Statistic analysis assignment

1EXTROVERTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HELP THAN INTROVERTS

Running Head: EXTROVERTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HELP THAN INTROVERTS

UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMANFACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (HONS) PSYCHOLOGY

UAPG1013 STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES FOR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE IYear 1 Trimester 3

(201501)

EXTROVERTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO HELP THAN INTROVERTS

Lecturer: Mr Tan Soon Aun

Tutorial Class: T9

Group members:

No Name ID1 Ching Lee Ying 13036622 Lai Ke Li 1302348 3 Lam Yew Sin 13061144 Lee Hai Zheng 13014765 Methene Ganesan 13067136 Wan Fook Wai 1302909


UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMANFACULTY OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE

BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (HONS) PSYCHOLOGY

UAPG1013 STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES FOR BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE IYear 1 Trimester 3

(201501)

MAIN PROJECT MARKING SCHEME (18%)

Topic : Extroverts are more likely to help than Introverts

Tutorial Class : T9

Group members :

No Name ID1 Ching Lee Ying 13036622 Lai Ke Li 1302348 3 Lam Yew Sin 13061144 Lee Hai Zheng 13014765 Methene Ganesan 13067136 Wan Fook Wai 1302909

1. Abstract / 10 marks2. Chapter 1 Introduction / 10 marks3. Chapter 2 Literature Review / 15 marks4. Chapter 3 Method / 15 marks5. Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Result / 25 marks6. Chapter 5 Conclusion / 15 marks7. References & Appendixes / 10 marks8. Penalty for _____________________ (if any)

TOTAL : _______ /100 marks*

*100 marks is to be converted to 18%


Abstract

In the study of Statistical Technique Behavioral Science 1, a lot statistical techniques

which can be applied in this assignment is learned. The title chosen for this assignment is

“people who are high in extraversion are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior than those

who are low in extraversion”. The purpose of this research is to measure whether the tendency

to engage in prosocial behavior is influenced by the level of extraversion of the participants.

This hypothesis is attempted to be proven applicable by distributing survey questionnaires to 52

participants. The method of sampling is convenience sampling as the participants were selected

from the population who are available in Block L of University Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampar,

Perak. Results were similar to the hypothesis proven previously. Male has higher levels of

extraversion than females, females score higher in prosocial tendencies and other-oriented

empathy than males, and males scored higher than females in terms of helpfulness. Participants

with higher levels of extraversion also obtained higher scores for prosocial tendencies, other-

oriented empathy, and helpfulness. Besides that, it is also found that participants from rural

areas have higher levels of prosocial tendencies than participants from urban areas, which have

the lowest levels of prosocial tendencies among the three home areas. However, there is no

significant influence of family income on extraversion.


TABLE OF CONTENT

Chapter 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………………….……..5

Chapter 2 Literature ………………………………………………………………………….…..7

Chapter 3 Method …………………………………………………………………………….…13

Chapter 4 Data analysis and Result ……………………………………………………………..16

Chapter 5 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………25

References ………………………………………………………………………………………28

Appendix ...……………………………………………………………………………………...30


Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

This paper will discuss about the topic “Extrovert are more likely to help than introvert”. By

finding this result, level of extraversion (EPQ-RS; Eysenck, Eysenck and Barrett, 1985) and

prosocial personality tendency (Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995) are used.

1.2 Background of Study

A known relationship between extroverts and introverts has triggered the interest of people

for centuries. There is a question in mind that whether introverts or extraverts are going to feel

more rewarded in social situation. Eysenck describe extroverts as “sociable, impulsive, lively,

optimistic, quick-witted” person, whereas introverts are “quiet, pessimistic, unsociable, careful,

well-reserved, thoughtful, sober, peaceful person” (Schultz and Schultz, 2013, p.226). Eysenck

also mention that “extraverts get more social rewards because they thrive under arousal while

introverts avoid social rewards because they think that it is unnecessary or it can cause over

stimulation”. As propose by Eysenck, people with high level of extraversion have a more

dominant extraverted personality and vice versa (Schultz and Schultz, 2013). Prosocial behavior

means an action performed with the purpose of helping the other person while benefiting to him

or her. (Penner, Dovidio, Paliavin, Schroeder, 2005).

