Corker Katherine S, Donnellan M Brent, Kim Su Yeong, Schwartz Seth J, Zamboanga Byron L
Kenyon College.
Texas A&M University.
J Pers. 2017 Apr;85(2):123-135. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12224. Epub 2015 Oct 8.
This research examined the magnitude of personality differences across different colleges and universities to understand (a) how much students at different colleges vary from one another and (b) whether there are site-level variables that can explain observed differences. Nearly 8,600 students at 30 colleges and universities completed a Big Five personality trait measure. Site-level information was obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education System database (U.S. Department of Education). Multilevel models revealed that each of the Big Five traits showed significant between-site variability, even after accounting for individual-level demographic differences. Some site-level variables (e.g., enrollment size, requiring letters of recommendation) explained between-site differences in traits, but many tests were not statistically significant. Student samples at different universities differed in terms of average levels of Big Five personality domains. This raises the possibility that personality differences may explain differences in research results obtained when studying students at different colleges and universities. Furthermore, results suggest that research that compares findings for only a few sites (e.g., much cross-cultural research) runs the risk of overgeneralizing differences between specific samples to broader group differences. These results underscore the value of multisite collaborative research efforts to enhance psychological research.
本研究考察了不同学院和大学之间人格差异的程度,以了解:(a)不同学院的学生彼此之间的差异有多大;(b)是否存在能够解释所观察到的差异的学校层面变量。30所学院和大学的近8600名学生完成了一项大五人格特质测量。学校层面的信息来自综合高等教育系统数据库(美国教育部)。多层次模型显示,即使在考虑了个体层面的人口统计学差异之后,大五人格特质中的每一项都表现出显著的校际差异。一些学校层面的变量(如招生规模、要求推荐信)解释了特质方面的校际差异,但许多检验在统计上并不显著。不同大学的学生样本在大五人格领域的平均水平上存在差异。这增加了一种可能性,即人格差异可能解释在研究不同学院和大学的学生时所获得的研究结果的差异。此外,结果表明,仅比较少数几个学校的研究结果(例如,许多跨文化研究)存在将特定样本之间的差异过度推广到更广泛的群体差异的风险。这些结果强调了多地点合作研究对加强心理学研究的价值。