personality trait and phobia among students, Summaries of Psychology

Download personality trait and phobia among students and more Summaries Psychology in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Personality Trait (based on DSM) and Phobia among Adults Abstract This research examined the personality trait and phobia among adults. The sample of 200 male and female adults with age ranged from 18-30 was obtained from online data collection. Personality Trait scale by Rammstedt and john (2006) and Claustrophobia scale by rachman and Taylor (1993). The findings indicated that personality trait is a significant predictor of phobia (claustrophobia) among adults. Results further stated that significant relationship between the variables. This research has implications for increasing personality trait among adults.Personality trait has positive relation with phobia (claustrophobia) among adults.Women have high no. of personality trait as compared to Men.Men have high no. of claustrophobia as compared to Women.Joint family system have high no. personality trait as compared nuclear one.Urban area have high no. claustrophobia as compared to rural areas. Keywords: Personality Trait, Phobia (claustrophobia). Introduction Character qualities mirror individuals' trademark examples of musings, sentiments, and practices. Character characteristics suggest consistency and solidness somebody who scores high on a particular quality like Extraversion is required to be friendly in various circumstances and over the long haul. Accordingly, quality brain science lays on the possibility that individuals vary from each other regarding where they remain on a bunch of essential attribute measurements that endure over the long run and across circumstances. The most broadly utilized arrangement of characteristics is known as the Five-Factor Model (Allport & Odbert, 1936). This framework 2 incorporates five wide characteristics that can be recalled with the abbreviation OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Every one of the significant qualities from the Big Five can be isolated into aspects to give an even more fine-grained investigation of somebody's character (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003). What's more, some attribute scholars contend that there are different characteristics that cannot be totally caught by the Five-Factor Model. Pundits of the quality idea contend that individuals do not act reliably starting with one circumstance then onto the next and that individuals are impacted by situational powers (Pearman, 2021). Along these lines, one significant discussion in the field concerns the overall intensity of individuals' attributes versus the circumstances in which they wind up as indicators of their conduct (Roberts, 2018). Note that every one of the five character factors speaks to a reach between two limits. For instance, extraversion speaks to a continuum between outrageous extraversion and extraordinary contemplation (Bleidorn & Roberts, 2019). In reality, the vast majority lie some place in the middle of the two polar finishes of each measurement (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). This quality highlights attributes, for example, creative mind and insight. People who are high in this characteristic likewise will in general have an expansive scope of interests. They are interested almost the world and others and on edge to memorize modern things and appreciate modern experiences. Individuals who are high in this quality will in general be gutsier and innovative (Rachman &Taylor, 1993). Individuals low in this characteristic are regularly significantly more conventional and may battle with dynamic reasoning. This characteristic highlights characteristics such 5 1.Hypotheses In the light of the literature reviewed above, it was hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1: Personality trait has positive relation with phobia (claustrophobia) among adults. Hypothesis 2: Women have high no. of personality trait as compared to Men. Hypothesis 3: Men have high no. of claustrophobia as compared to Women. Hypothesis 4: Joint family system have high no. personality trait as compared nuclear one. Hypothesis 5:Urban area have high no. claustrophobia as compared to rural areas. Methodology Participants A sample of adults (N = 200) with age ranged from 18 to 30 years was selected. Data was drawn from online google form in Sargodha city.The sample size was selected by looking upon the objectives, availability of the participants, and adequacy for conducting statistical analysis for hypotheses testing. Measures 1. Personality Trait by Rammstedt and John (2006). The PTis a 10-item self-reportinstrumentwith five subscales. 