There have been cases where there are so many bystanders around during an accident but no

one is willing to offer help. After an accident happened, people will blame those bystanders who

not willing to offer help which causes the victims to suffer more severe injuries or worsen their

situation. Therefore, it has become a significant topic of research on why people help others or

not in certain situations and also whether introverts are more likely to engage in prosocial

behavior or extroverts. As there is a need to understand why people help, two hypotheses are


created, which are extroverts are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior and introverts are

more likely to engage in prosocial behavior. The aim of this research is to measure whether the

tendency to engage in prosocial behavior is affected by the level of extraversion of the

participants. The objectives of this research is to find out why people help others or not in certain

situations, and to know more about the factors that might prevent people from engaging in

prosocial behavior.

1.2 Research Question

1) Is there gender differences in level of extraversion and tendency of prosocial behavior?

2) Do high level of extraversion indicate high tendency of prosocial behavior?

3) How is the influence of respondents at home area on the tendency of prosocial behavior?

4) Does higher family income indicate higher level of extraversion?

The first research question serves the purpose of measuring whether males or females are

more likely to engage in prosocial behavior according to his or her level of extraversion. The

second research question is developed in order to find out whether high levels of extraversion

affect the probability of the particular person to help. The third research question attempts to find

out if there is a significant relationship between the participants’ type of home area and their

tendency to engage in prosocial behavior. The last research question is aimed at determining

whether the participants’ family income affect their level of extraversion.


Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1 The Big Five and prosocial Personality aspect

The aim of this study is to present evidence of the relationship between the five-factor model of

personality, and aspect of prosocial behavior and also the empathic tendencies, in relevance of

the context of gender, field of study and experience in volunteerism, through presenting them in

the form of statistic model. In attempt to obtain the data needed, sample of population are

selected from 1454 high school and university members, with their age ranging from 15 to 22

years old. This paper consists and also contain the application of knowledge that are related to

the field of psychology such as the five-factor personality model, prosocial tendencies and also

empathic tendencies that are correlate to the phenomenon of volunteerism. Ergo, the methods

that are chosen to obtain data include measurement and inventory which are listed as below:

• NEO Five-factory inventory, by P.T. Costa, R.R.McCree (1989).

• PTM-Prosocial Tendencies Measure, by G. Carlo a B. A. Randall (2002).

• IRI-Interpersonal Index Reactivity, by M. H. Davis (1980, 1983, 1996).

• MCSDS-Marlow-Crown Social Desirability Scale, by D. P. Crown a D. Marlow (1960).

When comes to the analysis of the statistics, the method that was utilized by this paper are the

multivariate analysis of variance. (Mlcak, 2010)

During the discussion part of the literature, they discovered that the females sample are

displaying significantly higher levels of psychological quality that are related to altruistic

behavior comparing to male participant, as in the factors of neuroticism, agreeableness, altruistic

behavior, empathic concern, perspective taking, personal distress and empathic fantasy. However


in contrast with those high mental capacities, females display much lower activities level of

public behavior when compared to the males. This might be suggesting that although females are

more empathetic than male in psychological wise, it is the male members that are way more

likely to offer a helping hand. (Mlcak, 2010)

Dimensions regarding the relationship and correlation between prosocial behavior and the five

factors personality model are, however in relation to the assignment only the findings about the

significance that extraversion that plays in prosocial tendencies will be discuss here. There is a

positive relationship found between the level of extraversion and the tendencies of an

individual’s active behavior during the moment of crisis, and emotionally challenging event.

Also, this journal also cites other research that was previously complete to support their findings.

(Mlcak, 2010)

Lastly, during conclusion it is mentioned that the determinant of prosocial tendencies are less

related to factors such as gender and profession, rather it is more closely related towards the

personal differences that are found between the samples. (Mlcak, 2010)

