Relationship Quality Aka Big Five Personality Traits - Research Paper Example

 Relationship Quality Aka Big Five Personality Traits Table of content Table of content 1 Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Hypotheses 5 Methods 5 Participants 5 Materials 6 Procedure 7 Results 8 Prior to evaluating the hypotheses concerning Big Five personality traits in correlation with relationship quality, positive expressivity, and ideal mate rating, it was first essential to verify that the three relationship status groups who were indeed had significantly different in terms of their mate scores (Luo, 2009). Results of a repetitive quality analysis of correlation, with personality traits as within-subjects factor and relationship quality as between-subject factors, revealed that the two ideal mate ratings criteria were significant from each other since a significant at level 0.01 and 0.05 was attainable. Table 1 gives a descriptive statistics providing the findings of the results of personality traits. The mean provide the average respondent in a scale of 1 to 6 and self agreeableness and openness reported as the averagely high on self rating while mate agreeableness and conscientiousness are high on mate rating. Interesting to note is that both rating have neuroticism as the least thus satisfying hypothesis 1 statement. 8 Discussion 9 Hypothesis 1 9 Hypothesis 2 10 Strengths and Limitations 10 Recommendation 10 References 11 Appendices 13 Appendix A: Figures and Tables 13 Appendix B: Questionnaire 15 Abstract There are many empirical literatures concerning the relationship quality and personality traits. This paper seeks to analyze the topic through proper integration of relationship concepts with personality traits (Jensen, Rauer & Volling, 2013). Various statistics that have been gathered are analyzed and interpreted in this research paper so as to convert the data into information that can be easily understood by all. Big five personality traits and relationship qualities are the main topic for discussion in this research. The paper analyzes the objectives and hypothesis of the research done so as to get provide a comprehensive result. Methodology of the research indicating participant, research instruments and procedures are also well analyzed so that readers can understand the purpose of the research. The method applied during collection of data provided was qualitative thus qualitative data analysis methods applications are imperative for this paper. The main objective of the paper is to provide analytical and conclusive integration between relationship quality and big five personal traits. Key words: personal traits, Big Five, relationship quality, qualitative and statistics Introduction Relationship quality and personal traits are debatable issues that have been studied by many researchers so as to determine correlations of the two. Traits are constant patterns of feelings, thoughts, or activities that differentiate people from one another. They are basis tendencies that continue to be stable across the life span, but characteristic conduct can transform considerably through adaptive systems. The Big Five denotes taxonomy or classification system of characters that some individuality psychologists propose capture the fundamental nature of individual variances in personality. These characteristics were discovered through factor analysis studies. Factor analysis is a procedure usually done with the application of computers to establish significant relationships and prototypes in behavioral data (Gosling, Sandy & Potter, 2010). During this process it is essential to begin with a large quantity of behavioral variables. The five factors comprise extraversion vs. introversion, agreeableness vs. antagonism, neuroticism vs. emotional stability conscientiousness vs. undirectedness and openness to experience vs. not open to experience. The Big Five individuality traits have been discovered as significantly correlated with marital satisfaction, though significant between-sex and between-trait is still under discussion and analysis (John & Srivastava 1999). Human beings are social in nature and benefits through interactions with other people to better their lives. Relationship qualities are associated with proper integration of the Big Five personal traits into relationship. According to Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology authored by Castro, Hattori and Lopes, there is hardly any consensus on issues that relate to personality traits and relationships (Castro, Hattori & Lopes, 2012). This is attributed to the fact that males and females have different perspective of traits they desire. Aim: the objective of this paper is to understand how people personal traits are associated with those of ideal mates. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There will be significant positive correlations between self ratings and mate ratings for positive traits but no significant correlation of neuroticism. Hypothesis 2: there will be a significant difference between mate and self ratings; positive rating will have mate ratings that are higher than self, and neuroticism will have ratings that are less than self ratings. Methods This section provides detail of information relating to data collection methods applied, sample of respondent or participants and appropriate strategy that would was used during research. Participants This was a study that involved a total of 186 college student, aged between 18 and 46 years (M = 22.30, SD = 3. 