Page 1
ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF
EXPERIMENTAL APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
VOL. 7, ISSUE 1 – www.rjeap.ro
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15303/rjeap.2016.v7i1.a5
DIFFERENCES REGARDING PERSONALITY TRAITS AND
SELF-PERCEIVED STRESS FACTORS DEPENDING ON THE
ASSESOR’S WORKPLACE ENVIROMENT
GLĂVAN LAVINIA MIHAELA, PETROVAN JOHANA*,
RADU ALEXANDRA ANA
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences
Abstract
The concept of personality is known and studied by psychologists worldwide
being that it hold an enormous importance in the effort to understand and predict
human behavior, not to mention their reactions and preferences.an interesting
connection to study is represented by that between an individual’s personality
traits and the stress level perceived at one moment in time. Stress is also an
interesting concept to study because of it’s influence on one’s organism and
persona. These being said, the main objective of this study is represented by the
possibility of encountering differences in personal traits and stress levels of real
estate appraisers who work in their own firm or at a bank identify the influence
that driving styles and type of car have over the level of aggressive driving
behavior. This study has a total of 30 participants, 19 real estate appraisers who
work at a firm and 25 real estate appraisers who work at a bank.. To measure
personality traits the HEXACO Inventory was used it measuring 7 personality
traits. Moreover a questionnaire of stress level measurement was used to determine
how do the subject perceived stress a period of over a month (at the time of the
questionnaire being taken). The results indicate that there is no difference
regarding personality traits and stress levels of reals estate appraisers working
either in banks of at a private firm.
Keywords: personality traits, stress, workplace environment
1. CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL BASIS
1.1. THE CONCEPT OF PERSONALITY
The concept of personality can be defined as a person's lifestyle, as well as the
culture that reflects the lifestyle of a society. However, in this lifestyle there are
many features, a large number of known, unknown, primary or secondary
* Corresponding author. Email address: [email protected]
Page 2
39
dimensions. Among them are included: skill, intelligence, education, emotion, joy,
sadness, anger, friendship, culture, aggression, jealousy. Personality is what counts
in an individual (Mete, 2006). The concept of personality is one of the most
comprehensive concepts and lacks of a common definition. Different theories are
described in different ways. Personality traits were defined as a dynamic
organization within the individual and his / her characteristic thinking model ,
emotions and behavior, all the traits that define a person (Carver & Scheiner,
2000; Chamorro-Premuzic, 2008). Burger (2006) defines personality as consisting
of the consistent behavioral patterns of an individual and the intra-personal
processes. The consistent behavior model means that a person performs the same
actions at any time, for any situation, while intra-personal processes consists of all
emotional, cognitive and motivational processes developing inside us, having an
influence on our actions and feelings.
1.2. THE HISTORY OF STUDIES ON PERSONALITY TRAITS.
The concept of personality traits is very old, perhaps as old as language. Since
the fourth century BC, Aristotle, in his work titled "Ethics", considers personality
traits like modesty or cowardice, describing individual differences and leaves this
work as the basis for his pupil Theophrastus who, a few years later, will perform a
work which presents thirty personality types called "characters".The history
continues the study of personality and arouses great interest among both scientists
and poets, writers, artists or teachers. In 1936, Allport and Odbert discover 18,000
English terms related to personality which demonstrates curiosity and interest in
the study of personality since ancient times until today.
There are two main features maintained over time defining a personality trait:
the features are maintained over time and influence behavior. Along with Aristotle
and Theophrastus, Hippocrates (460-377 BC) has contributed to the development
of the current personality theories, as well as Galen of Pergamum with (130-200
i.Hr). Galen used terms that are still very present to describe tempers namely:
melancholic (with a tendency to depression), choleric (with a tendency to anger),
phlegmatic (with a tendency to calm or even apathy) and sanguine (the trend of
optimism and confidence ). According to Galen, but also Hippocrates, at the base
of these temperamental states stood the humors or bodily fluids (blood, phlegm,
bile). When they were balanced an optimal temperament results, when the illness
intervened both mental and physical imbalances occured "
A thing that to someone would be just another flea bite causes to another
unbearable torment; and what one can win by his unusual restraint and calm
demeanor, another is hardly able to endure; but, into any instant is any offense,
Page 3
40
injustice, cause of dissatisfaction, shame, loss, grief, rumor brought to him, he will
be so much blinded by passion that his appearance will be changing , digestion
will be difficult, he will not sleep, his mind darkens, it has a heavy heart and is
stirred by all hypochondrics; he is taken by rudeness and is overwhelmed by
melancholy "(Burton cited Gerald Matthews et al, p. 62)
Until the twentieth century there were no methods to study personality. The
emergence of factorial analysis had a huge ifluence because the data could be
analyzed and verifiable theories could be developed. Among the first researchers
in the field of personality is Sir Francis Galton with his "lexical hypothesis" (1884)
as well as the Danish psychologists Heymans and Wiersma, who assessed the
character of many people and used a statistical method similar to factoryal analysis,
but more rudimentary (1906- 1909). Also among the first "curious" in the
personality field was Webb, who in 1915 conducted a study which identified five
factors, very similar to modern dimensions of personality.
The problem of the personality traits was a field of interest to psychologists
since the beginning. In his 1968 "Personality ans Assesment" Mishel argues that
traits can not predict too well the behavior but later Eysenck, Allport and Cattel
said that "every feature may fail in predicting behavior in a unique situation"
therefore "only after seeing a person in different situations we can form
impressions to its usual reaction patterns. Therefore, to test the veracity of the
features, the researcher must test the way people work in a number of relevant
circumstances. Two things about the predictive validity of traits are important in
this situation: first, they must be able to predict behavior in general, as seen in
many situations, and, secondly, the situation must be relevant to the trait in
question. "(G. Matthews, 2005). So, as basic elements of personality, traits were a
topic of interest to scientists before our era.
1.3. STABILITY OF TRAITS DURING LIFE.
Over time, as a result of numerous Multicultural Studies, it was found that the
structure of the five factors of personality occurs in all cultures and is present in all
universal psychobiological structures. One thing to note is that there are, indeed,
cultural traits specific to certain areas or certain countries, but to this must be added
the five stable factors that are present in every human's personality.
"For a trait to be valid it must have a certain degree of stability over time."
(Gerald Matthews, 2005). The stability that the authors referred are features that
Page 4
41
are constant over time and are measured over years or decades, not to be confused
with the loyalty of features that represent the consistent internal assessment of
features but in a short period of time. After several studies it was concluded that
between 18 and 30 years, the level of neuroticism, extraversion and openness suffer
a slight decrease, while that of the kindness and conscientiousness increase. After
the age of 30 years traits become more stable, and their levels change very little
compared with the first 30 years of life.