2.2 Gender Differences in Patterns of Association between Prosocial Behavior, Personality,

and Externalizing Problems

This article conducted study about the relationship between the difference of gender, personality

traits and prosocial behavior and tendencies to externalizing problems. They proposed that

although there are previous studies that investigated the relationship of personality traits and

prosocial tendencies, however it is suggested that variables such as gender differences had not

been study profoundly.(Pursell et al., 2008) Studies that are done are related to the tendencies of

youth behavior and adolescence delinquency. In this journal, the researcher hypothesize that The


predicting factor of the tendencies of externalizing problems, in other words, delinquency

behaviors are negatively relate to Prosocial tendencies, which are in turn, responsible by the

personal traits and characteristic of on individual youth, and that these traits factors does indeed

have a difference found between the genders. However in contrast to the above hypothesis

mentioned, it is also stated that there are exception to the theory. For instance, due to the reason

that antisocial behavior are found particularly amongst individual with low level of

agreeableness and conscientiousness, therefore, although females who tend to score higher than

male on agreeableness and conscientiousness, there are no evidence that can conclude the

significance of these two factors. (Pursell et al., 2008)

The method that are employ in this study are Peer reports, self-reports and maternal reports.

Participants are selected from adolescents ranging from 12 to 15 years old, and among that 128

are girls and 103 of them are boys. Also in order to obtain peer and maternal reports from the

peers, all students in the schools where the sample individual was obtain from were ask to

complete peer nomination surveys. In addition, 724 mothers of the adolescents who had

completed the surveys were asked to complete another survey. Of the total of them, 231 of the

mothers returned the personality and behavior problems inventories which are sent to them. After

the data had been collected, it is then analyze with multiples group mediation models.(Pursell et

al., 2008)

Finding suggested by the data indicates that agreeableness and conscientiousness has mediated

the association for girls in prosocial behavior and aggression. As such, girls who display more

agreeableness and conscientiousness are linked closely to prosocial behavior. However, in

comparison these two factor had fail to predict prosocial behavior in boys, as there is no

significant statistical indication.in concluding the article, the researcher mentioned that one


should not conclude easily or simply drawn assumption based on the result collected, as there are

many factors that can lead to different interpretation of the data. For example, the affect that bias

social perception towards girls and boys prosocial behavior can lead to different interpretation.

There is also the mentioning of the limitation of the data collected, stating that for example the

bias perception on gender differences could have an confounding effect on one’s perception

between prosocial behaviors and personality that would indicate prosocial tendencies. An

example would be peers would only identify prosocial behavior in boys based on observable

actions while based the prosocial tendencies of girls on solely their personal traits. Finally, this

article close with the notion that finding suggested that people interpret attribution of prosocial

behavior differently according to gender difference, and that agreeableness and

conscientiousness are view as quality traits of a prosocial individual when both are identify on

girls but not boys.(Pursell et al., 2008)

2.3 Gender Differences in Personality Traits across Cultures: Robust and Surprising

Findings.

The study is conducted in an attempt to further expand the limitation of the previous study

conducted by Feingold during 1994 in examination on the gender differences in personality. This

journal however will be able to examine the difference in all 30 traits of personality on the NEO

Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R: Costa &McCrae, 1992) with the availability of new data,

compared to the research completed by Feingold which only be able to examine 9 traits.

In the study, the researcher claim that Extraversion are consists of two dimensions, which are

consists of dominance and love. This claim is derived from another research which is the Sex

Role Inventory conducted by Bem in 1974, and was referred by the author in the article.(Costa et


al., 2001) Bum’s study was completed with orthogonal scales which, for extraversion trait,

consist of two dimension mentioned above, Love and dominance. The author hypothesize that

woman should score lower compare to man in this section because comparing between

extraversion and agreeableness, which, it’s orthogonal was consists of submission and love,

woman should be scoring higher on the agreeableness traits which based on the premise that

woman are more submissive and loving in nature. However, contrasting to the hypothesis, the

finding by Feingold claims that women are slightly higher in extraversion, however there are

also other studies that support the hypothesis of the author. In effort to build on the hypothesis,

the author theorizes as to why the traits are different amongst men and women using theory

based on evolution psychology and also social role model theory. (Costa et al., 2001)

Secondary data that was found from literature search was used before process to be analyzed. All

samples are from previous studies conducted by a variety of researches that had translated the

NEO-Pi-R and collected data on this inventory for their own researches. In the journal, refer to

table 1 for a summary of the characteristic of the samples. (Costa et al., 2001) These samples are

international and cross-cultural in order to cover relevant factors. In measurement, the NEO-PI-R

was use to access traits and to define them into the category within the five factor model of

personality, which consists of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and

conscientious. Finally the data obtain was then compared. Due to the variety of data used, the

result produced is also cross-cultural.