2. Claustrophobia Rachman and Taylor (1993). The CTP scale short version consisting of 20 items. No subscales are present in this scale. On the subjects rate the degree of claustrophobia they would experience if they were in each of the 20 depicted situations, using a 5-point Likert type rating scale (0= none, 1 = a little, 2 = somewhat, 3 = much, 4 = very much). Procedure Earlier to test organization, educated assent of members was gotten. They were briefed around the reason of the consider. They were back up plan that all the information will be kept private. The members were drawn closer after formal authorization. Informational were given to them 6 and they were permitted to inquire address in case of any perplexity. After dealing with over the survey they inquired to peruse informational carefully. Respondents were recognize for their participation and cooperation within the consider. After scoring, the information was subjected factual investigation. Results Before conducting the multiple regression analysis and moderation analysis, basic assumptions of the regression analysis were confirmed. To ensure the normality of data skewness and kurtosis were computed. The values were less than 1 which indicated satisfactory univariate normality. Moreover, the value of tolerance and variance inflation factor indicated that multicollinearity was not a serious problem. After ensuring these assumptions, the main analyses are carried out. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Sample (N= 200) Demographic Categories F % Total Gender Female 136 67.7 200 Male 64 31.8 Family system Joint 91 45.3 200 Nuclear 109 54.2 Residential area Rural 133 66.2 200 Social economic status Urban Low Middle High 67 64 61 75 33.3 31.8 30.3 37.3 200 7 Education Inter level Graduation level Master level 33 105 62 16.4 52.2 30.8 200 .Table 1 shows frequency and percentages of sample demographic characteristics. Results indicate that frequency of gender is comprised of males (f = 64, 31.8%) and females (f = 136, 67.7 %). Sample is also categorized into two residential areas i.e. rural (f = 133, 66.2%) and urban (f =67, 33.3%).Sample is also categorized into two family system i.e. Joint (f =91, 45.3%) and nuclear (f =109, 54.2%). Social economic status categories as three areas low (f =64, 31.8%), middle (f =61, 31.8%) and high (f =75, 37.3%).education also categories into three groups inter level (f =33, 16.4%), graduation level (f =105, 52.2%) and, master level (f =62, 30.8%). Table 2 Descriptive Statistics, Psychometric Properties and Reliability of Study Variables (N = 200) Range Variables N M SD a Potential Actual Skewness Personality trait 200 32.97 3.86 .21 1-25 22-43 .017 Claustrophobia 200 29.46 16.0 .03 0-20 0-8 .174 Extraversion 200 5.33 2.00 .14 2-10 2.10 .435 Agreeableness 200 7.62 1.76 .21 2-10 2-10 -.405 Conscientiousness 200 6.65 1.98 .38 2-10 2-10 -.142 Neuroticism Openness to experience 200 200 5.88 7.40 2.09 1.97 .19 .38 2-10 2-10 2-10 2-10 .097 -.843 Table 2 revealed the Mean, Standard deviation, Alpha reliabilities, range, and skewness of all variables. Table 1 shows psychometric properties of study variables. Reliability analyses indicates the reliability coefficient of personality trait , claustrophobia, Extraversion and 10 Mean, Standard Deviation and t-Values of marital status on personality trait and phobia (claustrophobia) among adults (N = 200) Female (n = 100) Male (n =100) 95% CI Variables M SD M SD t (198) p LL UL Cohen’s d Personality trait 31.85 3.72 31.84 3.95 -.893 0.05 .513 2.78 0.00 Claustrophobia 29.3 16.25 29.46 15.8 .691 .998 - 4.82 4.81 0.003 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience 5.30 7.71 6.55 6.22 7.69 2.01 1.60 1.99 2.10 1.68 5.40 7.42 6.87 5.15 6.98 1.98 2.04 1.93 1.87 2.42 -2.14 -.348 2.00 -.198 2.97 .731 .276 .282 .001 .017 -.70 4 -.23 -.91 .463 .130 .49 .81 .26 1.6 1.29 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 Table 5 shows mean standard deviation and t-values of males and females. Results indicate non-significant mean differences on Extraversion,Agreeableness sand Neuroticism (p = n). Result indicate significant mean difference on claustrophobia and openness to experience. Finding indicate that personality trait is high in the females (M = 31.85) than males’ (M = 31.83). Result indicate significant mean difference on conscientiousness among adults Finding indicate that level of claustrophobia is high in males (M = 29.46) than female’s (M = 29.3). Results also indicates that extraversion is high in males (M=5.40) thanfemales (M=5.30). Agreeableness is high in females (M=7.71) than males (M= 7.42). Conscientiousness is high in males (M= 6.87) than females (M= 6.55). Neuroticism is high in females (M= 6.22) than males (M= 5.15) and openness to experiences is high in females (M=7.69) than in males (M= 6.98). 11 Table 6 Mean, Standard Deviation and t-Values of family system on personality trait and phobia (claustrophobia) among adults (N = 200) Joint (n = 91) Nuclear (n =109) 95% CI Variables M SD M SD t (198) p LL UL Cohen’s d Personality trait 32.70 373 33.72 3.98 -.874 .383 - 1.56 .603 0.003 Claustrophobia 28.5 17.88 28.4 14.44 -.814 .416 - 6.36 2.64 0.00 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience 5.73 7.4 6.81 5.60 7.15 2.12 1.79 2.00 2.17 2.01 5.72 7.79 6.52 6.11 7.73 1.83 1.72 1.96 1.99 1.91 2.52 1.03 1.03 -1.74 -2.08 .011 .118 .303 .083 .038 .163 -.88 -.26 - 1.09 - 1.12 1.26 .099 .84 .07 1.29 0.00 0.22 0.15 0.24 0.23 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 Table 6 shows mean standard deviation and t-values of joint and nuclear family system. Results indicate non-significant mean differences on claustrophobia, conscientiousness sandopenness to experiences (p = n). Result indicate significant mean difference on extraversion, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Finding indicate that personality trait is high in the nuclear family system (M = 33.70) than joint family system (M = 32.72). Result indicate significant mean difference on claustrophobia among adults Finding indicate that level of claustrophobia is high joint family system (M = 28.5) than nuclear family system (M = 28.4). Results also indicates that extraversion is high in joint family system (M=5.73) than nuclear 12 family system (M=5.72). Agreeableness is high in nuclear family system (M=7.79) than joint family system (M= 7.4). Conscientiousness is high in joint family system(M= 6.81) thannuclear family system (M= 6.52). Neuroticism is high in nuclear family system (M= 6.11) than joint family system (M= 5.60) and openness to experiences is high in nuclear family system (M=7.73) than in joint family system (M= 7.15). Table 7 Mean, Standard Deviation and t-Values of residential area on personality trait and phobia (claustrophobia) among adults (N = 200) Urban (n = 37) Rural (n =133) 95% CI Variables M SD M SD t (198) p LL UL Cohen’s d Personality trait 32.28 4.15 33.30 3.68 -.874 .077 - 2.16 .11 0.260 Claustrophobia 31.62 14.81 28.37 16.63 -.814 .178 - 1.49 7.99 0.206 Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience 5.71 7.28 6.31 6.16 6.80 1.79 1.98 2.03 2.02 2.26 5.14 7.78 6.82 5.74 7.80 2.07 1.61 1.93 2.11 1.72 2.52 1.03 1.03 -1.74 -2.08 .055 .055 .084 .181 .001 -.01 - 1.02 - 1.02 -.19 6 - 1.56 1.16 .010 .068 1.03 -.43 0 0.294 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.271 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 Table 7 shows mean standard deviation and t-values of urban and rural. Results indicate non-significant mean differences on claustrophobia, conscientiousness sandopenness to 15 relationship between social fear and neuroticism was switched and critical and other identity characters were altogether. Neuroticism and openness anticipated fear essentially. The scholarly courses in terms of claustrophobia fear had not diverse with them but there were noteworthy contrasts within the character of identity. It appears that measurements of identity related with claustrophobia fear and be able to clarify it (Mokhtaree & Hasani, 2017). As in Hypothesis 2, Women have high no. of personality trait as compared to Men. Comparative comes about came in 2008 when a partitioned inquire about group inquired more than 17,000 individuals from 55 societies, to fill out identity surveys. Once more, women scored themselves higher on Appropriateness and Neuroticism and this time moreover on Honesty and the warmth and gregariousness features of Extraversion(Hampson, 2012) Sexual orientation contrasts in identity characteristics are frequently characterized in terms of which sexual orientation has higher scores on that characteristic, on normal. For case, women are regularly found to be more pleasant than men (Costa && McCrae, 2001). As in mentioned in Table 5 females have higher no. of personality traits as compared to Men.The inverse appears to be genuine, as is the case in nearly all uneasiness clutters, huge epidemiological considers have found. The reasons for such a sex distinction are not clear, and claustrophobia, the feeling of extraordinary freeze when confronted with being in a kept or encased space, is not as well considered as a few other phobias (Lewin, 1953). What happens when individuals require attractive reverberation imaging, which regularly includes a drawn out period of imprisonment in a little walled in area, the idealize storm of claustrophobia triggers (Murphy & James,2017).A later consider found that certain components appear to connect with an increment in claustrophobic responses, counting 16 being female, going into the scanner head to begin with and having a past negative involvement with the test. Another huge consider including scanners with a shorter chamber and commotion diminishment found a critical diminishment in claustrophobic responses, but being female and middle-aged were still related with a better rate of claustrophobia (Napp & Dewey, 2017). As in Hypothesis 4: Joint family system have high no. personality trait as compared nuclear one. As in table 6, joint family system have higher no. of personality trait as come to nuclear one.There is a common feeling that young women are more modest than boys are. They are often gone up against with parental weights, convention and traditions of the society (Javeed, 2014) besides, they have been found to be less out talked as compared to boys. The purpose of the examination was to find whether there is really a difference among boys and young women. Within the same way it has been watched that children belonging to joint families are full of ion, wander and bliss and tend Tobe wonderful and well-arranged since of the care, consideration and adore they get from the individuals of their family ( Dewey,2007). It is largely felt that children belonging to country regions are more uncovered to intuitive exterior the family in comparison to children having a place to urban regions where less social interaction takes put (Gole, 2016). As in Hypothesis 5: residential area have significant relation with claustrophobia.Without a doubt, modern talks about deciphered states of fear then again as a medical condition, an appearance of degeneration or of imperfect advancement, as a type of madness, or as an indication of advancement. Modern mental specialists commented broadly on “the frightful advance of this ethical avalanche”, expressing that “morbid mental disorder” was “unhappily on the increase” (Winslow, 2014). In his 1879 address, Benjamin Ball had connected 17 claustrophobia with its apparent opposite, agoraphobia, or the fear of open spaces. Counterparts concurred with this seeming nosological extremity. In his reaction to Ball‟s paper, G.M. Whiskers advertised the general assignment of “Topophobia, or fear of places”, counting “agoraphobia, or fear of open squares or places, and claustrophobia, or fear of closed places”, which he viewed as “morbid fears” (Ball, 1879). Conclusion In Pakistan, the no. of women have high no. of personality traits as compared to Men. There is positive relation between personality trait and claustrophobia among adults. Joint family systems have high no. of claustrophobia as compared to nuclear family system. Nuclear family system have high no. of personality trait as compared to joint family system. Personality trait is high in rural areas as compared to urban areas. 20 Pearman, A., Neupert, S. D., & Ennis, G. E. (2021). Age and extraversion differences in heart rate reactivity during working memory tasks. Plos one, 16(1), e024553 Roberts, B. W. (2018). A revised sociogenomic model of personality traits. Journal of personality, 86(1), 23-35 Rachman, S., & Taylor, S. (1993). Analyses of claustrophobia. Journal of Anxiety disorders. Telch, M. J., Bruchey, A. K., Rosenfield, D., Cobb, A. R., Smits, J., Pahl, S., & Gonzalez-Lima, F. (2014). Effects of post-session administration of methylene blue on fear extinction and contextual memory in adults with claustrophobia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(10), 1091-1098 Lewin, B. D. (1935). Claustrophobia. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 4(2), 227-233. Vize, C. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2020). Examining the conceptual and empirical distinctiveness of Agreeableness and “dark” personality items. Journal of Personality. Vadakkan, C., & Siddiqui, W. (2019). Claustrophobia Yang, J., Mao, Y., Niu, Y., Wei, D., Wang, X., & Qiu, J. (2020). Individual differences in neuroticism personality trait in emotion regulation. Journal of affective disorders, 265, 468-474. 21 Claustrophobia scale 0= none, 1 = a little, 2 = somewhat, 3 = much, 4 = very much 1. Standing in such a crowd that you cannot move at all. 2. Being in a small room without window. 3. Trying out clothes in a small fitting room with the door locked. 4. Sitting by the window in the middle of an airplane. 5. Riding a small elevator by yourself. 6. Trying out garments that are narrow in the neck. 7. Sitting in the middle of a crowded cinema or theater. 8. Sitting by the window in a crowded bus with someone in the aisle seat. 9. Being in a windowless room in the basement. 10. Going in the back seat of a two-door car. 11. Walking through a narrow passage. 12. Going in the back seat of a small car with two other people. 13. Riding a small elevator with the maximum number of passengers. 14. Standing in a crowded bus that stops at a red light. 15. Being outdoors in a fog when you only can see a few yards in front of you. 16. Entering a windowless lavatory and locking the door. 17. Going in a sleeper car with two fellow passengers. 18. Entering a windowless lavatory and closing the door behind you. 19. Getting stuck between two floors in a small elevator. 20. The lock of the door to a small windowless lavatory has jammed. 22 Personality trait scale A Brief Version of the Big Five-Personality Inventory. Big Five Inventory 10 (BFI 10)‐ ‐ Adapted from Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10 item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203 212.‐ Instructions: How well do the following statements describe your personality? I see myself as someone who … Disagree strongly Disagree a little Neither agree nor disagree Agree a little Agree strongly 1. … is reserved (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2. … is generally trusting (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 3. … tends to be lazy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 4. … is relaxed, handles stress well (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5. … has few artistic interests (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 6. … is outgoing, sociable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 7. … tends to find fault withothers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 8. … does a thorough job (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 9. … gets nervous easily (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 10. … has an active imagination (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Scoring the BFI 10 scales ‐ (R = item is reverse scored):‐ Extraversion: 1R, 5 Agreeableness: 2, 7R Conscientiousness: 3R, 8 Neuroticism: 4R, 9 Openness to Experience: 5R, 10