In the '70s Mischel (1968) managed to demonstrate an impressive over time
stability of the scores of personality traits and stated that "those categories that
describe features and those labels of personality with which people describe
themselves in questionnaires and traits assessment scales seem to be extremely
durable "(W. Mischel, 1968). In the years that followed, Costa, McCrae, Leon et al
Arenberg, Conley, conducted valuable studies to demonstrate overtime stability of
personality traits. One of this remarkable studies belongs to Conley's Apart, who
tested 300 couples engaged for the first time in 1935.
They were asked to evaluate each other traits. In 1954 they were evaluated
again, but there were only 189 couples, and in 1980 was carried out the final test.
At the first test subjects were less than 20 years old, and at the last one
approaching 70. Conley's results show that, in case of neuroticism, extraversion
and control of impulses, correlations are 0.3 to 0.4 and he asserted that "if each of
the three traits - neuroticism, extraversion and social impulse control - a
substantial longitudinal variation of stability can be generalized for all assays.
Moreover, these three traits remain distinguish in the decades of maturity and their
discriminant validation in time is as impressive as their validation convergence
time. "JJ Conley (cited Gerald Matthews, Deary I.J., MC Whiteman, 2005).
1.4. PERSONALITY TYPES
Each personality, in part, has a distinctive mark given by its dominant
characteristics. Of all these characteristics, individuals prefer to use those that are
well defined; these preferred characteristics are called predispositions. Researchers
say that there are 4 types of features and from each pair we choose one. These four
features will form the preferred type of personality that defines us.
These basic characteristics are:
Extraversion (E) - introversion (I): The preference for the outside
or inside world .
Page 5
42
Sensory function (S) -intuitive function (I): refers to the way we
perceive the world around us.
Reflexive function (R) - emotional function (A) refers to the
process by which we make decisions.
Judging function (J) - perceptual function (P) refers to the
preference for a more organized or a more flexible lifestyle .
1.Extraversion and introversion represents our energy source and our
preference for eighter the external environment, for people and things, either for
the inside world dominated by thoughts and contemplation. While extroverts feel
the need to communicate, speak, express themselves and are characterized by
exuberance, introverts are reserved, need solitude, a period of reflection. Also
introverts, need more time to accomplish tasks preferring to ponder before, they are
exhausted by the extroverts who are always in motion, feel the need to be
constantly in contact with people, discuss, exchange views.
According to US statistics, 70-75% of the population belongs to the
extroverted type, and the remaining 25-30%, are introverts. Being in the minority,
introverts adapt harder and have difficulties both in the social field and in the
professional one, and are being considered slow. Regarding the couple, partners
tend to choose a person with different predispositions, introverts are attracted by
the open and friendly nature of the extroverts, and the latter fascinated by the
calmness of the introverts. (Patricia Hedges, 2002)
2. The sensory and the intuitive function refers to how we take information
from the environment, how we assimilate what we read, hear or are told, how we
see people, things or situations around us.
Sensory function is based on the five senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell,
taste. If this sensory function is well developed, the individual would prefer to do
something once, live now, be inclined to concrete things, take into account the
orders or instructions they received to be "down to earth " , to take into account the
reality and be attracted to concrete and not speculation. Also, sensory personalities
solve their problems in a systematic manner based on a plan, they assimilate a lot
of knowledge even if at the moment they do not need them and are anchored in
reality.
On the other side, the intuitives, are completely different. They tend to live in
the future, have their "head in the clouds", tackles almost every activity in a
Page 6
43
personal manner disregarding the instructions, seeking to acquire new knowledge
than to use the old ones, will continually improve existent things, are enthusiastic
in front of every new project, they see the large picture without the details. At the
same time they have imagination and use it to reflect on the solutions that will be
addressed, sometimes they can be out of touch with reality and forget where their
keys or wallet are.
Statistics say that 75% of the population is belonging to the sensory type and
only 25% are intuitives and that the sensory people are more adapted to the world
around them. (Patricia Hedges, 2002)
3. Reflective and affective function refers specifically to the way we make
decisions and draw conclusions on things and the outside world. A reflective
personality always appeals to logic, will not show feelings, will always believe in
justice and fairness, will exhibit its ideas in a methodical and detached way, will
not get emotionally involved , will demonstrate firmness, detachment and
objectivity. Moreover, this person will place great value on principles and
standards, especially personal ones, ignore the mitigating circumstances, sees the
things from outside and is a good analyst.
On the other hand, an affective person will make decisions in a subjective
and personal manner, is sensitized to the problems and needs of others, emphasizes
harmony in the relationships with others and take into account their feelings and
the consequences of their acts on other people. The affective type express their
feelings without restraint and tend to "throw off" to please someone.
The two different types of personality have great interraction problems with
each other, because they fail to agree. Statistically speaking, the proportion is
balanced, but it was observed that men are different from women as follows: 65%
of men belong to the reflective type while only 35% of women prefer this type.
(Patricia Hedges, 2002)
4. Judging and perceptive attitude describe another facet of our attitude
about life emphasizing our tendency to use mainly a perceptual function: judging
or perceptive. Judging personalities generally have an organized and planned life ,
make decisions easily and implement them strictly, observe and judge the world,
are irritated by program changes,adapts hard to unpredictable situations and like to
always have a purpose in life .
From the opposite side, perceptive not have a very organized life , make
decisions without second thoughts, have a much more relaxed attitude, delay
Page 7
44
decisions, projects, tasks until the last moment, enjoy surprises, adapt easily to
unforeseen circumstances and let themselves go with the wave often. However,
these type of personalities do not make their plans clear and concrete and even if
they have a plan, most often it will change over the years. (Patricia Hedges, 2002)
From all these features will result 16 different types of personalities, that are
classified after Mayers-Briggs psychological types derived from C. G.'s Jung:
1. extroverted, intuitive-affective judging;
2. introvert-intuitive-affective judging;
3. extraverted intuitive-affective-perceptive;
4. introvert-intuitive-affective-perceptive;
5. extroverted, intuitive-reflective-judging;
6. introvert-intuitive-reflective-judging;
7. extroverted, intuitive, perceptive-reflexive;
8. reflective introvert-intuitive-perceptive;
9. extrovert-sensory-reflective-judging;
10. introvert-touch-reflective-judging;
11. extrovert-sensory-emotional-judging;
12. introvert-sensory-emotional-judging;
13. extrovert-sensory-perceptive-reflexive;
14. reflective introvert-sensory-perceptive;
15. extrovert-sensory-emotional-perceptive;
16. introvert-sensory-emotional-perceptive.