The results for woman are indeed generally agreeing with the previous study, which shows that

women are consistently scoring higher in agreeableness and lower in extraversion. However, it is

found out that in the NEO-PI-R scales woman are found to be scoring higher compared to

measurement used in previous study, due to the fact that different inventory putting different


emphasis on different dimension on the extraversion scale, for example the NEO-PI-R are on

warmth. Because of this, in this study the author created new variables to show the

distinctiveness of the variables between the genders. These categories are, E1: Warmth, E2:

Gregariousness, E3: Assertiveness, E5: Excitement seeking, and E6: positive emotions. The

results were concluded that Men score higher in E# and E% and women higher in E1, E2 and E6.

(Costa et al., 2001)

In conclusion, the author reported surprising findings due to the fact that the differences between

the scoring in these personality factors are magnified where they are instead were expected to

reduced predicted by the social role model, whereby woman from country where sex role

ideologies are more pronounced should leading to no significant differences when it comes to the

scoring because of the idea that woman are equal to man and therefore no differences are to be

expected. However, the result might had supported the other hypothesis the author claim, which

are based on evolutionary point of view, which suggested that gender differenced are

predetermined by genetics.(Costa et al., 2001)


Chapter 3 Method

3.1 Statement of problem

One of the challenges that society face today is why there are so many bystanders during

an accident but no one is willing to offer help. After an accident happened, people will blame

those bystanders who not willing to offer help which causes the victims suffer more severe

injuries in the situation. Therefore, it has become a significant part of research on why do people

help or not help others in certain extant and also whether introverts are more likely to engage in

prosocial behavior or extroverts.

3.2 Objective

1. To find out why do people help or not help others in certain extant.

2. To know more about the things that might get in the way of people engaging in prosocial

behavior.

3.3 Hypothesis

1. Extrovert is more likely to engage in prosocial behavior.

2. Introvert is more likely to engage in prosocial behavior.

3.4 Participants

A sample of 52 students from University Tunku Abdul Rahman were asked to fill in the

questionnaire, which included 18 males and 34 females. There were supposed to be 50 students

selected to answer the questionnaires, but because 7 incomplete questionnaires were received, an

additional 9 sets of questionnaires were distributed to other students to meet the minimum

requirement of 50 participants.


3.5 Instrument

The questionnaire is made up of three sections, which are Section A for demographic

information, Section B for personality and Section C for prosocial behavior. The demographic

information is to collect the relevant data, the question for personality is retrieve from Short-

scale Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-RS; Eysenck, Eysenck and Barrett,

1985) and the prosocial behavior questionnaire in retrieve from Prosocial Personality Battery

(Penner, 2002).

The Short-scale Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire consists of 12 questions and

there are two subscales which are YES or NO. The instrument is designed to determine the

participant level of extraversion.

The Prosocial Personality Battery contains 30 questions, which are divided into three

different parts, where participants are required to rate from a scale of 1 to 5. For part 1 and part

2, the scale ranges from strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree, to strongly agree. However,

for part 3, the scale ranges from never, once, more than once, often, to very often. In order to

determine overall prosocial tendency, Prosocial Personality Battery considered “two-factor

solution”. The first factor, other-oriented empathy reflect five individual scales – social

responsibility, empathic concern, perspective taking, mutual reasoning and other oriented

reasoning. Meanwhile the second factor, helpfulness consist of only two scales which are

personal distress and self-report altruism.

Overall the Prosocial Personality Battery is designed to examine the prosocial personality

tendency. To feel empathy and worry for others, and to behave in a manner that benefit others.

The other-oriented empathy indicate the tendency to feel empathy and concern of others. The


second factor, helpfulness indicate the tendency to perform helpful acts, mostly is based on past

experience (Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, 1995).

3.6 Procedure

The sampling method used for this research is convenience sampling. 50 questionnaires

were prepared and distributed to respondents in Block L. An inform consent was attached to the

questionnaire to notify the participants about the confidentiality and the purpose of the research.

