Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Discussion: The Shortcoming of Modern Personality Research

 

           


The aim of this study which was conducted in the Inuit culture in northern Canada was to test the validity of the Five Factor personality model of the Big Five. The Inuit culture was chosen to test the cross-cultural validity of the Big-Five due to several reasons.

The first is that this was the first application of the Big Five model in Inuit culture, the second is that even though Inuit are located in Canada; their culture is not considered as a western culture (ITK, 2018), which is a major premise to tackle if the universality of the model was to be validated, since the Big Five was initially developed in the United States, a predominantly western culture (SD, 2019). The third is that the local Inuit language Inuktitut is exclusive to the local culture, which implies that it’s lexicon should give an accurate reflection of the local culture, therefore translating the personality items which were chosen from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) (IPIP, 2018), and conducting a survey in the local culture, should either reinforce or refute the validity of the Big Five model, especially since it was developed based on the lexical hypothesis, which succinctly states that the traits which are important to the local culture will eventually become part of its language (Hutson, 2013).

That said, did the results verify the universality and multicultural validity of the Big Five?

Theoretical Implications

Was the hypothesis accepted, how was it accepted, what does that mean?

In the review of the literature and when designing this research, it was hypothesized that “A five factor structure congruent to the big five will appear in Inuit culture”. Despite some limitations, which were restricted to two items in this study, items 9 which should have correlated to openness and did not, and item 16 which should have correlated to agreeableness but instead also correlated to neuroticism, were the only two items that did not meet the expectation of the literature of the research. In conclusion 23 out of the 25 items of the survey of this research loaded onto their components as expected.

Moreover the principal component analysis revealed by compressing 25 variables into representative variables associated with each trait required the researchers to run principal component analysis, which tests the assumptions to ensure reliability. All correlations and covariance were greater than 0.62 as revealed by the Anti-image Matrices except for item 9 which wasn’t accepted with a score of 0.412

The factor analysis of the other hand also revealed that as expected, the variables which the research predicted would load onto their components do so, with the exception of item 9, which did not load onto any component and item 16, which should have loaded onto one component which what agreeableness, instead loaded also on another component, which was neuroticism.

Even though it is possible that a research design error could have resulted in skewed results (Andrade, 2018), however it is unlikely. A more likely explanation for erroneous results of those two items could have been either issues on translation or unaccounted for confounding variables which influence has influenced the results. In the case of translation, item 9 and item 16 could have been mistranslated or translation and phrasing were mismatched, and item 9 is more likely to have had a translation issue since it did not load onto any of the five factors. To further demonstrate the idea, suppose the word “space” which in English can be defined as an area or a position but you intend to mean area and then translate into Arabic where the appropriate word should be “masaha / مساحة” but instead it was translated into another word which also means space “masafa / مسافة” which actually means distance would completely put the phrase out of context or render it even as a meaningless phrase. Moreover the likelihood of translation errors especially in abstract concepts, which is what the traits and facets of the big five deal with and are, occur with a higher frequency that descriptive terms of daily objects (Zhao, Solano-Flores, & Qian, 2018).

Error in the results arising from unaccounted for confounding variables is also likely, especially for item 16 which loaded onto two components of agreeableness and neuroticism. In order to further expand of the idea, the facets of those two traits were stated then compared to identify possible confounds exclusive to the local culture. Agreeableness is comprised of facets of trust, earnestness, altruism, cooperation, compliance, modestly, sympathy, and compassion. Neuroticism on the other hand is comprised of anxiety, irritability, immoderation, self-consciousness, and depression (Cooper, 2010).  There is a decent body of literature which links the neuroticism facet of self-consciousness with the agreeableness facet of modesty (Jourdy & Petot, 2017), this correlation of narrow traits could have accounted for the loading of item 16 onto both factors of agreeableness and neuroticism, and however, further research into the matter is required.

Aside from the above stated limitations, this study has demonstrated the cross-cultural validity of the Big-Five as a universal measure of personality and the international personality item pool as a universal personality item pool which has been and can be translated into most languages.

Strengths, Limitations and Future Directions

This survey was conducted on a sample size that is comprised of 1006 participants from the Inuit culture of Canada from an age group that ranges from 9 to 12 years of age. The first strength was that the sample size was large enough to produce reliable and valid results since the KMO was > 0.5 (Statistics Solutions , 2019)

Another strength was that the results were statistically significant at P = 0.00 which well above the required level of P < 0.05. The rationale behind setting the level of statistical significance at P<0.5 has to do with what the scientific community perceives as acceptable level of error occurrence (Dancey & Reidy, 2017).  There are two types of error that can occur when taking statistical significance into account. The fist is called a type 1 error, which is when the research rejects the null hypothesis when it’s true. The second is called type 2 error, which is when the researcher accepts the null hypothesis when it is wrong. When P<0.5 the probability of type 1 error is less than 5%, and when P>0.5, the probability of type 2 error is less than 5%. Therefore, 5% is chosen as a balanced probability that tolerates the occurrence of both errors (Minitab, 2017). However, in the medical field, the tolerance for the occurrence of type 1 error is 1% (p<0.01). The tolerance for type 1 error is low because human life is at stake (Dahiru, 2008). Therefore this research is in adherence with the strictest requirements of statistical significance.