1.5. STRESS
Definition
Stress is a concept used increasingly often in all areas of life, so it is
increasingly studied in relation to different variables. In this paper, we consider the
workplace stress , to study it in relation to their position. The word "stress" comes
from the French "estrece" which means "narrow, oppression". Researchers of the
nineteenth century considered stress as being the living organisms reaction to
external aggressions (Legeron, 2003). The canadian physiologist Hans Selye is the
first to introduce the concept of stress in everyday language , in 1950, he was the
first who studied thoroughly this phenomenon to define it as a set of reactions of
the organism to external action (Iamandescu, 1993) , descovering that it is a coping
mechanism to aggressive agents, a nonspecific response of our body makes to
Page 8
45
every request. Thus he has described it as a general adaptation syndrome (Legeron
2003).
Most times, people use the word "stress" to name both the reaction and the
causes and consequences. Thus, according to Legeron (2003) stress response is the
group of physical and psychological manifestations that occur in our body due to
the action of stress factors. So, the stress is not a pathological process, it is
manifested as a reaction of the organism to adapt to the constraints of the outside
threats.
Stressful situations are analyzed by the brain in terms of risk or threat and the
resources the person has to face them. Thus, stress manifests itself if after a
subjective analysis, the person believes that resources are insufficient in relation to
the threat (Legeron, 2003).
Stress has a biological basis and refers to any situation in which the body is
forced to face a physical or psychological event through coping mechanisms. Stress
is caused by any new situation that requires adaptation and can be linked both to
negative and positive events. There is also daily stress to which people are
subjected to in their daily work (Aniţei, 2010).
According to the author Anitei (2010),the moderator factors of stress are:
-The personality of the subject – thus, the vulnerability depends both on past
events and experiences and the subject's resources .
-Social support – represented by the comfort, assistance and information that
the individual receives through social contacts.
-Events causing social change – the stress level that the person is exposed to
and the traumatic events of its experience.
A more current definition for general stress is given by Eiffel (cited
Andreescu, 2006). He stated that the stress is a psycho-physiological reaction of the
organism caused by stress agents that action on the brain, causing reactions
throughout the body.
Another definition for the stress response argues that it represents a
biological, psychological and behavioral imbalance between the requirements of
the environment and the resources to cope of that person (Derevenco, cited
Andreescu, 2006).
Stress is a situation in which a person may not respond adequately to stimuli
or does it with an excessive cost to the body (Andreescu, 2006). Iamandescu
(1993) considers stress as a tension, both psychic and somatic that arises from an
imbalance between environmental demands and the body's possibilities of
Page 9
46
adaptation . Mental stress is caused by psychological factors and may be positive,
eustress, or negative - distress. This stress is perceived after decoding the factors
and assess the situation.
The stress factor or stressor is the agent, the source or the stimulus acting on
the individual. It is generally used as an independent variable in studies. Stressors
causing mental stress are most often verbal stimuli (Iamandescu, 1993). When the
stressor acts on a person for a long time, stress becomes a general adaptation
syndrome (Selye, cited Iamandescu, 1993), which includes nonspecific
mechanisms capable of ensuring the adaptation of the body to threatening situation.
Weitz (cited Iamandescu, 1993) presents situations that can generate stress, as
follows:
Overloading through multiple tasks, in a crisis situation.
Perceiving by the subject of a real or imaginary threat.
Isolation and lack of sense of freedom, in terms of social contacts.
The emergence of an obstacle on the activity course.
Social peer pressure.
Disruptions caused by the physical, biological or chemical agents,
which decrease the body's ability to adapt.
We conclude, therefore, that stress response occurs when a person feels
threatened by an external factor,by a stressor, is overwhelmed by positive or
negative emotions or when adaptation to a new situation is . Negative stress
manifests itself in a state of tension that generate frustration, dissatisfaction,
inability to cope with the situation.
1.6. WORKPLACE STRESS
The concept of "stress" restricted to the professional environment has given
rise to new concepts, professional stress, occupational stress, organizational stress,
or simply the stress of work are the most commonly used terms.
Socio-occupational, organizational or occupational stress, generated by the
events conducted in the workplace, is affecting the work, but also the health of
employees.
The premises of workplace stress and suffering state that they are caused by
non-recognition, by colleagues or managers, of the merits of a person who worked
Page 10
47
hard, who has mobilized all resources for the effective performance of duties. His
efforts were not rewarded, this resulting in devaluation of the individual
(Brenneur, 2012).
Lazarus (cited Baciu, 2012) said that occupational stress occurs by the
imbalance between workplace demands, subjectively perceived , and personal
resources, anticipated or actual, to manage complex situations.
Any person who works, who is employed, should be subject to certain
conditions that they do not always like.
A definition given by the European Commission, says that workplace stress
is the emotional and psycho-physiological reaction to harmful aspects of work,
working environment and organization of work. Stress at work is a condition
characterized by the feeling of helplessness (Baciu, 2012).
According to Convention 72 of the World Health Organization, the definition
of workplace stress states that it represents the negative state perceived by
employees, accompanied by psychological, physical and social discomfort ,that
state being the consequence of the fact that employees do not feel able to meet the
requirements and demands imposed at work (Baciu, 2012).
In the occurence of workplace stress there are four important factors:
insecurity, working hours, activity control and management style (Andreescu,
2006).
It is presumed that as professional activities acquire heavily loaded
psychological facets, and this adds to other problems, such as interpersonal ones,
relational, occupational stress is widening.
High-risk occupations, involving intense physical or psychological demands
and with difficult leading people, increase the likelihood of stress at work.
Regarding workplace stress, the stressor isrepresented by any objective
characteristic of the working environment that threaten the worker (Caplan, cited
Baciu, 2012). Stressor may be represented by the previous occupational conditions,
which require adapting responses of the employee (Beehr and Newmann, cited
Baciu, 2012), or any affective, cognitive, behavioral requests with negative effects
on performance (Kahn Byosiere, cited Baciu, 2012).
Iamandescu (1993) describes some stress generating specific situations from
the professional environment:
Excessive professional activity.
Inadequate recovery after working hours.
Exterior distractions.
Page 11
48
Inappropriate relationships with: superiors, colleagues,
subordinates
Too high responsibilities.
Demands that exceed the posibilities.
Failures, not achieving goals.
Thorp (cited Iamandescu, 1993) proposes a classification of stressors from the
work environment, as follows:
Social Background: competition, increasing targets at the same
time with competence
Tensions: reaching a plateau, deadlines, pressures, difficult
collaborators, jams.
Inhibed managers.
In conclusion, workplace stress is one that arises from work-related
situations, whether related to unforeseen events, to the specific of the profession,
relationships with colleagues or type of leadership.