7 questionnaires were found to lack of complete answers. Additional of 9 questionnaires were

then distributed to convenient participants in UTAR. All of the 9 respondents completed the

questionnaires by themselves successfully. After that, all the data collected from the participants

to be analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Science 17.0 (SPSS) and carried to

determine whether the hypothesis is proven or not proven.


4.0 Data Analysis and Result

After the elimination and accession of data, the result for extraversion dimension of

Short-scale Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Prosocial Personality Battery is

calculated according to the scoring system. The result of the two section and the demographic

information were then be recorded in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), 17.0

version to further generate tabulated data and graphical report.

Figure 9 and Table 6 (see Appendix) shows female occupy approximately 65.4% while male

occupy 34.6% in the sample. Figure 10 (see Appendix) shows that participant mostly from urban

area which is 33 participants; suburban is 13 participants and rural with 6 participants. Table 5

(see Appendix) shows the age (M = 20.12; MD = 20; = 0.81; R = 4), extraversion (M = 7.10;

MD = 7; = 2.53; R = 10), prosocial personality tendency (M = 98.15); MD = 97.5; = 10.29;

R = 67), other-oriented empathy (M = 76.15; MD = 76; = 8; R = 56) and helpfulness (M = 22;

MD = 22; = 4.65; R = 21).

4.1 Is there gender differences in level of extraversion and tendency of prosocial behavior?

Table 1, Figure 1, 2 and 3 show the mean of extraversion, prosocial personality tendency,

other-oriented empathy and helpfulness for male and female. On the extraversion measure, male

obtained higher level of extraversion (M = 7.50) compare to female (M = 6.88) with mean

difference (R = 0.62). On the other hand, female has higher prosocial personality tendency (M =

98.29) than male (M = 97.89) with mean difference (R = 0.40). In contrast of the other-oriented

empathy and helpfulness, female has higher other-oriented empathy (M = 76.65) than male (M =

75.22) with mean difference (R = 1.43). Meanwhile, male has higher helpfulness (M = 22.67)

than female (M = 21.65) with mean difference (R = 1.02).


Table 1

Gender Difference in Extraversion, Personality Tendency, Other-oriented Empathy and Helpfulness

Gender N Mean

Extraversion male 18 7.5000

female 34 6.8824

Prosocial Personality Tendency

male 18 97.8889

female 34 98.2941

Other-oriented empathy

male 18 75.2222

female 34 76.6471

Helpfulness male 18 22.6667

female 34 21.6471

Figure 1Gender Difference in Extraversion


Figure 2Gender Difference in Prosocial Personality Tendency

Figure 3Gender Difference in Other-oriented Empathy and Helpfulness


4.2 Do high level of extraversion indicate high tendency of prosocial behavior?

In order to answer this question, total sample mean for extraversion is used to determine

high level of extraversion and low level of extraversion. Table 2, Figure 4, 5 and 6 show high

level of extraversion possess higher prosocial personality tendency (M = 98.57), other-oriented

empathy (M = 76.46) and helpfulness (M = 22.11). Low level possess lower prosocial

personality tendency (M = 97.13), other-oriented empathy (M = 75.40) and helpfulness (M =

21.73). The mean difference is prosocial personality tendency (R = 1.44), other-oriented empathy

(R = 1.06) and helpfulness (R = 0.38).

Table 1

Prosocial Personality Tendency, Other-oriented Empathy and Helpfulness in Level of Extraversion

Extraversion N Mean


>= 7.00 37 98.5676

< 7.00 15 97.1333


>= 7.00 37 76.4595

< 7.00 15 75.4000

Helpfulness >= 7.00 37 22.1081

< 7.00 15 21.7333


Figure 4 Mean of Prosocial Personality Tendency between high and low Level of Extraversion

Figure 5 Mean of Other-oriented Empathy between high and low Level of Extraversion


Figure 6 Mean of Helpfulness between high and low Level of Extraversion

4.3 How is the influence of respondents at home area on the tendency of prosocial

behavior?

Table 3, Figure 7 and 8 display the respondents’ home area and the tendency of prosocial

behavior. Rural area’s respondents possess highest prosocial personality tendency (M = 99.83)

along with suburban (M = 99.38) and urban (M = 97.36) However, rural area’s respondents has

lowest other-oriented empathy (M = 74.67) while urban (M = 75.55) and suburban (M = 78.38)

placed moderate and highest respectively. In the helpfulness factor, rural (M = 25.17) possess

highest along with urban (M = 21.81) and suburban (M = 21.00).