            However there were some issues that may compromise some of the validity of the results, the first is that not all factors loaded onto their components, where 2 factors out of the 25 which in percentage terms accounts for 8% of the factors did not load onto the expected components. As stated prior, this error in loading could have been a result of translation error or unaccounted for confounding variables specific to the local culture.

            Another limitation is the age group of the sample size which was children between the ages of 9 and 12. Even though all the legal and ethical requirements for conducting the research was accounted for, it does not negate the fact that this age group which is comprised of minors might not be able to evaluate abstract concepts appropriately, which is what comprises the Big Five personality traits. Moreover, children do not have a fully developed personality, some psychologists prefer to address personality in childhood through temperaments, which is biologically based with some overlap with the Big Five (Twenge & Campbell, 2017).

In order to account for the limitations of this research, further personality research should be conducted in the Inuit culture regarding the local adaptation of the Big Five personality traits. Since the current research was conducted on children aged 9 to 12, some highly recommended research which should follow the current research into the adaptation of Big Five personality traits in the Inuit culture are either a longitudinal or a cross-sectional study. Those types of research are designed to study personality across the lifespan as people age and personality develops (IWH, 2015). Other research can examine the adaptation of the Big Five personality factors in an adult sample of the Inuit culture. Lastly This research was conducted using the international personality item pool, it would be ideal to compare the results with research that uses  NEO personality inventory 3, which was developed by the psychologists Paul Costa and Robert McRae , who are the psychologists who developed the Big Five personality from Eysenck’s earlier PEN model (Costa & McRae, 1995).

Conclusion

The research that was conducted on a sample of 1006 Inuit children aged 9 to 12 has validated the universality and cross-cultural applicability of the Big Five personality theory, by translating items from the international personality item pool into Inuktitut, which generated statistically significant results that accepted the presented hypothesis “A five factor structure congruent to the big five will appear in Inuit culture”. However there were some limitations to the research which could have risen from a failure in translation or confounding variables, were manifested by a failure to load 2 out of the 25 factors onto their respective components while conducting a factor analysis. This research’s limitation can be accounted for my conducting more personality research in Inuit culture by either using a different research design such as a longitudinal or cross-sectional study, or by using a different item pool such as the NEO personality inventory 3.


 

References

Andrade, C. (2018). Internal, external, and ecological validity in research design, conduct, and evaluation. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine , 498-499.

Cooper, C. (2010). Narrow personality traits. In Individual Differences and Personality (pp. 78-95). London: Hodder.

Costa, P., & McRae, R. (1995). Primary traits of eysenck's p-e-n system: three- and five-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 308.

Dahiru, T. (2008). P – value, a true test of statistical significance? A cautionary note. Ann Ib Postgraduate Med, 21-26.

Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2017). Hypothesis testing and statistical significance . In Statistics Without Maths for Psychology (7th ed.) (pp. 134-173). Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Hutson, J. (2013). Exploring the nature of lexical selection in spoken word production : competition and the response exclusion hypothesis. England : university of Bristol .

IPIP. (2018). History of the internatinal personality item pool. Retrieved from International Personality Item Pool : https://ipip.ori.org/HistoryOfTheIPIP.htm

ITK. (2018). About canadian inuit . Retrieved from Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: https://www.itk.ca/about-canadian-inuit/

IWH. (2015). Cross-sectional vs longitudinal research . Retrieved from Institute for Work and Health Canada : https://www.iwh.on.ca/what-researchers-mean-by/cross-sectional-vs-longitudinal-studies

Jourdy, R., & Petot, J.-M. (2017). Relationships between personality traits and depression in the light of the “Big Five” and their different facets. Elsevier Masson SAS, 27 - 37 .

Minitab. (2017). What are type I and type II errors? . Retrieved from Minitab: https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab-express/1/help-and-how-to/basic-statistics/inference/supporting-topics/basics/type-i-and-type-ii-error/

SD. (2019). Western culture . Retrieved from Science Daily : https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/western_culture.htm

Statistics Solutions . (2019). Conduct and interpret factor analysis . Retrieved from Statistics Solutions : https://www.statisticssolutions.com/factor-analysis-2/

Twenge, J., & Campbell, K. (2017). Personality accross the lifespan . In Personality Psychology . New York : Pearson .

Zhao, X., Solano-Flores, G., & Qian, M. (2018). International test comparisons: reviewing translation error in different source language-target language combinations. nternational Multilingual Research Journal, 17-27.

 

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Psychological Tests and their Relationship to Behavior

 


Introduction to the Concept of Psychological Testing

The aim of the field of psychology is to understand, predict and influence behavior (Chung & Hyland, 2012). One way of doing so is by categorizing behavior and individual differences into measurable conceptual clusters, which can be related to specific behavior or psychological traits. In lay terms, this is the fundamental mission of psychological testing, which also relies heavily on statistical tools that attempt to generate correlational and causal links among variables (Cooper, 2010).

History of Psychological Testing

The fist quantitative attempt at psychological testing began with the French psychologist Alfred Binet, who devised the first IQ test in 1908 in an attempt to find out which students lacked in intellectual ability in order to help them develop their skills (Wolf, 1973). Even though Binet had good intentions, the first half of the 20th century witnessed horrific misuse of psychological testing, which resulted in mass sterilization of what was called at the time “feeble minded” individuals in the United States (Zussman, 2013).