761). The research was based on assessing how student think about the big five personality traits in correlation to relationship qualities. Two subsets of students were applied in this research: female students and a comparison group of male students’ respondents. The successful participants in the process was 184 with 2 missing, out of these 184 respondents female were 98 and male 86. This was a relationship come traits study thus demographic was split further into relationship status comprising those in relationship, single and other probably those who were unwilling to disclose their relationship status. Among the 184 participants, the students that said they were single were 113, 56 said they were in relationship and 15 did not disclose their relationship status. During research work 60.8% were single while 30.1% were in relationships and 8.1% did not disclose relationship status. Research work is voluntary that is why it is possible to have participant not responding to questions they feel uncomfortable with. Materials Demographic characteristics: Demographic data were collected from a wide-ranging demographic questionnaire that students completed as component of their common series of questionnaires. Demographic components applied in these analyses comprise age and relationship status for the participants. Data collection requires reliable and valid collection materials to assist gather relevant data. To collect data from students require something easy and direct since they are always committed. For this research paper questionnaire was one of the instrument or material used to gather data. Statistical tools assisted to interpret the data to make them user friendly. The questionnaires were either delivered and collected in person or sent via email to participants (Strauss et al, 2012). This was to ensure maximum number of sample was attained. Personality: To evaluate the five-factor form of personality, each student fulfilled the Big Five Inventory (BFI), a well-assessed short outline of the NEO FFI. The inventory seems to be a dependable measure of the five-factor structure, providing scores for five personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and neuroticism (John, Robins & Pervin, 2008). These traits are each deliberate with questionnaire components, for a total of 20 questions. The questionnaires were adapted from “Handbook Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd Ed authored by John and Srivastava in 1999” (John & Srivastava 1999). Refer to appendix for the questionnaire. To generate the correlated mate rating satisfaction index scores applied in this study, the mate and self’s Paired Samples Statistics scores were provided in T scores so that higher scores would mirrored greater correlation between relationship quality and big five personality traits, as they do on the correlation scale. The T scores from each student’s correlation scale and Paired Samples Statistics were averaged, creating a satisfaction index score for each mate. Missing data during the research paper was 1.1% for all dealings in the study. Missing data were computed with the SPSS missing value study using the expectation-maximization algorithm. Missing data were not attributed for nonrandom missing input such as if students failed to fill a measure entirely or for demographic information because this appeared hypothetically indefensible (Gattis et al, 2004). Procedure The process comprised collection of data from students using appropriate materials listed above. Participants responded to similar closed-ended questions about big five traits, giving their self-perception, and the opinion of their contemporary or most recent mate rating incidents, regarding the subject’s ideal mate relationship status (currently involved, single or undecided to disclose relationship status). In addition to that, students also responded to personal information questions to assess their respective perceptions. This procedure permitted us to evaluate the degree of significance attributed to a range of traits, showing priorities, and to appreciate how such evaluations reflect the prominence of resource swap provided by both inventory and by social emotional economic models (Gattis et al, 2004). In mate and self-evaluation descriptions, students responded to the following 10 traits on a 6-point Likert scale (1- 6): Self Openness, Self Conscientiousness, Self Extraversion, Self Agreeableness, Self Neuroticism, Mate Openness, Mate Conscientiousness, Mate Extraversion, Mate Agreeableness and Mate Neuroticism. The traits applicable in this study were picked from the Big Five personality traits. Results Prior to evaluating the hypotheses concerning Big Five personality traits in correlation with relationship quality, positive expressivity, and ideal mate rating, it was first essential to verify that the three relationship status groups who were indeed had significantly different in terms of their mate scores (Luo, 2009). Results of a repetitive quality analysis of correlation, with personality traits as within-subjects factor and relationship quality as between-subject factors, revealed that the two ideal mate ratings criteria were significant from each other since a significant at level 0.01 and 0.05 was attainable. Table 1 gives a descriptive statistics providing the findings of the results of personality traits. The mean provide the average respondent in a scale of 1 to 6 and self agreeableness and openness reported as the averagely high on self rating while mate agreeableness and conscientiousness are high on mate rating. Interesting to note is that both rating have neuroticism as the least thus satisfying hypothesis 1 statement. Correlations table 2 provides the positive the following correlations for each pair: self and mate openness 0.508, self and mate conscientiousness 0.518, self and mate extraversion 0.320, self and mate agreeableness 0.445 and self and mate neuroticism .301. These are all positive however neuroticism provides a negative against