Proceedings of World Business and Economics Research Conference

Proceedings of World Business and Economics Research Conference

24 - 25 February, 2014, Rendezvous Hotel, Auckland, New Zealand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-45-0

The Influence of Personality Traits in Relation to Choice of Major in

University

June Bernadette D' Souza

*

and Supaporn Saelee

**

In a Thai context, few studies have been conducted on the Big Five Personality traits and choice of college major. The present study selected 327 students from 3 departments, namely

Marketing, Management and Accounting at the Undergraduate Degree level from an

International University with the intention of finding out if the Big Five personality traits, were related to students choice of major, to gender and to Grade Point Average.

The findings using ANNOVA and Post Hoc test of Scheffe, indicated that there were significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from Accounting, Management and

Marketing majors, especially on Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience traits There are no significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from

Accounting, Management and Marketing majors, with regards to gender and GPAs.

Key Words : Big Five Personality Traits, College Major Choice

Field: Management

1. Introduction

“ We continue to shape our personality all our life. If we knew ourselves perfectly, we should die.

” (Albert Camus, 1957)

Personality can be referred to the summation of the ways a person thinks, acts feels and behaves typically which makes them different from each other. The reason for differences arises because of traits which are partly genetic according to psychologist who conduct research on identical twins

(Tellegen, Lykken, Bouchard, Wilcox, Segal & Rich 1988). These traits make a person behave in a similar and consistent way across most situations and are important characteristics that determine our personality makeup. If this is true it is unlikely that a person‟s personality can change often and it would take a few years to even attempt to try to change people.

Gordon Allport, was one the first theorist around the 1930s to categorize traits/ dispositions into 3 types. Cardinal traits are traits which dominate a person‟s life, whereby the person devotes his entire life for a certain cause. Central traits are general and used for describing persons. Secondary traits are manifested in certain people or certain situations. Since, Allport described persons traits in more than 4000 ways, it was Ramond Cattell (1946) who reduced the traits to 171 or 16 categories by combining common traits using factor analysis and eventually developing the Sixteen Personality

Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Following this, Hans Eysenck (1947) introduced just 2 dimensions initially of personality traits namely, introversion/extroversion, neuroticism/emotional stability and later one more, Psychotism in the (1970s). Since, Cattells categories were too lengthy and Eysencks was too short psychologists were trying to find easy yet comprehensive ways to describe a person. Since individual traits can influence the job a person chooses, a career path, a choice of studying a major or

_____________________________________________________________________________________

* Asst. Prof. Dr June Bernadette D‟souza, Department of Management, Martin de Tours School of Management and

Economics,Assumption University Bangkok, Thailand. Email jbernadettedsouza@au.edu,

**Supaporn Salee, Department of Accunting, Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics, Assumption

University Bangkok, Thailand. Email supapornlee@au.edu

,

1


24 - 25 February, 2014, Rendezvous Hotel, Auckland, New Zealand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-45-0 even a partner, psychologist tried to discover a comprehensive yet easy way of describing a person and during the 1990s psychologist agreed that traits can be arranged in a hierarchy (Digman, 1990) and that the general traits or super traits are on the top, well as the more specific traits are lower

(Digman, 1990, McCrae &Costa 1987, 1992). This was referred to as the Big Five Personality Model/

Five- Factor Model. Each bipolar trait consists of many more specific facets which help to describe a person. Even though, several adjectives can be used to describe persons traits/factors Tupes &

Christal, 1961/1992 & Goldberg, 1981 & McCrae &Costa, 1985 agreed on the superiority of the 5 traits.

Today different psychologist use different terms and so many different scales to measure the Big Five traits. Some research studies indicate that these traits are biological/genetic characteristics that describe members of a species (McCrae & Allik 2002). In other words, it could be that culture not only shapes personality but it could be that personality and culture interact and shape the behaviors of persons (McCrae, 2000). A person could lie anywhere along a continuum and possess high, medium or low of a trait. The Big Five traits that a person display can be attributed to inheritance as well as experiences (Bouchard & Mc Gue, 2003) and studies also indicate that they are stable during a person‟s life span (McCrae &Costa, 1994, 1999). A summary of the Big Five which can form into acronyms, OCEAN/CANOE is described and adapted from John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999).

1. Extraversion vs. introversion- consists of traits which include being sociable, energetic, adventurous, optimistic, straight forward compared to sober, retiring, quiet, and reserved.

2. Agreeableness vs. antagonism- consists of traits such as trust, tender-mindedness, cooperation, warm and forgiving compared to ruthless, selfish, vengeful and irritable.

3. Conscientiousness vs. lack of direction- consists of traits such as reliable, hardworking, efficient, and orderly and self-discipline compared to lazy, negligent, disorganized and careless.

4. Neuroticism vs. emotional stability- consists of traits such as anxiety, anger, worry, nervous compared to calm, relaxed, at-ease and comfortable.