Approaches to Psychological Testing

Intellectual intelligence was not the only ability psychologists attempt to measure. Emotional intelligence (EI), which according to Daniel Goleman, is a combination of abilities such as self-management, self-awareness, having social skills and the ability to empathize with others, is as important as intellectual ability in attempting to explain, influence, and predict behavior (Goleman, 1995). Other than the measures of abilities, psychologists also attempted to also categorize individual differences in personality, the most scientific and updated attempt in the Big Five personality test which was developed by psychologists Paul Costa and Robert McRae (Costa & McRae, 1995).

Differentiation between Correlations and Causal Links

            In order to link psychological tests with real life, it is also important to differentiate some fundamental statistical concepts. Correlation does not mean causation, if a variable is correlated with another, it means that there is high chance that they can co-occur simultaneously (SEP, 2016), however causation means that one variable causes the other. Also the approaches of measuring correlational and causal links are very different, correlations are usually derived from statistical analyses of surveys whereas causal links are derived from experiments with randomized samples (Srinagesh, 2006).

Linking Psychological Tests with Real Life Behavior

High scores on intelligence tests is a correlated with intellectual ability, however, having a high intellectual capacity does not necessarily mean that for example a student that has an above average score of 120 on an IQ test will necessarily be a high academic achiever. Some confounding variables such as family income, parenting style, quality of education can all influence the outcome (Baumiester & Tierney, 2012). On the other hand, personality traits of the Big Five have narrower traits called facets, which have been correlated with a range of abilities (Cooper , 2010). For example individuals that have high scores on facets of the trait conscientiousness such as orderliness, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and prudence are better predictors of academic achievement (Kertchian, 2018). As for EI and achievement, a meta-analysis that compares the results of school children that had EI training and those that didn’t indicates that improvement in EI resulted in a 10% increase pro-social behavior and 11% increase in academic achievement (Wilkens & Wilmore, 2015).

Conclusion

Reducing individuals into the sum of their traits and abilities is not the aim of modern psychological testing. However, such tests are used to analyze behavior and individual differences in order to categorize and develop psychological tools to improve the life and abilities of individuals.

References

Baumiester, R., & Tierney, J. (2012). Chapter 9: Raising strong children: self-esteem versus self-control. In Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest human Strength. New York: Penguin Group.

Chung, M., & Hyland, M. (2012). Further early beginning of psychology. In History and Philosophy of Psychology (pp. 119-120). John Wiley & Sons.

Cooper, C. (2010). Introduction to individual differences. In Individual Differences and Personality (pp. 1-6). London: Hodder.

Cooper, C. (2010). Narrow personality traits. In Individual Differences and Personality (pp. 78-95). London: Hodder.

Costa, P., & McRae, R. (1995). Primary traits of eysenck's p-e-n system: three- and five-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 308.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York : Bantam Books .

Kertchian, S. (2018). Conscientiousness as a key to success for academic achievement among French university students enrolled in management studies. IJME, 154-165.

SEP. (2016). Correlational research. Salem Encyclopedia Press, Retrieved from https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=119214045&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Srinagesh, K. (2006). Planning the experiments in statistical terms. In The Principles of Experimental Research (pp. 333-372). Amsterdam : Butterworth Heinmann.

Wilkens, C. L., & Wilmore, E. (2015). Does implementation of emotional intelligence program guarantee student achievement ? Education Leadership Review of Doctorate Research , 13.

Wolf, T. (1973). Alfred binet . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zussman, R. (2013). The girls and boys of belchertown: a social history of the belchertown state school for the feeble-minded. American Sociological Association, 572.

 

 

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Freud versus Eysenck Theories of Personality

 


 

            Theories of personality that were developed throughout the 20th century were varied in approach and substance. There were four major schools the psychodynamic, humanistic, trait theorists, and the social cognitive perspective (Gedney-Rubel, 2014). This paper will compare and contrast two perspectives, the psychodynamic and the work of Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) with trait theory and the work of Hans Eysenck (1916 – 1997).

As its name suggests, psychodynamic theory is centered on the idea that there’s a continuous dynamic conflict between the conscious and the unconscious mind (Deal, 2007). This perspective was pioneered by Freud, who relied heavily on his clinical observations with his patients in order to develop his theories (Ciabattari, 2014). Freud also proposed two personality models, the topographic and the structural models. The first is composed of the mental layers, the conscious, pre-conscious, and the unconscious. The structural model includes the id, ego, and superego. Both models overlap, where the id and the superego are unconscious drives, and the ego is the conscious mind that mitigates between the unconscious desires of the id, and the unconscious moral compass of the super-ego. When the dynamic conflicts of the unconscious can’t be resolved, a state of neurosis presents itself.

Freud’s theory relied heavily on the influence of the unconscious, but because he relied heavily of self-report, introspection, and other subjective techniques to form his theories, they were deemed unscientific due to the difficulty of testing them empirically.  (Twenge & Campbell, 2017).