other traits. T-test provide a paired samples statistics with agreeableness pair providing highest average score, followed by openness, then conscientiousness, extraversion and lastly neuroticism pair. This mean that for ideal mate to be formed them must be able to meet some compatibility concerns, and then be able to discuss issues openly and consciously the last two come after fulfillment of the first three traits. Graph Discussion The current research examined 184 students (98 women, 86 male) to discover how variations in several personality traits operate in the context of relationships quality, including the relationship between self and mate’ s big five personality correlations. The personal traits variables of big five traits are widely accepted as features on which people are typically correlate in relationships, act as comparison variables. Hypothesis 1 The primary set of hypothesis involved the essential correlation between self and mate rating’s Big Five personality factors, positive significant, and mate ratings. On the foundation of obtainable literature such as Kelly & Conley (1987); Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Robins, 2000 and others, it was hypothesized that neuroticism would be negatively correlated with self and mate ratings and that openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and positive correlation would be positively related with high mate ratings. These hypotheses got a full support among the students. Hypothesis 2 The second hypothesis evaluated the concept that a significant difference between mate and self ratings; mate higher rating than self while neuroticism having less than self. The data has revealed that mate ratings are higher than self ratings and neuroticism received less rating than self rating. This is accurate hypothesis that has received partial support of the students. Strengths and Limitations Strengths of this research comprise its cautiously selected participants and the measures of its constructs. A large sample of stably single students was selected from students who are in relationship to analyze the rating concept when it comes to personality traits and relationships qualities. The limitation is that most students do not give relationship serious consideration it deserves thus limiting answers. Recommendation Future results should concentrates on married student or those who are in serious relationship to get responses out of experience. References Castro, N. F., Hattori, T.W. & Lopes A. F. (2012). Relationship maintenance or preference satisfaction? male and female strategies in romantic partner choice. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology 6(2), 217-226. Graduate Program in Psychobiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte Gattis, S. K., Berns S., Simpson E. L. & Christensen, A., (2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality, Journal of Family Psychology. Vol. 18, No. 4, Gosling, D. S., Sandy J. C. & Potter, J. (2010). Personalities of Self-Identified “Dog People”and “Cat People” Anthrozoös Volume 23, Issue 3. Department of Psychology, University of Texas, Austin, USA Atof, Inc, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Jensen F. J., Rauer J. A. & Volling, B. (2013). A dyadic view of support in marriage: the critical role of men’s support provision. Original Article. Published online: Springer Science+Business Media New York John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (2008). Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. Luo, S. (2009). Personality and Individual Differences. Department of Psychology, Social Behavioral Science Building, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 109 C, SBS, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Strauss, C., Marian M. Morry, M. M. & Kito, M. (2012). Attachment styles and relationship quality: Actual, perceived, and ideal partner matching. Journal of International Association for Relationship research, University of Manitoba, Canada. Personal Relationships, 19 (2012), 14–36. Printed in the United States of America. John P. O., & Srivastava S. (1999). The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. University of California at Berkeley Appendices Appendix A: Figures and Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics   N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Self Openness 186 2.50 6.00 4.53 0.80 Self Conscientiousness 186 1.50 6.00 4.16 0.89 Self Extraversion 186 1.50 6.00 3.91 0.97 Self Agreeableness 186 1.50 6.00 4.56 0.79 Self Neuroticism 186 1.25 6.00 3.33 0.99 Mate Openness 186 2.50 6.00 4.68 0.71 Mate Conscientiousness 186 1.50 6.00 4.73 0.76 Mate Extraversion 186 1.25 6.00 4.21 0.70 Mate Agreeableness 186 2.50 6.00 5.03 0.70 Mate Neuroticism 186 1.00 5.00 2.25 0.77 Valid N (listwise) 186         Table 2   Mate O Mate C Mate E Mate A Mate N Self O 0.508 Self C 0.518 Self E 0.32 Self A 0.445 Self N         0.301 Figure Appendix B: Questionnaire I see myself as someone who … ____ 1. Is talkative ____ 2. Tends to find fault with others ____ 3. Does a thorough job ____ 4. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset ____ 5. Is original, comes up with new ideas ____ 6. Is reserved ____ 7. Is helpful and unselfish with others ____ 8. Can be somewhat careless ____ 9. Is relaxed, handles stress well ____ 10. Is curious about different things I see My Ideal Mate as Someone who… ­­­____11. Is sometimes shy, inhibited ____ 12. Starts quarrel with others ____ 13. Is a reliable worker ____ 14. Can be tense ____ 15. Prefers work that is routine ____ 16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm ____ 17. Has a forgiving nature ____ 18. Tends to be disorganized ____ 19. Work a lot ____ 20. Does not have an active imagination Read More