Table 3

Prosocial Personality Tendency, Other-oriented Empathy and Helpfulness in Respondents' Home Area

N Mean


Urban 33 97.3636

Suburban 13 99.3846

Rural 6 99.8333

Total 52 98.1538


Urban 33 75.5455

Suburban 13 78.3846

Rural 6 74.6667

Total 52 76.1538

Helpfulness Urban 33 21.8182

Suburban 13 21.0000

Rural 6 25.1667

Total 52 22.0000

Figure 7Mean of Prosocial Personality Tendency in Respondents’ Home Area


Figure 8 Mean of Other-oriented Empathy and helpfulness in Respondents’ Home Area

4.4 Does higher family income indicate higher level of extraversion?

Family income were used as from the demographic part of questionnaire. Table 4 and

Figure 9 show the result that respondents with less than RM 2,000 family income possess highest

level of extraversion (M = 8.20). Respondents with RM 6,000 - RM 7,999 family income has

mean score of 8.00; respondents with RM 4,000 - RM 5,999 family income has mean score of

7.73; respondents with RM 2,000 - RM 3,999 family income has mean score of 6.81; and

respondents with RM 8,000 and above family income which has lowest mean score of 5.00. The

difference between family income highest and lowest level of extraversion is R = 3.20.


Table 4Level of Extraversion in Different Family IncomeExtraversion

N Mean

less than RM 2,000

10 8.2000

RM 2,000 - RM 3,999

21 6.8095

RM 4,000 - RM 5,999

11 7.7273

RM 6,000 - RM 7,999

3 8.0000

RM 8,000 and above

7 5.0000

Total 52 7.0962

Figure 9

Mean of Level of Extraversion in Different Family Income


Chapter 5 Discussion

The research that has been conducted is titled “people with high levels of extraversion are

more likely to engage in pro-social behavior than those who are low in extraversion”. To conduct

this research, questionnaires have been distributed to 52 participants in University Tunku Abdul

Rahman, Perak Campus.

The first research question was, “Is there gender differences in level of extraversion and

tendency of pro-social behaviour?” The results showed that males have higher levels of

extraversion qualities compared to females while females have higher pro-social tendencies

compared to males. In relation to this, there was a study that proved that women were more

motivated to help others and incidentally showed that women scored higher in the factors of

moral obligation, and prosocial role identity (Einolf, C.J, 2011).

For the second research question, “Do high levels of extraversion indicate high tendency

of pro-social behaviour?” the results obtained was people with high levels of extraversion

possess higher pro-social personality tendencies and vice versa. Based on a study by (Carlo,

Okun, Knight, and de Guzman. 2005) extraversion and agreeableness had a joint indirect effect

on volunteering and prosocial behaviour. It basically showed that extrovert qualities on its own

won’t predispose people to being pro-social unless they value the action of helping people.

As for the third research question, “How is the influence of respondents at home area on

the tendency of pro-social behaviour?” the results showed that respondents from rural areas

possessed the highest pro-social personality tendency, followed by suburban and urban. “One

explanation is that people from rural settings are brought up to be more neighbourly and more

likely to trust strangers,” (Pearson, 2015). As for people from urban settings, their pro-social

behaviour may be explained by the Milgram hypothesis, urban-overload hypothesis where


people in cities may keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed by all the stimulation they

get.

For the last research question is “Does higher family income indicates higher level of

extraversion?” the results indicated that there was no significant relationship between

participants’ family income and level of extraversion. However, the highest level of extraversion

tendencies was among the group of participants with the least family income, which was

RM2,000 and below.

5.1 Limitations

A few hurdles were faced in the completion of this research and one of them was that the

participants involved are mostly UTAR students, particularly students from block L. Hence, the

sample is not widespread. In the future, to overcome this lack of generality, the questionnaires

could be distributed to students from different faculties to ensure that the result obtained is more

applicable to UTAR students.