1.7. PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Stress is a relatively new concept, which, however, provoked the interest of
researchers in all fields. As regards workplace stress, its importance is increased
both in terms of health and in terms of economy. In this paper we try to make a
synthesis of studies on workplace stress in relation to various other variables.
Thus, a study made in 2012 on stress at work and job satisfaction, begins by
defining occupational stress as the psychological state perceived by individuals
when faced with demands, obligations or opportunities with an important, but
uncertain purpose (Sager, cited Milbourn, 2012). If job satisfaction is related to
performance, anything that intrudes upon the achievement of performance, such as
negative relationships with colleagues or lack of effective leader creates a stressful
environment for the individual.
In this study, the author has classified the professional stress caused by
leadership in two categories: inadequate organizational practices and absence of
supportive leadership. When an employee is faced with these aspects, he wil
consider that the professional duties as ambiguous, conflicting. The author also
mentions that occupational stress has two forms: the ambiguity and the conflict.
Page 12
49
Ambiguity is the lack of clarity regarding leadership, tasks, objectives and
working methods. The person feeling workplace ambiguity does not understand
what are his tasks.
The conflict relates to the incompatibility between the expectations of an
individual and the professional reality. The conflict is felt when an employee is
complelled to do something, to which he does not necessarily agree or that is
replacing a personal choice. Another conflict arises when an employee is asked to
do things that are not included in the schedule of the post. Clear boundaries of the
authority, of tasks, ensures increased employee performance and organizational
development (Milbourn, 2012).
Another study made in 2012, was devoted to workplace stress caused by
sexual harassment. The conclusion was that women aged between 26 and 39 years
suffer from workplace sexual harassment . The results also showed that there is a
negative correlation between sexual harassment and workplace satisfaction, and a
positive one between harassment and workplace stress (Hutagalung and Ishak,
2012). Sexual harassment is a predictor of occurrence of workplace stress.
According to these authors, women are more prone to sexual harassment than
men. Other criteria favoring this are the low level of education, single mothers,
unmarried women, people newly arrived in organization and low in the hierarchy
of the organization.
Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual behavior in both forms: verbal
or physical. Unfortunately, this behavior is often hidden because the victims
believe that in this way they can keep their jobs, they feel threatened. This type of
behavior is perceived by the victim as an insult, a humiliation, a devaluation of the
status of human being (Hutagalung and Ishak, 2012).
A more recent study conducted in 2013, regarding stress as a predictor of the
intention to abandon the workplace and the professional performance has resulted
in a positive correlation between stress and intention to resign and a negative
correlation between stress and performance. Primary hipotheses say that workplace
is caused by the role confusion, lack of control and social support and the
interaction of these conditions, which can have a detrimental impact on individual
health, but also on the economic status of the organization (Arshadi Damir, 2013).
Workplace stress, from the perspective of these authors is a negative
psychological condition that occurs as a result of the interaction between a person
and its work environment. It represents the individual's reaction to the
Page 13
50
characteristics of the professional environment that seem physically or mentally
threatening.
Employees with high levels of stress have poor health, are less motivated, less
productive and alert at work. The organizations that they work for become weaker
on the competitive market. Professional stress can be due to various sources and
can have various negative effects on individuals (Arshadi and Damir, 2013).
Also, a 2013 study on the relationship between job insecurity, stress and
satisfaction has found that a feeling of insecurity in the workplace increases stress
levels. Insecurity stems from a discrepancy between the security desired by a
person in relation to the position held and the security perceived in
reality(Yashoglu, Karagulle and Baran, 2013).
The main reasons of this uncertainty are sudden changes, restructuring and
continuous need for innovation within the compettive organizations. Most studies
on workplace stress , reached the same conclusion, namely, the high level of stress
decreases job satisfaction of the employee.
Insecurity, which is a very important stress factor increases when the
employee feels threatened at work and as he feels that his tasks overhelm him.
Many employees say they feel more threats than opportunities at the profesional
level, which makes them feel they are losing control on the workplace (Yashoglu,
Karagulle and Baran, 2013).
We may add that a toxic boss can make employees feel constantly threatened
at work, which is why their stress level will be high.
Another interesting research that explores the relationship between
satisfaction at work and stress resistance, reveals that workplace satisfaction occurs
when the job of an individual meets his basic needs. Unmet needs are a source of
tension and stress (Perelygina, Dontsov, Busygina and Raspopin, 2013).
The features of an organization that offers safety to employees are:
development opportunities, the ability to be independent, clarity of the tasks, job
satisfaction, fairness and open communication.
The results of this research attests that a person is more resistant to stress at
work, if it feels safer and as his needs are met. Among the favorable factors of
increased workplace satisfaction are: positive relationships with colleagues and
superiors, development opportunities, recognition of professional merits
(Perelygina, Dontsov, Busygina and Raspopin, 2013). We conclude that a poor
relationship with difficult superiors greatly affects job satisfaction, which leads to
stress.
Page 14
51
Nowadays, employees are feeling increasingly more stress at work, the
profession is increasingly important. Thus, stress can occur in the workplace and
can affect a person in all areas of life. The more a person is affected by stress at
work, the more it will get easier to exhaustion (Khalatbari, Ghorbanshiroudi and
Firouzbakhsh, 2013).
We conclude that stress at work can have numerous causes, the predisposition
of each individual to unforeseen events. In the present study we attempted to make
a correlation between the leader's toxicity and the stress level felt by employees,
considering the required attention on this aspect that became frequently met, with
lasting negative effects.
2. CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1. THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH
The purpose of the present research is to highlight possible differences in
terms of personality traits and stress levels experienced by the evaluators who
work in banks and assessors who are working on their own.
As noted in previous chapters, the literature reveals that personality traits are
unique and specific to each individual, but people working in a particular area
develops over time some common features to be able to carry out its tasks .
Also, another main topic of the researches made in recent decades covers the
effects of stress, also called "disease of the XXI century".
The present research has proposed the following objectives:
- Highlighting the possible differences in terms of personality traits and levels
of stress experienced by the assessors from different working environments.
2.2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The general hypothesis
There are differences in terms of personality traits and stress levels felt by
assessors according to the working environment.
Specific hypotheses
1. There are statistically significant differences in terms of personality traits
depending on the environment.
2. There are statistically significant differences in terms of the level of stress
felt, depending on the working environment.
Page 15
52
2.3. THE RESEARCH MODEL
2.3.1. Research variables
Regarding the dependent variables,we took the dimensions from the
HEXACO test, meaning the personality traits highlighted by it. Thus, the
dependent variables are:
Altruism;
Honesty;
emotion;
extraversion;
Agreeableness;
conscientiousness;
Openness to new experiences;
Stress.