5. Openness vs. closedness to experience- consists of traits such as imagination, creativity, originality, and fantasy, curious, artistic compared to uncreative, down-to-earth, conventional and narrow interest.

Since personality traits can determine many of our choices in life, the researches need to ask the question, “Will personality traits determine the choice of major or the subjects one wishes to study at the university level and do persons from different subject majors actually possess different traits ”?

Based on these questions the researchers investigated prior researches that have been conducted in this field of study.

2. Literature Review

Individual could possess different degrees of the Big Five personality traits, like extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, neuroticism and agreeableness. It is also possible that the person‟s prominent traits could determine a person‟s inclination towards certain faculties or subject selection or even a career choice later on in life much more than the person‟s cognitive ability.

Although, there exists few studies conducted in foreign cultures on personality traits and major choice very few studies have been conducted in the Asian context particularly in Thailand and especially at the university/college level. There is evidence that personality traits have an impact on the extent to which a person pursues studies like getting a school degree or college degree (Heckman, Stixrud,

2



Urzua, 2006; Cunha & Heckman, 2007; Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, Weel, 2008; Baron Cobb-

Clark, 2010).

Since the Big Five traits have become the most popular method to summarize a person‟s personality in recent times (Digman, 1990) the present research emphasizes on discovering if students at the university level have different personality traits and if these traits can affect their choice of major in the university/college. Earlier studies paid too much importance to IQ and cognitive skills more than other factors and a study by Turner & Bowen (1999) also indicated that a person‟s math and verbal ability can determine the person‟s major choice in college.

Several studies ignore the role of the Big Five personal ity traits in determining a person‟s choice of major at the university/college level but Heckman, Stixrud & Urzua (2006) found that personality traits can act as an advantage for a person and help with productivity on tasks. Often people envisage what they wish to become in life or what activities they want to engage in during their lives based on the behaviors they exhibit. Research has found evidence that personality traits are related to certain style of behaviors a person prefers (Almlund, Duckworth, Heckman & Kautz, 2011).Psychologist agree that the subject an individual is attracted to can impact the choice of major, next to cognitive ability

(Arciadacono, 2004) and other studies show that even a person choice of occupation can be determined from personality traits (Cobb-Clark & Tan, 2011). Initially, it was Holland in 1992 and

1997 who believed that persons who possess certain traits tend to affiliate together and match the work environment to fit their needs. This could also be true for major subjects that individual pick because of the old adage, „Birds of a feather flock together”. For example, Wilson & Jackson (1994) believed those people who are introverted, not sociable, and cautious tended to be Physicist. On the other hand persons who are ambitious, achievement- oriented and did not care much for affection were likely to be choose Marketing according to Matthews & Oddy (1993). A study conducted in Israel by Rubinstein (2003) found that students who choose interior design were more surely less authoritative and more creative than students of the law and behavioral sciences. Furthermore choices in life may even be influenced by gender and certain subjects are more likely to be selected by men than women. Rubinstein study in 2003 indicated that women could be more creative than men and other studies show that women are more verbally skilled than men ( Hyde & Linn, 1988 ).

Often family background can affect the choice of major as well. Van der Werfhorst et al. (2001) found that Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities were more likely to be chosen by students whose parents had higher status and were more educated but technical majors were chosen by students whose parents had lower socio-economic status. Saks & Shore (2005) found that wealth in a family can affect what majors are chosen because the earning risks can be mediated by this.

When considered individually these traits are certainly different and the outcomes of possessing certain traits could be different for individuals as well.

1. Extraversion (E ): A person high on extraversion has a tendency to be sociable (Besser &

Shackelford 2007). This can be confirmed by studies which indicate that extraverted persons do select jobs which have an opportunity for social contact (Krueger and Schkade, 2008).

Another study indicates that extraverts are inclined to perform better in jobs related to sales occupations and management (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Judge et al, 1999 believed extraversion can lead to career success as well.

2. Conscientiousness (C): These includes traits like reliability, perseverance, dependability and hard work (Thomas, Moore & Scott 1996) and persons with these traits are likely to perform better academically since they are motivated more, than vice versa (Chamorro-Premuzic &

3



Furnham, 2005). Furthermore these persons are careful about the implementation of future plans (Burch & Anderson. 2008)

3. Agreeableness (A) : Persons with this trait are more pleasant and friendly (Besser &

Shackelford 2007). Some studies show that persons with high agreeableness and emotional stability prefer jobs with team work and customer relations that are dyadic (Mount, Barrick &

Steward, 1998). This traits helps one to negotiate to maintain balance ( Ostendorf et al., 1992)

4. Neuroticism (N/ES): Is the opposite of emotional stability and is connected to bad moods, tensions, anxiety and sadness (Benet-Martinez & John 1998). Kelly & Shin (2009) also pointed out that career indecisiveness is related to neuroticism because of negative thoughts and feelings. Mueller & Plug, 2006; Nyhus & Pons, (2005) that emotional stability is a trait that could be positively related to performance in all jobs. De Fruyt & Mervielde, (1997) also pointed out that that emotional stable persons are more likely to choose technical and business studies, math , economics and law compared to social sciences and humanities because they like structured rules and situations more.