Trait theory on the other hand was propelled forward by Gordon Allport, who defined personality through conscious motivations and behavior patterns, also by using traits as descriptive measures of personality rather than attempting to explain it (Rosenzweig & Fisher, 1997). Hans Eysenck was a trait theorist whose work revolved around the notion that people’s traits are inborn and is rooted in biology, he designated those traits as temperaments (Eysenck, 1967) Eysenck was also the first trait theorist to use the statistical tool of factor analysis to determine personality traits, he developed what is known as the Eysenck 3 factor model . In it, people’s personalities are measured on a sliding scale between two opposite traits. The three main factors are neuroticism vs calm, introversion vs extroversion, and psychotic vs impulse control (Costa & McRae, 1995). Eysenck theorized that high scores on the neuroticism scale meant that people will be more likely to suffer from neurotic problems, and not neurotic themselves. As for introversion and extraversion, he hypothesized that extraverted brains required more external stimulation than introverted brains, which are more sensitive to external stimuli. As for high scores on the psychoticism scale, they indicate that in certain environments, the individual will have very low impulse control and a tendency to be out of touch with reality (Cooper, 2010).

Eysenck’s 3 factor model was later developed by Paul Costa and Robert McRae into what is now known as the 5 factor model, which is the revised and updated scientific approach to measuring personality (Costa & McRae, 1995). However, Freud, even though was unscientific in his approach, he was the first to emphasize unconscious drives, which shape personality (Deal, 2007).

 

References

Ciabattari, J. (2014, April 22). Does Sigmund Freud still matter ? Retrieved July 31, 2018, from BBC: http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20140421-does-freud-still-matter

Cooper, C. (2010). Biological, Cognitive and Social Bases of Personality. In Individual differences and personality (pp. 96–117). London: Hodder.

Costa, P., & McRae, R. (1995). Primary traits of eysenck's p-e-n system: three- and five-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 308.

Deal, K. H. (2007). Psychodynamic theory . Advances in Social Work.

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield: Thomas Publishing.

Gedney-Rubel, S. (2014). Exploring personality theory: past, present, and future considerations. New Hampshire: Southern New Hampshire University.

Rosenzweig, S., & Fisher, S. L. (1997). "Idiographic" vis-a-vis "idiodynamic" in the historical perspective of personality theory: Remembering Gordon Allport, 1897-1997. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 405-419.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Psychodynamic approaches. In Personality Psychology: Understanding Yourself and Others (pp. 142-176). New York: Pearson.

 

Monday, March 25, 2019

Introduction to Personality Theory

 


The goals of psychology as a discipline are concerned with describing, explaining and predicting people’s behavior, with the aim of supporting and helping people with their lives (Poznań , 2014). One way of approaching those goals is by studying individual differences, which are split into two categories, traits and states. Traits are concerned with personality and ability whereas states are concerned with mood and motivation (Cooper, 2010).

Personality is comprised on an individual’s usual pattern of feelings, thoughts and behavior (Cooper, 2010). Prior to the emergence of personality theory however, psychologists in the 20th century had what was called the person-situation debate, where they debated whether the person’s distinct characteristics determined behavior or the specific environment the person is in, or situation is a better determinant of behavior (Epstein, 1985). Modern psychology places somewhat equal weight on both the person and the situation (Judge & Zappata, 2015).

Also throughout the 20th century, there were several approaches that dealt with personality theory, from both the quantitative and the clinical or therapeutic schools of psychology. Since psychology as a science was not well developed in the beginnings of the 20th century (Chung & Hyland, 2012), personality was first approached by schools that belonged to the therapeutic tradition. Some of the most notable schools were the psychodynamic and the humanistic schools of psychology (Laureate online education, 2016).

The psychodynamic school of thought was founded by the famous Austrian psychologist, Sigmund Freud. Freud’s theory focuses on the dichotomy between the conscious and unconscious mind and their respective dynamic conflicts (Deal, 2007). Freud also proposed two personality models, the topographic and the structural models. The first is composed of the mental layers, the conscious, pre-conscious, and the unconscious. The structural model includes the id, ego, and superego. Both models overlap, where the id and the superego are unconscious drives, and the ego is the conscious mind that mitigates between the unconscious desires of the id, and the unconscious moral compass of the super-ego. When the dynamic conflicts of the unconscious can’t be resolved, a state of neurosis presents itself. Freud also developed the concept of defense mechanisms, and the role of defense mechanisms is to prohibit undesirable unconscious thoughts from entering the conscious mind. Most Freudian theories do not meet the scientific standards of modern psychology because they have been very difficult if not near impossible to test. However, some defense mechanisms, such as denial and reaction formation have substantial scientific literature to back them up (Twenge & Campbell, 2017).

As for the humanistic schools of thought, it was founded by Abraham Maslow and expanded by Carl Rogers, it was formed to some extent as a rebuttal to psychodynamic theory and the early 20th century behaviorism. Humanism focused on the idea that humans are conscious beings whereas the others focused more on unconscious drives (Twenge & Campbell, Self-actualization and humanistic psychology, 2017). Carl Rogers developed the Self-Theory, which is split into two modes, the congruence and the incongruence modes. In the first the ideal self is equal to the true self. In the later there are the ideal self, self-image, and true-self. Most people are incongruent and aim to be congruent (JP, 2018).

Even though both humanistic and psychodynamic schools are unscientific by modern standards, they have certainly contributed greatly to the advancement of personality psychology.

 

 

References

Chung, M. C., & Hyland, M. E. (2012). Evaluation of the idea that psychology is a science: what is science ? In M. C. Chung, & M. E. Hyland, History and Philosophy of Psychology (pp. 76 - 79). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.