As independent variables we have:
The area of work: may be in banks or own businesses;
Years of activity;
Age.
2.3.2. Participants
This study involved 30 subjects. They were chosen at random from the
population of the Romanian evaluators. This sample consisted of 19 participants
who work in their own company and 11 operating in banking.
2.3.3. Tools
For the present study we used two questionnaires to highlight the personality
traits of participants and the level of stress felt in the last month of activity.
These were:
1.HEXACO - The Personality Inventory HEXACO is a model with seven
factors that highlight the personality traits of the individual. This inventory was
created by Ashton and Lee and is based on the findings of lexical studies that
included some features of Asian and European languages. The seven dimensions
are: selflessness, honesty, emotive, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness
and openness to new experiences. That inventory has 100 items corresponding to
Page 16
53
the 7 dimensions, each of which is divided into four sub-categories. For this study,
we used the main 7 dimensions.
2. Stress Questionnaire is a 10-item questionnaire, which aims to highlight the
level of stress experienced by subjects in the last month.
2.3.4. Data collection procedure
Questionnaires are pencil – paper type so they were introduced in Google
Docs to be more easily transmitted to all participants, the tests being sent by e-mail
to those who wanted to take part in this research. They had to fill every field of the
questions. As everything is computerized and globalized it was easier to extract all
participants' responses.
Also, demographic data were asked, like gender of participants, for how long
they have been working as evaluators and the environment in which they operate.
3. CHAPTER 3. RESULTS
In the following chapters we present and analyze the data from the test
subjects in order to reach a conclusion regarding the research hypotheses. The
statistics are in turn subject to both a descriptive statistical analysis and testing of
hypotheses.
3.1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
"Descriptive statistics aims at organizing, summarizing and description of
data. Despite the relative simplicity of the descriptive procedures and the fact that
they do not allow direct conclusions of research, descriptive statistics is essential to
substantiate the inferential procedures "(Popa, 2008, p. 45).
Tabel 1.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error Statistic
Std.
Error
Altruism 30 5.00 19.00 13.9333 3.91226 -1.168 .427 .387 .833
Stres 30 17.00 37.00 27.5000 5.67967 -.242 .427 -.697 .833
Honesty_Humility 30 24.00 73.00 54.5667 12.14761 -.851 .427 .541 .833
Page 17
54
Emotionality 30 38.00 65.00 49.4000 8.09257 .480 .427 -.791 .833
Extravertion 30 29.00 71.00 50.3000 10.87595 -.159 .427 -.408 .833
Agreableness 30 37.00 64.00 49.0333 6.03715 .269 .427 .000 .833
Conscientiousness 30 30.00 75.00 55.9667 10.88968 -.938 .427 .401 .833
Open_to_Experience 30 27.00 66.00 48.9333 10.21471 -.363 .427 -.291 .833
Valid N (listwise) 30
In Table 1 we have the descriptive statistics for some of the variables of the
study. Thus we have:
For the Altruism variable: min = 5, max = 19, M = 13.93, SD = 3.91;
For the Stress variable: min = 17, max = 37, M = 27.5, SD = 5.67;
For the Honesty_Humility variable: min = 24, max = 73, M = 54.56, SD
= 12.14;
For the Emotionality variable: min = 38, max = 65, M = 49.4, SD =
8.09;
For the Extravertion variable: min = 29, max = 71, M = 50.3, SD =
10.87;
For the Agreableness variable: min = 37, max = 64, M = 49.03, SD =
6.03;
For the Conscientiousness variable: min = 30, max = 75, M = 55.96, SD
= 10.88;
For the Open_to_Experience variable: min = 27, max = 66, M = 48.93,
SD = 10.21.
In the following we present the frequencies of the variables Altruism, Stress,
Honesty_Humility, Emotionality, Extravertion, Agreableness, Conscientiousness,
Open_to_Experience and Work environement. They are as follows:
Tabel 2. Working_environment
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid firma_proprie 19 63.3 63.3 63.3
sistem_bancar 11 36.7 36.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Page 18
55
In Table 2 and Chart 1. Pie participants can observe the frequency depending
on the environment in which it operates. As can be seen in this study included 30
subjects (19 and 11 working in their own company in a bank).
Tabel 3. Altruism
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 5.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
6.00 3 10.0 10.0 13.3
10.00 2 6.7 6.7 20.0
11.00 1 3.3 3.3 23.3
13.00 1 3.3 3.3 26.7
14.00 5 16.7 16.7 43.3
15.00 3 10.0 10.0 53.3
16.00 6 20.0 20.0 73.3
17.00 5 16.7 16.7 90.0
18.00 2 6.7 6.7 96.7
19.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Page 19
56
Histogram 1.
In Table 3 and Histogram 1. Altruism is observed frequencies variable scores
with M = 13.93, SD = 3.91.
Tabel 4. Honesty_Humility
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 24.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
27.00 1 3.3 3.3 6.7
35.00 1 3.3 3.3 10.0
41.00 2 6.7 6.7 16.7
45.00 1 3.3 3.3 20.0
49.00 1 3.3 3.3 23.3
51.00 5 16.7 16.7 40.0
53.00 1 3.3 3.3 43.3
55.00 2 6.7 6.7 50.0
56.00 2 6.7 6.7 56.7
58.00 1 3.3 3.3 60.0
60.00 1 3.3 3.3 63.3
61.00 1 3.3 3.3 66.7
62.00 2 6.7 6.7 73.3
64.00 1 3.3 3.3 76.7
66.00 3 10.0 10.0 86.7
68.00 1 3.3 3.3 90.0
69.00 1 3.3 3.3 93.3
Page 20
57
70.00 1 3.3 3.3 96.7
73.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Histogram 2.
In Table 4 and 2. Histogram is observed frequencies variable scores
Honesty_Humility with M = 54.57, SD = 12.14.
Tabel 5. Emotionality
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 38.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
39.00 2 6.7 6.7 10.0
40.00 1 3.3 3.3 13.3
41.00 1 3.3 3.3 16.7
42.00 3 10.0 10.0 26.7
43.00 1 3.3 3.3 30.0
44.00 2 6.7 6.7 36.7
45.00 1 3.3 3.3 40.0
47.00 1 3.3 3.3 43.3
48.00 3 10.0 10.0 53.3
49.00 1 3.3 3.3 56.7
50.00 1 3.3 3.3 60.0
51.00 1 3.3 3.3 63.3
52.00 1 3.3 3.3 66.7
Page 21
58
54.00 2 6.7 6.7 73.3
55.00 1 3.3 3.3 76.7
57.00 1 3.3 3.3 80.0
58.00 1 3.3 3.3 83.3
59.00 2 6.7 6.7 90.0
64.00 1 3.3 3.3 93.3
65.00 2 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Histogram 3.