5. Openness to Experience (OE) : Consists of traits like being artistic, philosophical, broadminded and curious (Thomas, Moore & Scott 1996) and being open to experience has been found to have a positive relationship with intelligence (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005).

Persons with this trait have a deductive ability to analyze problems ( Mount et al., 2005)

Lounsbury, Huffstetler, Leong, & Gibson (2005, p. 508) found that persons feel more genuine when they identify with their traits and act in accordance with these traits. Higher job performance can be contingent upon a person‟s occupational interest and realized occupational choice, according to a study by Neumann, Olitsky, & Robbins (2009).

The studies above clearly indicate that personality traits definitely have a relationship with our choices not only of major subjects in university but also of major life choices. Therefore the main idea is to discover, if a university major subject is selected on the basis of personality traits and if students from certain majors do posses similar personality traits. In addition gender and GPA is also considered for identifying differences in traits.

3. Data/ Methodology/ Propositions

3.1

Hypotheses of the Study

1. There are significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from

Marketing, Management and Accounting majors at the undergraduate level in university.

2. There are significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of males and females students from Marketing, Management and Accounting majors at the undergraduate level in university.

3. There are significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from

Marketing, Management and Accounting majors with different GPAs at the undergraduate level in university.

4



3.2 Design and Methodology

The disproportional stratified random sampling technique was utilized whereby the researcher distributed the structured questionnaires to each of the three majors at the undergraduate level, namely, Marketing, Management and Accounting until a sufficient sample size of approximately 110 from each major. A total of 327 completed questionnaires in total were obtained at an international university in Thailand.

The items for the instrument to measure the Big Five Personality traits were adapted from the

Big Five Inventory (BFI) designed by John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999) which is a popular and efficient method to measure the dimensions of the Big Five traits. 32 items out of the 44 were chosen for Thai culture since some items were too difficult to translate since both the

Thai and English version were distributed for the sake of clarity.

The items were short and rated on a five point Likert scale with 1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), having some questions reverse-coded. The sum total of the score for each of the five subscales indicates the persons score for a particular dimension of personality. The highest score for Extraversion could be 40, for Emotional Stability could be 30, for

Agreeableness could be 30, for Conscientiousness could be 30 and for Openness to

Experience could be 35. A score of 165 indicates the person has high scores for all the 5 dimensions of the traits and a score of 32 indicates low scores on for all the 5 dimensions of the traits. The value of Cronbach‟s Alpha 71.7 indicates an acceptable internal consistency.

For the Descriptive analyses measures of central tendency such as the mean, median and mode and measures of variability such as standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis and fiduciary limits were utilized to find out in the Big Five Personality traits of students from 3 major subjects namely, Marketing, Management and Accounting at the undergraduate level in university.

For the Inferential analyses, ANOVA was used to find out the differences in the Big Five

Personality traits of students from 3 major subjects namely, Marketing, Management and

Accounting at the undergraduate level in university. In addition ANOVA was used to find out differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from Marketing, Management and

Accounting majors on the basis of gender and GPAs, at the undergraduate level in university.

The Post Hoc test of Scheffe was also utilized to find out details of differences between two majors.

5



4. Major Findings and Analysis

Table 1: Comparison of the Big Five Personality Traits of Accounting, Management and Marketing Majors using ANNOVA

Personality

Traits

Means (SD)

Management

(N=76)

Marketing

(N=148)

Critical Ratios for Differences

F-score

E

ES

A

Accounting

(N=103)

3.2961

(0.59589)

3.3641

(0.82306)

3.8544

(0.65914)

3.2237

(0.62926)

3.1974

(0.74422)

3.8289

(0.65601)

3.0912

(0.69507)

3.1959

(0.73687)

3.7095

(0.65728)

3.718*

1.678

1.718

C

3.0971

(0.56472)

2.9079

(0.55804)

3.1115

(0.57682) 3.544*

OE

3.1505

(0.73041)

3.4408

(0.71165)

3.3243

(0.71871) 3.746*

Remarks: F-values are significant at * p<.05 ** p<.01

Table 1 indicates that there are significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from Accounting, Management and Marketing majors, especially on Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience and hypothesis 1 is partially supported by the data.