Cooper, C. (2010). Introduction to individual differences. In Individual Differences and Personality (pp. 1-6). London: Hodder.

Deal, K. H. (2007). Psychodynamic theory . Advances in Social Work.

Epstein, S. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective.  Psychological Bulletin , 98(3):513-37.

JP. (2018). Revisiting carl rogers theory of personality. Retrieved from Journal Psyche: http://journalpsyche.org/revisiting-carl-rogers-theory-of-personality/

Judge, & Zappata. (2015). The person-situation debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 1149–1179.

Laureate online education. (2016, November 10). Week 5: conceptual and historical paradigms in psychology: a critical analysis. part 1. gestalt psychology. Mind, Brain and Behavior. Netherlands: Laureate Online Education B.V.

Poznań . (2014). On the method of psychology. an introduction to the comparative methodology of scientific research. Poznań studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities, p. 61.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Psychodynamic approaches. In Personality Psychology: Understanding Yourself and Others (pp. 142-176). New York: Pearson.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Self-actualization and humanistic psychology. In Personality Psychology (pp. 189-191). New York: Pearson.

 

 

Friday, February 22, 2019

Biopsychosocial Analysis of the Effects of Self-Efficacy

 Literature Review

The biopsychosocial perspective was proposed by the physician George Engle in 1988 as an alternative to the traditional biomedical model for the analysis of health behavior. Engle argued that the traditional biomedical model was too reductionist, and was not capable of accounting for all the variables that influence health (Engle, 1981). Engle’s biopsychosocial model is based on the general systems model where humans are at one level of a multidimensional system, where analysis can be conducted vertically by widening the scope to include larger ecosystems in the analysis, or narrowing the analysis into the cellular or atomic level. He also argued that a horizontal dimension of analysis of health behavior can be conducted by factoring in time and other influences in the environment of the same vertical level (Laureate online education, 2016).

Developed by the social psychologist Albert Bandura, self-efficacy is a psychological concept defined as a personal judgement about the capability of the self to innately achieve set goals (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy was first approached in 1977 in Bandura’s journal article “self-efficacy” from a psycho-social perspective. Bandura argued that self-efficacy is attained mainly through three things: (1) what we attempt to perform, (2) what we observe others doing, (3) how we are persuaded (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is also related to motivational psychology, which deals with what drives human behavior (Yi, Ji, & Yu, 2018). Moreover, what drives human behavior can be biological, for example a state of sexual arousal greatly influences behavior and impulsivity (Born, Wolvaardt, & Mcintosh, 2015). Since there are biological, psychological, and social influences on self-efficacy and repercussions, the biopsychosocial model is an ideal fit.

Knowledge Gap

Since self-efficacy is being analyzed through the biopsychosocial model, it is a good fit to measure the relationship of different biological, psychological, and social variables with self-efficacy. In order to approach the knowledge gap, the predictor variables of confidence, usefulness, male dominance, and teacher attitude and perception will be compared statistically with self-efficacy in order to explore correlational outcomes.

Statistical Requirements

             Factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) which compares means of two or more independent variables is usually the utilized statistical tool in experimental design. However, it can also be used in correlational research (SPSS T., 2019). However since we have more than 3 predictive variables, a factorial ANOVA cannot be used, since it would be increasing the chance of conducting a Type 1 error (Minitab, 2017).

            Regression analysis is another statistical tool that enables the researcher to explore the relationships among multiple variables, where they examine the influence of the predictor variables on the outcome variable. There are several types of regression analyses, the most basic form is simple regression, it’s when there’s one predictive variable and it’s called a simple regression, and represented by a correlation coefficient denoted by r2 (Lund, 2018). When analyzing multiple predictive variables, it is called multiple regression analysis, however in order to conduct it, the predictor variables should be continuous or dichotomous (Gallo, 2015). Since Age, math scores, and science scores are categorical predictor variables, they will not be included in the multiple regression analysis. Instead, three independent simple regression analyses will be conducted in order to measure their respective relationships with the outcome variable (self-efficacy).

Hypotheses

Gender and Self-Efficacy

H0 μ1 = μ2:  There is no significant relationship between gender and self-efficacy  

H1 μ1 ≠ μ2:  There is a significant relationship between gender and self-efficacy  

Math Grades and Self-Efficacy

H0 μ1 = μ2:  There is no significant relationship between math grades and self-efficacy  

H1 μ1 ≠ μ2:  There is a significant relationship between math grades and self-efficacy  

Science Grades and Self-Efficacy

H0 μ1 = μ2:  There is no significant relationship between science grades and self-efficacy  

H1 μ1 ≠ μ2:  There is a significant relationship between science grades and self-efficacy  

Confidence and Self-Efficacy

H0 μ1 = μ2:  There is no significant relationship between confidence and self-efficacy  

H1 μ1 ≠ μ2:  There is a significant relationship between confidence and self-efficacy  

Usefulness and Self-Efficacy

H0 μ1 = μ2:  There is no significant relationship between usefulness and self-efficacy  

H1 μ1 ≠ μ2:  There is a significant relationship between usefulness and self-efficacy  

Male Dominated Field and Self-Efficacy

H0 μ1 = μ2:  There is no significant relationship between male dominated field and self-efficacy  

H1 μ1 ≠ μ2:  There is a significant relationship between male dominated field and self-efficacy  

Tutor Attitude and Perception and Self-Efficacy

H0 μ1 = μ2:  There is no significant relationship between tutor attitude and perception and self-efficacy  

H1 μ1 ≠ μ2:  There is a significant relationship between tutor attitude and perception and self-efficacy  

Simple Regression Analyses

Age Predictor Variable

 

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model

Variables Entered

Variables Removed

Method

1

Ageb

.