Histogram in Table 5. The observed frequencies and variable Emotionality
scores with M = 49.4, SD = 8.09.
Tabel 6. Extraversion
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 29.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
31.00 1 3.3 3.3 6.7
32.00 1 3.3 3.3 10.0
35.00 1 3.3 3.3 13.3
38.00 1 3.3 3.3 16.7
40.00 1 3.3 3.3 20.0
42.00 1 3.3 3.3 23.3
44.00 1 3.3 3.3 26.7
45.00 1 3.3 3.3 30.0
Page 22
59
47.00 1 3.3 3.3 33.3
48.00 1 3.3 3.3 36.7
50.00 4 13.3 13.3 50.0
51.00 2 6.7 6.7 56.7
52.00 1 3.3 3.3 60.0
53.00 2 6.7 6.7 66.7
54.00 1 3.3 3.3 70.0
55.00 1 3.3 3.3 73.3
56.00 1 3.3 3.3 76.7
59.00 1 3.3 3.3 80.0
62.00 1 3.3 3.3 83.3
64.00 1 3.3 3.3 86.7
65.00 1 3.3 3.3 90.0
66.00 2 6.7 6.7 96.7
71.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Histogram 4.
In Table 6 and 4. Histogram is observed frequencies variable Extraversion
scores with M = 50.3, SD = 10.87.
Tabel 7. Agreableness
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 37.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
41.00 3 10.0 10.0 13.3
43.00 1 3.3 3.3 16.7
44.00 2 6.7 6.7 23.3
Page 23
60
45.00 3 10.0 10.0 33.3
46.00 2 6.7 6.7 40.0
48.00 3 10.0 10.0 50.0
49.00 1 3.3 3.3 53.3
50.00 2 6.7 6.7 60.0
52.00 2 6.7 6.7 66.7
53.00 3 10.0 10.0 76.7
54.00 3 10.0 10.0 86.7
56.00 2 6.7 6.7 93.3
59.00 1 3.3 3.3 96.7
64.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Histogram 5.
In Table 7 and 5. Histogram is observed frequencies variable scores
Agreableness with M = 49.03, SD = 6.03
Tabel 8. Conscientiousness
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 30.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
31.00 1 3.3 3.3 6.7
38.00 1 3.3 3.3 10.0
41.00 1 3.3 3.3 13.3
44.00 1 3.3 3.3 16.7
45.00 1 3.3 3.3 20.0
Page 24
61
47.00 1 3.3 3.3 23.3
48.00 1 3.3 3.3 26.7
52.00 1 3.3 3.3 30.0
55.00 1 3.3 3.3 33.3
56.00 1 3.3 3.3 36.7
57.00 1 3.3 3.3 40.0
59.00 2 6.7 6.7 46.7
60.00 4 13.3 13.3 60.0
62.00 3 10.0 10.0 70.0
63.00 4 13.3 13.3 83.3
64.00 1 3.3 3.3 86.7
65.00 1 3.3 3.3 90.0
66.00 1 3.3 3.3 93.3
69.00 1 3.3 3.3 96.7
75.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Histogram 6.
Table 8. Histogram 6. The observed frequencies and variable
conscientiousness scores with M = 55.97, SD = 10.89.
Tabel 9. Open_to_Experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 27.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
29.00 1 3.3 3.3 6.7
30.00 1 3.3 3.3 10.0
39.00 1 3.3 3.3 13.3
Page 25
62
41.00 1 3.3 3.3 16.7
42.00 2 6.7 6.7 23.3
43.00 1 3.3 3.3 26.7
44.00 2 6.7 6.7 33.3
45.00 3 10.0 10.0 43.3
46.00 1 3.3 3.3 46.7
47.00 1 3.3 3.3 50.0
48.00 1 3.3 3.3 53.3
53.00 2 6.7 6.7 60.0
54.00 2 6.7 6.7 66.7
55.00 2 6.7 6.7 73.3
56.00 2 6.7 6.7 80.0
60.00 1 3.3 3.3 83.3
61.00 2 6.7 6.7 90.0
63.00 1 3.3 3.3 93.3
64.00 1 3.3 3.3 96.7
66.00 1 3.3 3.3 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Histogram 7.
In Table 9 and 7. Histogram is observed frequencies variable scores
Open_to_Experience with M = 48.93, SD = 10.21.
Page 26
63
Tabel 10. Stres
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 17.00 1 3.3 3.3 3.3
18.00 2 6.7 6.7 10.0
19.00 1 3.3 3.3 13.3
20.00 1 3.3 3.3 16.7
21.00 1 3.3 3.3 20.0
23.00 1 3.3 3.3 23.3
24.00 1 3.3 3.3 26.7
25.00 2 6.7 6.7 33.3
26.00 2 6.7 6.7 40.0
28.00 5 16.7 16.7 56.7
29.00 2 6.7 6.7 63.3
30.00 2 6.7 6.7 70.0
31.00 1 3.3 3.3 73.3
32.00 2 6.7 6.7 80.0
33.00 2 6.7 6.7 86.7
35.00 2 6.7 6.7 93.3
37.00 2 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 30 100.0 100.0
Histogram 8.
Page 27
64
Table 10. The observed frequencies and Histogram 8. Stress scores variable
M = 27.5, SD = 5.68.
