Masters Thesis

The relationship between the five factor model of personality, personal agency, and gender

This study examined the relationship betwee n personality and thinking style from the framework of Action Identification Theory, and the possible moderating role of thinking style to explain gender differences in personality. Considerable research has suggested that women and men differ significantly on several personality dimensions; however the limited findings on gender differences in abstract versus concrete thinking style have been conflicting. Moreover, action identification as a moderator variable for gender differences in personality has not been tested. The current study sample consisted of 135 undergraduate students at Humboldt State University (101 female). Thinking style was measured on the Behavior Identification Form (BIF; Vallacher Wegner, 1989) and personality was measured on the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa McCrae, 1992). A number of directional hypotheses were proposed based on previous research findings. As predicted , mean scores for women were significantly higher on the domain scale Neuroticism and its facet scale anxiety as well as the Openness facet scale feelings , while mean scores for men were significantly higher on the Openness facet scale ideas. Unexpectedly , women scored significantly higher than men on the Extraversion facet scale assertiveness. Men's BIF scores were slightly higher (more abstract), but just below the statistical significance threshold, compared to women's scores. As expected , the present study revealed a significant negative relationship between BIF scores and Neuroticism, r(135) = -.177, p =.04, and a significant positive relationship between BIF scores and Openness to Experience, r(135) = .177, p = .04 . The predicted relationship between BIF scores and Agreeableness was not found. Additionally all interactions for thinking style and gender were nonsignificant, with one exception. The only variable for which gender and thinking style interacted significantly was assertiveness, such that men who scored high in abstract thinking scored similarly to all women, but men low in abstract thinking (concrete) were significantly less assertive. A limitation of the study was the small sample size of men. Additional limitations and directions for future research and clinical implications are discussed.

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.