Robins+et+al.++2001

1 the sample of participants included in the present

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: articipants who completed the relevant measures at both time periods and who were aged 18 or 19 at the time of the first assessment (N = 270).1 The sample of participants included in the present study is diverse in terms of ethnicity (41% Asian, 37% Caucasian, 13% Chicano/Latino, 4% African American, 5% Missing/Other/Multiracial), gender (59% female), socioeconomic status (20% came from families with 1992 household incomes below $25,000 and 16% from families with household incomes above $100,000), and academic ability (combined SAT scores ranged from 650 to 1540, M = 1198, SD = 171). Measuring Personality The Big Five were assessed using the 60-item NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not very true of me) to 5 (very true of me).2 The NEO-FFI was administered during the 1st week of college and at the end of the 4th year. Coefficient alpha reliabilities were .83 and .82 for Extraversion, .76 and .77 for Agreeableness, .81 and .83 for Conscientiousness, .84 and .85 for Neuroticism, and .77 and .75 for Openness to Experience, respectively for the two assessments. As a second measure of reliability, we collected short-term, test-retest data on the NEO-FFI. Specifically, we administered the NEO-FFI to a separate 1. All of the findings to be reported held when participants older than 19 were included in the analyses. There were no significant differences between individuals who did and did not complete the personality measures at both time points, except that participants scored higher on Conscientious (M = 3.52, SD = .56) than non-participants (M = 3.28, SD = .59), t = 4.45, p < .05. Participants were marginally more likely to be women than nonparticipants (59% vs. 52%, p = .08); participants had marginally higher SAT scores than nonparticipants (M = 1198 vs. 1166, p = .05); participants and nonparticipants did not differ in socioeconomic status, t < 1. Participants and nonparticipants did not differ in variance on any of the...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/02/2010 for the course PSYCH PSY BEH P2 taught by Professor Susanturkcharles during the Fall '10 term at UC Irvine.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online