3.2. HYPOTHESIS TESTING RESEARCH
Tabel 11. Correlations
Alt
ruis
m
Ho
nes
ty_
Hu
mil
ity
Em
oti
onal
ity
Ex
trav
erti
on
Ag
reab
lenes
s
Con
scie
nti
ou
s
nes
s
Op
en_to
_E
xp
erie
nce
Alt
ruis
m
Pearson Correlation 1 .702** -.140 .604** .223 .761** .528**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .462 .000 .235 .000 .003
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Ho
nes
ty_
Hu
mil
ity Pearson Correlation .702** 1 -.322 .610** .221 .734** .558**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .082 .000 .241 .000 .001
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Em
oti
onal
ity Pearson Correlation -.140 -.322 1 -.195 -.446* -.110 -.241
Sig. (2-tailed) .462 .082 .301 .014 .562 .199
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Ex
trav
erti
on Pearson Correlation .604** .610** -.195 1 -.142 .628** .569**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .301 .454 .000 .001
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Ag
rea
ble
nes
s
Pearson Correlation .223 .221 -.446* -.142 1 .031 .196
Sig. (2-tailed) .235 .241 .014 .454 .871 .298
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Con
sci
enti
ou
snes
s
Pearson Correlation .761** .734** -.110 .628** .031 1 .623**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .562 .000 .871 .000
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Op
en_
to_
Ex
per
ien
ce
Pearson Correlation .528** .558** -.241 .569** .196 .623** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .001 .199 .001 .298 .000
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
In Table 11 we have the relationships between the variables expressing facets
of personality traits. We will list the significant correlations at the threshold p =
.05 and p = .01:
-The variable Altruism presents significant correlations with the variables:
Honesty_Humility (p = .00 <.01 and r = .70), Extravertion (p = .00 <.01 and r =
.60), Conscientiousness (p = .00 <.01 and r = .76) and Open_to_Experience (p =
.003 <.01 and r = .52);
Page 28
65
-The Variable Honesty_Humility presents significant correlations with
variables: Extravertion (p = .00 <.01 and r = .61), Constientiousness (p = .00 <.01
and r = .73) and Open_to_Experience (p = .001 <.01 and r = .55);
- the variable Emotionality variable presents significant correlations with
variable -the variable Agreableness (p = .014 <.05 and r = -.46;
-the Variable Extravertion presents significant correlations with variables:
Constientiousness (p = .00 <.01 and r = .62) and Open_to_Experience (p =
.001 <.01 and r = .56);
- the Variable Constientiousness presents significant correlations with
variable Open_to_Experience (p = .00 <.01 and r = .62).
It can be observed that the majority of the variables are significantley
correlated to a very low threshold (p <.01).
Tabel 12.
Correlations
Alt
ruis
m
Ho
nes
ty_
Hu
mil
ity
Em
oti
onal
ity
Ex
trav
erti
on
Ag
reab
lenes
s
Con
scie
nti
ou
s
nes
s
Op
en_to
_E
xp
erie
nce
Med
iu_
lucr
u
Str
es
Alt
ruis
m
Pearson Correlation 1 .702** -.140 .604** .223 .761** .528** -.239 -.112
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .462 .000 .235 .000 .003 .204 .557
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Ho
nes
ty_
Hu
mil
ity
Pearson Correlation .702** 1 -.322 .610** .221 .734** .558** -.088 .067
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .082 .000 .241 .000 .001 .643 .724
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Em
oti
onal
ity Pearson Correlation -.140 -.322 1 -.195 -.446* -.110 -.241 .110 .203
Sig. (2-tailed) .462 .082 .301 .014 .562 .199 .564 .283
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Ex
trav
erti
on Pearson Correlation .604** .610** -.195 1 -.142 .628** .569** -.177 -.180
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .301 .454 .000 .001 .351 .341
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Ag
rea
ble
nes
s
Pearson Correlation .223 .221 -.446* -.142 1 .031 .196 -.132 -.107
Sig. (2-tailed) .235 .241 .014 .454 .871 .298 .485 .573
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Con
sci
enti
ou
snes
s
Pearson Correlation .761** .734** -.110 .628** .031 1 .623** -.120 .025
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .562 .000 .871 .000 .526 .894
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Op
en_
to_
Ex
per
ien
ce
Pearson Correlation .528** .558** -.241 .569** .196 .623** 1 -.222 -.077
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .001 .199 .001 .298 .000 .238 .685
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Page 29
66
Med
iu
_lu
cru Pearson Correlation -.239 -.088 .110 -.177 -.132 -.120 -.222 1 -.105
Sig. (2-tailed) .204 .643 .564 .351 .485 .526 .238 .580
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Str
es Pearson Correlation -.112 .067 .203 -.180 -.107 .025 -.077 -.105 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .557 .724 .283 .341 .573 .894 .685 .580
N 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
From Table 12 we can see that both the independent variable Work
environment and the stress variable have no statistically significant correlations
with any of the personality valencest highlighted by the HEXACO test.
Tabel 13. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Med
iu_
lucr
u
Alt
ruis
m
Str
es
Ho
nes
ty_
Hu
mil
ity
Em
oti
onal
ity
Ex
trav
erti
on
Ag
reab
lenes
s
Con
scie
nti
ou
s
nes
s
Op
en_to
_E
xp
erie
nce
firm
a_p
rop
rie
N 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19
Normal Parametersa,b Mean 14.6316 27.9474 55.3684 48.7368 51.7368 49.6316 56.9474 50.6316
Std. Deviation 3.02233 5.12590 10.83826 8.14345 9.27866 6.44817 10.82935 10.62079 Most Extreme Differences Absolute .207 .136 .133 .168 .163 .144 .259 .167
Positive .164 .075 .130 .168 .112 .144 .149 .079
Negative -.207 -.136 -.133 -.094 -.163 -.117 -.259 -.167 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .901 .591 .579 .731 .709 .627 1.131 .729
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .391 .875 .890 .660 .697 .827 .155 .663
sist
em_b
anca
r
N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Normal Parametersa,b Mean 12.7273 26.7273 53.1818 50.5455 47.8182 48.0000 54.2727 46.0000
Std. Deviation 5.04164 6.72445 14.60012 8.26273 13.31779 5.38516 11.30567 9.19783 Most Extreme Differences Absolute .236 .121 .222 .150 .161 .166 .162 .241
Positive .182 .114 .091 .150 .123 .166 .129 .184
Negative -.236 -.121 -.222 -.117 -.161 -.113 -.162 -.241 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z .783 .400 .737 .496 .532 .550 .537 .799
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .572 .997 .649 .967 .939 .923 .935 .546
a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data.
In Table 13 we test for normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov distribution data.
Before we split it applies continuous variables values depending on the working
environment of the subjects. This can easily be seen that both subjects working in
their own company and those working in banking have normal distribution of data
for each of the continuous variables of the study (p> .05).
Page 30
67
3.3. MANN-WITNEY U TEST
Tabel 14. Ranks
Ranks
Mediu_lucru N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks
Altruism firma_proprie 19 16.32 310.00
sistem_bancar 11 14.09 155.00
Total 30
Stres firma_proprie 19 16.08 305.50
sistem_bancar 11 14.50 159.50
Total 30
Honesty_Humility firma_proprie 19 15.61 296.50
sistem_bancar 11 15.32 168.50
Total 30
Emotionality firma_proprie 19 14.74 280.00
sistem_bancar 11 16.82 185.00
Total 30
Extravertion firma_proprie 19 16.76 318.50
sistem_bancar 11 13.32 146.50
Total 30
Agreableness firma_proprie 19 16.32 310.00
sistem_bancar 11 14.09 155.00
Total 30
Conscientiousness firma_proprie 19 16.50 313.50
sistem_bancar 11 13.77 151.50
Total 30
Open_to_Experience firma_proprie 19 17.26 328.00
sistem_bancar 11 12.45 137.00
Total 30
In Table14. ranks valence sums we see personality and stress levels divided
into two categories Environments own firm_and banking system.