Enter

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. All requested variables entered.

 

 

 

Model Summaryb

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.115a

.013

.003

32.00833

a. Predictors: (Constant), Age

b. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

A simple linear regression was conducted to measure the effect of age on self-efficacy.

R = 0.115 indicates weak predictive quality of age on self-efficacy

R2 = 0.013 age explains 1.3% of the variability of self-efficacy

 

ANOVAa

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

1341.447

1

1341.447

1.309

.255b

Residual

100404.263

98

1024.533

 

 

Total

101745.710

99

 

 

 

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. Predictors: (Constant), Age

 

F(98) = 1.309 ; P = 0.255 > P = 0.05

 

The results are not statistically significant.

 

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B

Std. Error

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

1

(Constant)

63.716

46.877

 

1.359

.177

 

 

Age

2.652

2.317

.115

1.144

.255

1.000

1.000

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

B = 2.652 indicates that for every increase of one year in age, self-efficacy increases by 2.65 points

β = .115

t (98) = 1.114 ; P = .225 > P=0.05

There is some difference in mean scores, however the results are not statistically significant, and thus the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

 

Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Model

Dimension

Eigenvalue

Condition Index

Variance Proportions

(Constant)

Age

1

1

1.998

1.000

.00

.00

2

.002

29.256

1.00

1.00

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

Collinearity is measure to account for the variance in the predictor variable that might affect the significance of the findings (Saslow, 2018). The Eigenvalue = 0.002 which is close to 0 usually indicates that the predictor variables are intercorrelated. However, since age is the only predictor variable in this table, the Eigenvalue is non-indicative.

 

Residuals Statisticsa

 

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Predicted Value

108.7972

127.3599

117.2300

3.68103

100

Residual

-73.40449

61.55095

.00000

31.84626

100

Std. Predicted Value

-2.291

2.752

.000

1.000

100

Std. Residual

-2.293

1.923

.000

.995

100

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 




 

The residual plots are randomly dispersed along the X axis, and thus indicating that regression analysis is a good model fit for analyzing the data (ST, 2019).

 

 

 

Math Grades Predictor Variable

 

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model

Variables Entered

Variables Removed

Method

1

Math Gradeb

.

Enter

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. All requested variables entered.

 

 

Model Summaryb

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.056a

.003

-.007

32.17069

a. Predictors: (Constant), Math Grade

b. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

A simple linear regression was conducted to measure the effect of math grades on self-efficacy.

R = 0.056 indicates weak predictive quality of math grades on self-efficacy

R2 = 0.003 math grades explains 0.3% of the variability of self-efficacy

 

 

ANOVAa

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

320.311

1

320.311

.309

.579b

Residual

101425.399

98

1034.953

 

 

Total

101745.710

99

 

 

 

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. Predictors: (Constant), Math Grade

 

F (98) = 0.309 ; P = 0.579 > P = 0.05

 

The results are not statistically significant.

 

 

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B

Std. Error

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

1

(Constant)

113.347

7.686

 

14.747

.000

 

 

Math Grade

1.639

2.945

.056

.556

.579

1.000

1.000

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

B = 1.63 this indicates that for every increase of one math grade, self-efficacy increases by 1.639 points

β = .056

t (98) = .056 ; P = .556 > P=0.05

There is negligible difference in mean scores, however the results are not statistically significant, and thus the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

 

Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Model

Dimension

Eigenvalue

Condition Index

Variance Proportions

(Constant)

Math Grade

1

1

1.908

1.000

.05

.05

2

.092

4.559

.95

.95

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

 

Residuals Statisticsa

 

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Predicted Value

113.3467

119.9008

117.2300

1.79874

100

Residual

-70.62376

60.37625

.00000

32.00780

100

Std. Predicted Value

-2.159

1.485

.000

1.000

100

Std. Residual

-2.195

1.877

.000

.995

100

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 



 

The residual plots are randomly dispersed along the X axis, and thus indicating that regression analysis is a good model fit for analyzing the data.

 

Science Grades Predictor Variable

 

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model

Variables Entered

Variables Removed

Method

1

Science Gradeb

.

Enter

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. All requested variables entered.

 

 

Model Summaryb

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.035a

.001

-.009

32.20187

a. Predictors: (Constant), Science Grade

b. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

A simple linear regression was conducted to measure the effect of science grades on self-efficacy.

R = 0.035 indicates weak predictive quality of science grades on self-efficacy

R2 = 0.001 science grades explains 0.1% of the variability of self-efficacy

 

 

ANOVAa

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

123.608

1

123.608

.119

.731b

Residual

101622.102

98

1036.960

 

 

Total

101745.710

99

 

 

 

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. Predictors: (Constant), Science Grade

 

F (98) = 0.119 ; P = 0.731 > P = 0.05

 

The results are not statistically significant.

