergraduate levels. Applicants to the Master's program were studied to determine whether
PERSONALITY OF LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGY MAJOR
217
or not there was an institutional effect for certain personality types as a result of the graduate admission selection process. Since differences in age levels might also play an important role, the ages of the subjects were studied. RESULTS Mean and adjusted mean scores on the 18 scales of the California Psychological Inventory examined in this study are presented in Table 1. These data indicate a trend toward higher mean scores on most of the scales for the graduate students and applicants over the undergraduates. The adjusted mean scores reflect little change due to the controlling of the students' ages. The mean ages for the graduate, applicant, and undergraduate levels were 26.4, 25.1, and 23.1 yr., respectively. TABLE I
Scale
Graduate
Applicant
M
M
M.d,
Dominance 57.4 57.4 Capacity for Status 56.8 56.9 Sociability 56.1 56.0 Social Presence 63.2 63.0 Self-acceptance 61.7 62.0 Sense of Well-being 49.1 47.0 Responsibility 43.9 44.0 Socialization 44.0 44.5 Self-control 44.6 44.7 Tolerance 53.6 53.5 Good Impression 41.7 42.0 Commonality 50.1 50.1 Achievement via Conformance 52.4 50.1 Achievement via Independence 62.0 61.8 Intellectual Efficienq 57.9 58.1 Psychological-mindedness 63.1 62.6 Flexibility 61.7 61.6 Femininity 47.5 47.3 'Means are adjusted, covarying on age of subject. '*On unadiusted means.
58.6 55.8 54.7 63.0 63.8 50.4 50.9 46.2 46.4 55.4 44.6 51.9 56.0 64.0 58.3 62.0 61.2 48.9
Mad,
58.6 55.8 54.7 63.0 63.8 50.4 50.9 46.3 46.4 55.3 44.6 51.1 51.1 64.0 58.3 61.9 61.2 48.8
Undergraduate M
Mad,
52.7 52.5 51.7 58.0 58.4 47.5 43.5 45.0 45.5 50.8 44.0 50.6 50.7 60.0 53.4 57.6 57.5 51.2
52.7 52.4 51.9 58.1 58.5 47.7 43.4 44.5 45.4 50.9 44.0 50.5 50.6 60.1 53.3 58.1 57.6 51.3
F* ' 5.60% 2.36 2.34 3.18t 3.15t .76 7.13$ .38 .24 2.46 .59 .ll
2.02 2.33 3.79t 4.44t 1.66 1.60
One-way analyses of variance yielded significant differences across the educational levels on six of the 18 scales. The significant scales were Dominance ( p < .005),Social Presence ( p < .05), Self-acceptance ( p < .05),Responsibility ( p < .005),Intellectual Efficiency ( p < .025), and Psychologicalmindedness ( p .025). Graduate students scored highest on Dominance,
2 16
R. E. MURRAY & R. P. WALSH
Findings in some studies showed changes in students at different levels of preparation of graduate work in counseling (Kassera & Sease, 1970; Mordock & Patterson, 1965). Their results indicated the advanced students to be more tolerant, flexible, sociable, self-confident, and intellectually efficient than beginning students. Other studies by Goldschmid (1967) with undergraduate students and Norman and Redlo (1952) with advanced students also attempted to assess the personality patterns of various college majors. Although these studies were interesting, they failed to tell us much about personality characteristics which will help identify the potentially successful graduate student. The aging process also effects the personality characteristics of an individual. However, to what degree and direction these changes are going to develop is not readily agreed upon by researchers. A study by Dyer, Monson, and VanDrimmelen (1971 ) illustrated some of the problems which exist in that certain changes in personality characteristics were exhibited as a function of the educational process and others as a result of age. The present study was an attempt to study this developmental process for the psychology student. This information can give some insight into the personality characteristics of students committed to the advancement of their educational experiences. Specifically, the following null hypxheses were tested: ( 1 ) Among psychology majors, there are no personality trait differences between undergraduates, applicants to the graduace program, and graduace students as measured by the California Psychological Inventory. ( 2 ) Among psychology majors, there are no personality trait differences when age is controlled between undergraduates, applicants to the graduate program, and graduate students as measured by the inventory.
The first subsample included 39 graduate students, and the second 22 applicants to a Master's level psychology graduate program, and the third 4 sophomore, 13 junior, and 22 senior undergraduates. The California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1964) was administered to all subjects. The 480-item inventory yields 18 scores which are intended for diagnosis and evaluation of individuals with emphasis upon interpersonal behavior and dispositions relevant to social interaction. The purpose of each scale as stated by Gough is to predict what an individual will do in a specified context and/or to identify individuals who will be described in a certain way.
Pro cediwe The analyses of variance and covariance designs were employed to study the 18 scales of the inventory on the graduate, applicant, and undergraduate levels. Applicants to the Master's program were studied to determine whether
PERSONALITY OF LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGY MAJOR
217
or not there was an institutional effect for certain personality types as a result of the graduate admission selection process. Since differences in age levels might also play an important role, the ages of the subjects were studied. RESULTS Mean and adjusted mean scores on the 18 scales of the California Psychological Inventory examined in this study are presented in Table 1. These data indicate a trend toward higher mean scores on most of the scales for the graduate students and applicants over the undergraduates. The adjusted mean scores reflect little change due to the controlling of the students' ages. The mean ages for the graduate, applicant, and undergraduate levels were 26.4, 25.1, and 23.1 yr., respectively. TABLE I
Scale
Graduate
Applicant
M
M
M.d,
Dominance 57.4 57.4 Capacity for Status 56.8 56.9 Sociability 56.1 56.0 Social Presence 63.2 63.0 Self-acceptance 61.7 62.0 Sense of Well-being 49.1 47.0 Responsibility 43.9 44.0 Socialization 44.0 44.5 Self-control 44.6 44.7 Tolerance 53.6 53.5 Good Impression 41.7 42.0 Commonality 50.1 50.1 Achievement via Conformance 52.4 50.1 Achievement via Independence 62.0 61.8 Intellectual Efficienq 57.9 58.1 Psychological-mindedness 63.1 62.6 Flexibility 61.7 61.6 Femininity 47.5 47.3 'Means are adjusted, covarying on age of subject. '*On unadiusted means.
58.6 55.8 54.7 63.0 63.8 50.4 50.9 46.2 46.4 55.4 44.6 51.9 56.0 64.0 58.3 62.0 61.2 48.9
Mad,
58.6 55.8 54.7 63.0 63.8 50.4 50.9 46.3 46.4 55.3 44.6 51.1 51.1 64.0 58.3 61.9 61.2 48.8
Undergraduate M
Mad,
52.7 52.5 51.7 58.0 58.4 47.5 43.5 45.0 45.5 50.8 44.0 50.6 50.7 60.0 53.4 57.6 57.5 51.2
52.7 52.4 51.9 58.1 58.5 47.7 43.4 44.5 45.4 50.9 44.0 50.5 50.6 60.1 53.3 58.1 57.6 51.3
F* ' 5.60% 2.36 2.34 3.18t 3.15t .76 7.13$ .38 .24 2.46 .59 .ll
2.02 2.33 3.79t 4.44t 1.66 1.60
One-way analyses of variance yielded significant differences across the educational levels on six of the 18 scales. The significant scales were Dominance ( p < .005),Social Presence ( p < .05), Self-acceptance ( p < .05),Responsibility ( p < .005),Intellectual Efficiency ( p < .025), and Psychologicalmindedness ( p .025). Graduate students scored highest on Dominance,