Next, there is also the problem of a number of participants who handed in incomplete

questionnaires. This is probably due to the fact that the questionnaire contains sensitive

questions, such as family income, and the large number of questions included may cause some

participants to accidentally miss a few questions when they are answering the questionnaire. To

overcome this, extra questionnaires were handed out to ensure that there are enough fully

answered questionnaires to meet the minimum requirement of the research. In the future, to

avoid this from happening, simpler words and less lengthy and less sensitive questions could be

used to encourage participants to finish the questionnaires.


5.2 Conclusion

The hypothesis of the research was that extroverts have higher pro-social tendencies, as

people with higher levels of extraversion are more likely to have extraverted personality. As a

whole, those with higher levels of extraversion also possess higher scores in prosocial

personality, in terms of thinking, feelings, and behaviour. Through this research, a lot of eye

opening information was gained about the possible factors of what causes certain people to be

more prone to helping or pro-social behaviours compared to others and how gender, the type of

the participants’ home area and levels of extrovert can play a part in affecting prosocial

behaviour.


References

Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2005). The interplay of traits and

motives on volunteering: agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation.

Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/9

Costa P.T. Jr., Terracciano, A., McCrae, R.R. (2001). Gender Differences In Personality Traits

Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. Journals of Personaliiy and Social

Psychology, 81(2), 322-331

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender Differences in the Correlates of Volunteering and Charitable Giving.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092–1112.

doi:10.1177/0899764010385949

Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism

scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29.

Mlcak, Z.(2012). The Big Five And Prosocial Personality Aspects. Publishing House

Curriculum.

Pearson. (2015). Prosocial Behavior: Why Do People Help?. [online] Available at:

http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_aronson_socpsych_6/64/16429/4205880.cw/-/4205927/

index.html [Accessed 22 Mar. 2015].

Penner, L. A. (2002). The Causes of Sustained Volunteerism: An Interactionist Perspective.

Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447-468.


Penner, L. A., Fritzsche, B. A., Craiger, J. P., & Freifeld, T. S. (1995). Measuring the prosocial

personality. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.) Advances in personality

assessment, (Vol. 12). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pursell, G.R., Laursen, B., Rubin, K.H., Booth-LaForce, C., Rose-Krasnor, L. (2008). Gender

Differences In Patterns Of Association Between Prosocial Behavior, Personality, And

Externalizing Problems. NIH Public Access. J Res Pers, 42(2): 472–481.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.06.003.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of Personality. Wadsworth, US: Cengage

Learning.


Appendix 1

Table 5

Statistics for Extraversion, Prosicial Personality Tendency, Other-oriented empathy and Helpfulness

Age Extraversion


Other-oriented empathy Helpfulness

N Valid 52 52 52 52 52

Missing 0 0 0 0 0Mean 20.1154 7.0962 98.1538 76.1538 22.0000Median 20.0000 7.0000 97.5000 76.0000 22.0000Mode 20.00 7.00 92.00 78.00 20.00a

Std. Deviation .80814 2.53028 10.29446 7.99604 4.65264Variance .653 6.402 105.976 63.937 21.647Range 4.00 10.00 67.00 56.00 21.00Minimum 18.00 2.00 67.00 50.00 11.00Maximum 22.00 12.00 134.00 106.00 32.00Sum 1046.00 369.00 5104.00 3960.00 1144.00

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown


Appendix 2

Table 6

Frequency Table for Gender Difference

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid male 18 34.6 34.6 34.6

female 34 65.4 65.4 100.0

Total 52 100.0 100.0


Appendix 3

Figure 9

Percentage of Gender Difference


Appendix 4

Figure 10

Number of participants living in urban, suburban and rural area


Appendix 5

Task Distribution Table

Name Student ID Task

Ching Lee Ying 1303662 Report Writing – Data analysis

Distribute Questionnaires

Lai Ke Li 1302348 Report Writing – Method


Lam Yew Sin 1306114 Report Writing – Introduction, Abstract


Lee Hai Zheng 1301476 Report Writing – Literature Review


Methene Ganesan 1306713 Report Writing – Discussion


Wan Fook Wai 1302909 Report Writing – Data analysis


Questionnaire design

Date post:	10-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	john-hai-zheng-lee
View:	28 times
Download:	8 times

Statistic analysis assignment

Documents