 

 

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B

Std. Error

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

1

(Constant)

119.839

8.214

 

14.590

.000

 

 

Science Grade

-1.078

3.122

-.035

-.345

.731

1.000

1.000

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

B = -1.078 this indicates that for every increase of one science grade, self-efficacy decreases by 1.078 points

β = -.035

t (98) = -.345 ; P = .731 > P=0.05

There is negligible difference in mean scores, however the results are not statistically significant, and thus the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Model

Dimension

Eigenvalue

Condition Index

Variance Proportions

(Constant)

Science Grade

1

1

1.920

1.000

.04

.04

2

.080

4.897

.96

.96

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

 

Residuals Statisticsa

 

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Predicted Value

115.5267

119.8389

117.2300

1.11739

100

Residual

-71.68278

60.39526

.00000

32.03882

100

Std. Predicted Value

-1.524

2.335

.000

1.000

100

Std. Residual

-2.226

1.876

.000

.995

100

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

 



 

 

The residual plots are randomly dispersed along the X axis, and thus indicating that regression analysis is a good model fit for analyzing the data.

 

 

Multiple Regression Analyses

 

Regression

 

[DataSet1] C:\Users\Roy Riachi\Desktop\Research\University of Liverpool\03 - Data Analysis For Psychology\Week 8\Trial 1 .sav

 

 

 

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model

Variables Entered

Variables Removed

Method

1

Tutor Attitudes, Male Dominated Field, Usefulness, Confidenceb

.

Enter

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. All requested variables entered.

 

 

Model Summaryb

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.567a

.322

.293

26.94722

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tutor Attitudes, Male Dominated Field, Usefulness, Confidence

b. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

A multiple linear regression was conducted to measure the effect of confidence, usefulness, male dominance, teacher attitude and perception on self-efficacy.

R = 0.567 indicates strong predictive quality of math grades on self-efficacy

R2 = 0.322 confidence, usefulness, male dominance, teacher attitude and perception explains 32.2% of the variability of self-efficacy. The low value of R2 does not indicate a goodness of fit for the model.

 

ANOVAa

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

32761.211

4

8190.303

11.279

.000b

Residual

68984.499

95

726.153

 

 

Total

101745.710

99

 

 

 

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

b. Predictors: (Constant), Tutor Attitudes, Male Dominated Field, Usefulness, Confidence

 

F (95) = 11.279; P = 0.000 < P = 0.05

 

The results are statistically significant.


 

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B

Std. Error

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

1

(Constant)

219.800

40.157

 

5.474

.000

 

 

Confidence

-1.132

.469

-.346

-2.411

.018

.347

2.882

Usefulness

-.448

.368

-.142

-1.217

.227

.525

1.906

Male Dominated Field

-.300

.482

-.056

-.622

.536

.869

1.150

Tutor Attitudes

-.631

.610

-.124

-1.035

.304

.494

2.022

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

Confidence

B = -1.132 this indicates that for every increase of one point in confidence score, self-efficacy decreases by -1.132 points

β = -.346

t (98) = -2.411 ; P = .018 < P=0.05

There is a difference in mean scores, and the results are statistically significant, and thus the alternative hypothesis can be accepted.

 

Usefulness

B = -.448 this indicates that for every increase of one point in usefulness score, self-efficacy decreases by -.448 points

β = -.142

t (98) = -1.217 ; P = .227 > P=0.05

There is some difference in mean scores, however the results are not statistically significant, and thus the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.


 

Male Dominated Field

B = -.300 this indicates that for every increase of one point in male dominated field, self-efficacy decreases by 0.3 points

β = -.056

t (98) = -.662 ; P = .536 > P=0.05

There is minor difference in mean scores, however the results are not statistically significant, and thus the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Tutor Attitudes

B = -.631 this indicates that for every increase of one point in tutor attitude, self-efficacy decreases by .631 points

β = -.124

t (98) = -1.035 ; P = .304 > P=0.05

There is some difference in mean scores, however the results are not statistically significant, and thus the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.


Collinearity Diagnosticsa

Model

Dimension

Eigenvalue

Condition Index

Variance Proportions

(Constant)

Confidence

Usefulness

Male Dominated Field

Tutor Attitudes

1

1

4.835

1.000

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

2

.086

7.518

.01

.05

.34

.10

.00

3

.048

10.088

.01

.03

.05

.80

.01

4

.030

12.637

.01

.58

.61

.06

.00

5

.002

50.133

.97

.33

.00

.04

.99

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

Collinearity is measure to account for the variance in the predictor variable that might affect the significance of the findings (Saslow, 2018). The Eigenvalues of .086 for confidence, .048 for usefulness, .030 for male dominated field, and .002 for tutor attitude and perception, which are close to 0 usually indicates that the predictor variables are intercorrelated.

 


 

Residuals Statisticsa

 

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

Predicted Value

66.6626

147.4701

117.2300

18.19124

100

Residual

-75.09506

58.58260

.00000

26.39722

100

Std. Predicted Value

-2.780

1.662

.000

1.000

100

Std. Residual

-2.787

2.174

.000

.980

100

a. Dependent Variable: Self Efficacy

 

 

 

Charts



The regression standardized residual is normally distributed in terms of frequency.


 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

The residual plots are randomly dispersed along the X axis, and thus indicating that regression analysis is a good model fit for analyzing the data.