Table 15.
Test Statisticsb
Alt
ruis
m
Str
es
Ho
nes
ty_
Hu
mil
ity
Em
oti
onal
ity
Ex
trav
erti
on
Ag
reab
lenes
s
Con
scie
nti
ou
s
nes
s
Op
en_to
_E
xp
erie
nce
Mann-Whitney U 89.000 93.500 102.500 90.000 80.500 89.000 85.500 71.000
Wilcoxon W 155.000 159.500 168.500 280.000 146.500 155.000 151.500 137.000
Z -.673 -.475 -.086 -.625 -1.034 -.669 -.820 -1.443
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .501 .635 .931 .532 .301 .504 .412 .149
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .525a .641a .933a .553a .307a .525a .420a .158a
a. Not corrected for ties.
b. Grouping Variable: Working_environment
Page 31
68
In Table 15. The application of the test to find out the differences
nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test for ranks Thus we see that there are
significant differences in the variables of the study:
Looking variable Altruism was discovered that U = 89, M1 = 16.32; M2 =
14.09, p = .5> .05;
Looking variable Honesty_Humility was discovered that U = 102.5, M1 =
15.61; M2 = 15.32, p = .93> .05;
Looking variable Emotionality was discovered that U = 90, M1 = 14.74; M2 =
16.82, p = .53> .05;
Looking variable Extravertion was discovered that U = 80.5, M1 = 16.76; M2
= 13.32, p = .3> .05;
Looking variable Agreableness was discovered that U = 89, M1 = 16.32; M2 =
14.09, p = .5> .05;
Looking variable Counstiousness was discovered that U = 85.5, M1 = 16.50;
M2 = 13.77, p = .41> .05;
Looking variable Open_to_Experience was discovered that U = 71, M1 =
17.26; M2 = 12.45, p = .14> .05;
Looking variable stress was discovered that U = 93.5, M1 = 16.08; M2 =
14.50, p = .63> .05.
The conclusion from the interpretation of statistical data provided by this test is
that we have refuted the hypothesis research.
The conclusion from the interpretation of statistical data provided by this test
is that the hypothesis of this research were not confirmed.
In other words we can say with ease that the environment in which the
evaluators operate daily is not a predictor of the differences that can occur in
their stress levels registered while performing everyday tasks. Likewise, there are
no statistically significant differences regarding the personality traits of these
individuals.
4. CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS
The following subsections will present discussions related to the results of the
present study. We will also analyze the barriers encountered when trying to easily
finish the research. Lastly we will talk about future directions that may arise based
on this research.
Page 32
69
4.1. DISCUSSIONS
This research aimed to discover whether there are differences regarding the
personality traits and stress levels experienced by evaluators working in their own
companies and in banking.
Following the analise of the statistical data, applying the normality test
Kolmogorov- Smirnov and Mann-Whitney U,we found out that whatever the
working environment of the evaluators in the study is, the level of stress and
personality traits of these are not significant differences.
Given the small number of participants, we can not afford to generalize the
results to the entire population of the country evaluators.
4.2. RESEARCH LIMITS
This section of the study refers to the limits and barriers that have occurred in
the way of finalizing the research. They occur in any scientific approach and that
is the reason for which the researcher should be objective regarding them.
First we can talk about the fact that the environment in which the evaluators
operate did not influence in any way the variables of this study. This may be due
to the small number of subjects participating in the test. Given that the survey
sample consists of people who work in a particular area of work it was difficult to
find a large number of participants.
Another limitation is that the number of assessors working in the banking
system is much smaller than those working in a private setting.
4.3. FUTURE DIRECTIONS BASED ON CURRENT RESEARCH
Regarding the basic concepts of this study, namely the personality traits of
individuals and stress levels registered by them, we can state that it is a complex
one that has been studied from all points of view, while remaining a unceasing
source for new research directions.
Regarding the present research we can say that we could make an effort to
contact more subjects, so that we have the opportunity to test in the true sense if
stress level is influenced by the working environment of assessors.
Also an important thing to note is that the sample made up of professionals in
the area of real estate evaluation has not been investigated in detail in our country
Page 33
70
to date. A future direction would be testing professionals in this area of activity to
highlight a variety of psychological concepts.
REFERENCES
Andreescu, A. (2006). Managementul stresului profesional. Bucureşti: Editura M.A.I.
Aniţei, M. (2010). Fundamentele psihologiei. Bucureşti: Editura Universitară.
Arshadi, N., & Damiri, H. (2013). The relationship of job stress with turnover intention
and job performance: Moderating role of OBSE. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 706-
710.
Baciu, A. (2012). Stresul: clarificări şi delimitări conceptuale. Lucrare de disertaţie
nepublicată. Universitatea Hyperion, Bucureşti.
Brenneur, B. (2012). Stresul şi suferinţa la locul de muncă. Bucureşti: Editura C. H.
Beck.
Gerald Matthews, J.J. Deary, Martha C. Whiteman, 2005. Psihologia Personalităţii –
trăsături, cauze, consecinţe; Bucureşti: Polirom
Hutagalung, F., & Ishak, Z. (2012). Sexual harassment: a predictor to job satisfaction
and work stress among women employees. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 723 -730.
Iamandescu, I. (1993). Stresul psihic şi bolile interne. Bucureşti: Editura All.
Irenaus Eib Patricia Hedges, 2002. Personalitate şi Temperament – ghidul tipurilor
psihologice, Bucureşti: Humanitas.
Khalatbari, J., Ghorbanshiroudi, S., & Firouzbakhsh, M. (2013). Correlation of job
stress, job satisfaction, job motivation and burnout and feeling stress. Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 84, 860 – 863.
Legeron, P. (2003). Cum să te aperi de stres. Bucureşti: Editura Trei.
Milbourn, G. (2012). Job stress and job dissatisfaction: meaning, measurement and
reduction - A teaching note. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 18(1).
Mischel, 1986. Personality and assessment, New York Wiley, 65, pg 201-221
Perelygina, E., Dontsov, A., Busygina, I., & Raspopin, E. (2013). Job satisfaction as a
constituent of corporate security and its interrelation with personnel stress resistance. Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 86, 82 – 87.
Yashoglu, M., Karagulle, O., & Baran, M. (2013). An empirical research on the
relationship between job insecurity, job related stress and job satisfaction in logistics
industry. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 332 – 338.
Popa, M. (2008). Statistică pentru Psihologie. Teorie și aplicații SPSS. Iași: Editura
Polirom.