Discussion

After performing simple regression analysis for the categorical predictor variables, which are age, math scores, and science scores; we also performed a multiple regression analysis for continuous predictor variables, which are confidence, usefulness, male dominated field, and teacher attitude and perception. We were able to establish a statistically significant negative correlation between confidence and self-efficacy. However, the rest of the predictor variables were not able to establish a correlational relationship with self-efficacy, since all of their P values were greater than 0.05, hence lacking in statistical significance (Dahiru, 2008).

This negative correlation between confidence and self-efficacy is in accordance with the literature on self-esteem. Self-esteem and confidence are positively correlated, since both are defined by feelings of self-worth (Brummelman, Thomaes, Nelemans, & Castro, 2017). However, motivational research indicates that self-efficacy is a better predictor of academic performance than self-esteem and confidence, and that the latter can negatively impact performance (Twenge & Campbell, 2017).


 

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs .

Born, K., Wolvaardt, L., & Mcintosh, E. (2015). Risky sexual behaviour of university students: Perceptions and the effect of a sex education tool. African Journal For Physical, Health Education, Recreation & Dance, 502-518.

Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Nelemans, S., & Castro, B. O. (2017). When parents praise inflates, childrens' self-esteem deflates. Child Development, 1799-1809.

Dahiru, T. (2008). P – value, a true test of statistical significance? A cautionary note. Ann Ib Postgraduate Med, 21-26.

Engle, G. L. (1981). The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 101-124.

Gallo, A. (2015, November 4). A refresher on regression analysis . Retrieved from Harvard Business Review : https://hbr.org/2015/11/a-refresher-on-regression-analysis

Laureate online education. (2016, Nevember 10). Week 7: the biopsychosocial perspective. systems, holism and reductionism. Mind, Brain and Behavior. Netherlands: Laureate Online Education B.V.

Lund. (2018). Multiple regression analysis using spss statistics. Retrieved from Lund Research Ltd: https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/multiple-regression-using-spss-statistics.php

Minitab. (2017). What are type I and type II errors? . Retrieved from Minitab: https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab-express/1/help-and-how-to/basic-statistics/inference/supporting-topics/basics/type-i-and-type-ii-error/

Saslow, E. (2018, July 11). Collinearity - what it means, why its bad, and how does it affect other models? Retrieved from Medium : https://medium.com/@Saslow/collinearity-what-it-means-why-its-bad-and-how-does-it-affect-other-models-94e1db984168

SPSS T. (2019). ANOVA - simple introduction. Retrieved from SPSS Tutorials : https://www.spss-tutorials.com/anova-what-is-it/

ST. (2019). Risidual analysis in regression . Retrieved from Stat Trek: https://stattrek.com/regression/residual-analysis.aspx

Twenge, J., & Campbell, K. (2017). Motivation . In Personality Psychology (pp. 179-209). New York : Pearson .

Yi, T., Ji, J., & Yu, F. (2018). The effect of metacognitive knowledge on mathematics performance in self-regulated learning framework—multiple mediation of self-efficacy and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, https://doi-org.liverpool.idm.oclc.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02518.

 


 

Appendix

Age Regression Syntax

REGRESSION

  /MISSING LISTWISE

  /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA COLLIN TOL

  /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

  /NOORIGIN

  /DEPENDENT SE

  /METHOD=ENTER AGE

  /PARTIALPLOT ALL

  /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED)

  /RESIDUALS HISTOGRAM(ZRESID) NORMPROB(ZRESID).

 

Math Grades Regression Syntax

REGRESSION

  /MISSING LISTWISE

  /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA COLLIN TOL

  /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

  /NOORIGIN

  /DEPENDENT SE

  /METHOD=ENTER MATH

  /PARTIALPLOT ALL

  /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED)

  /RESIDUALS HISTOGRAM(ZRESID) NORMPROB(ZRESID).

 

Science Grades Syntax

REGRESSION

  /MISSING LISTWISE

  /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA COLLIN TOL

  /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

  /NOORIGIN

  /DEPENDENT SE

  /METHOD=ENTER SCIENCE

  /PARTIALPLOT ALL

  /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED)

  /RESIDUALS HISTOGRAM(ZRESID) NORMPROB(ZRESID).

 

Multiple Regression Syntax

GET

  FILE='C:\Users\Roy Riachi\Desktop\Research\University of Liverpool\03 - Data Analysis For Psychology\Week 8\UKL1_LPSY_303_Week08_statsconfidence.sav'.

 

Warning # 5281.  Command name: GET FILE

SPSS Statistics is running in Unicode encoding mode.  This file is encoded in

a locale-specific (code page) encoding.  The defined width of any string

variables are automatically tripled in order to avoid possible data loss.  You

can use ALTER TYPE to set the width of string variables to the width of the

longest observed value for each string variable.

DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.

 

SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\Roy Riachi\Desktop\Research\University of Liverpool\03 - Data Analysis '+

    'For Psychology\Week 8\Trial 1 .sav'

  /COMPRESSED.

REGRESSION

  /MISSING LISTWISE

  /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA COLLIN TOL

  /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)

  /NOORIGIN

  /DEPENDENT SE

  /METHOD=ENTER Confidence Usefulness Male.domain Teacher.attitude.perceptions

  /PARTIALPLOT ALL

  /SCATTERPLOT=(*ZRESID ,*ZPRED)

  /RESIDUALS HISTOGRAM(ZRESID) NORMPROB(ZRESID).