The obtained value for the ANNOVA test, for Extraversion, F=3.718, is positive and statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The means for Accounting is 3.29, for Management is 3.22 and for

Marketing are 3.09, respectively. Although the differences between Accounting, Management and

Marketing are minute, the findings indicate that Accounting students scored the highest for

Extraversion, followed by Management and Marketing. The Post Hoc test of Scheffe revealed that, there were, but there were differences between Accounting and Marketing students, with Accounting students possessing higher Extraversion personality trait than Marketing (Mean Difference=.20490)

Unlike, the stereotype of the past, which considered Accounting majors as logical, introverted and detail oriented ((c.f., Wheeler, 2001), the notion today, especially for Generation Y is different.

According to study by Briggs et al., 2007, the job demands of accountants at present, stress on interpersonal communication, interaction and team-based work and if accountants posses these traits they could have higher career satisfaction. Owing to the needs of globalization the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) documented the CPA Vision project--2011 and beyond

(AICP, 2000), whereby core competencies, namely leadership, communication skills, adaptability to the market and clients needs, and the ability to interpret a broader context of financial and nonfinancial needs were emphasized. Therefore the perception of being an accountant has changed and this can be related to personality make up as well. Lower scores for Extroversion personality trait of

Marketing major can be attributed to the fact that the content in these subjects has changed over the years because of globalization and a lot of marketing these days is conducted on line using

6


24 - 25 February, 2014, Rendezvous Hotel, Auckland, New Zealand, ISBN: 978-1-922069-45-0 technology. According to Matthews and Oddy (1993), being less affectionate is a trait possessed by marketing students. This could result in lower scores for Extraversion.

Table 1 indicates that the obtained value for the ANNOVA test, for Conscientiousness, F=3.544, is positive and statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The means for Accounting is 3.09, for

Management is 2.90 and for Marketing are 3.11 respectively. The Management major students scored the lowest for the personality trait of Conscientiousness, followed by Accounting and

Marketing. The Post Hoc test of Scheffe revealed that, there were minute differences between

Accounting and Marketing majors on the personality traits of Conscientiousness but there were differences between the Marketing and Management majors with Marketing major possessing higher on the personality trait of Conscientiousness (Mean Difference= .02359). This can be attributed to the fact that if Marketing students miss out on opportunities, in today‟s highly competitive world, getting a second chance would prove difficult and tiring. Matthews and Oddy (1993), agree that achievement ambition and being less affectionate are the traits that are possessed by marketing students. In comparison an emphasis for Management major students is training to become a future manager and more importance maybe paid to agreeableness, emotional stability and openness to experience which can lead to success.

The obtained value for the ANNOVA test, for Openness to Experience, F=3.746, is positive and statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The means for Accounting is 3.15, for Management is 3.44 and for Marketing 3.32 respectively. The Accounting major students scored the lowest on the personality trait of Openness to Experience, followed by Accounting and Marketing. The Post Hoc test of Scheffe revealed that, there were minute differences between Accounting and Marketing majors on the personality trait of Openness to Experience but differences between Management and

Accounting majors, with Management major possessing higher Openness to Experience (Mean

Difference=.29030). It can be rightly said that Accountant majors prefer to use the same old techniques rather than accepting innovation, change and new ways of doing things. These findings are consistent with the earlier research conducted by Briggs et al., 2007, indicating that accountants like linearity and predictability compared to thinking institutively and creatively. The subjects in the

Management major stress on entrepreneurship, risks taking, creativity, challenge, leadership rather than just being conscientiousness alone.

7



Table 2: Comparison of the Big Five Personality Traits of Accounting, Management and

Marketing Majors, on the basis of Gender using ANNOVA

Personality

Traits

Accounting

(N=103)

Male

(N=27)

Female

(N=76)

Means (SD)

Management

(N=76)

Male

(N=37)

Female

(N=39)

Male

(N=49)

Marketing

(N=148)

Female

(N=95)

Critical Ratios for

Differences

F-score

(combined)

E

ES

3.3333

(0.66506)

3.2037

(0.69696)

3.2829

(0.5735)

3.4211

(0.86044)

3.1892

(0.67032)

3.1351

(0.71345)

3.3564

(0.59462)

3.2551

(0.66240)

3.2564

(0.7769)

3.1122

(0.78571)

3.0579

(0.64768)

3.2474

(0.70663)

1.056

3.647

A

3.6852

(0.63773)

3.9145

(0.66024)

3.8784

(0.59401)

3.7821

(0.71446)

3.6327

(0.66752)

3.7789

(0.63880) 1.819

C

3.3333

(0.60447)

3.0132

(0.52898)

2.9324

(0.5739)

2.8846

(0.54364)

OE

3.0000

(0.7468)

3.2039

(0.72193)

3.4054

(0.62108)

3.4744

(0.79429)

Remarks: F-values are significant at * p<.05 ** p<.01

3.1531

(0.62253)

3.3776

(0.68107)

3.1158

(0.54798)

3.2947

(0.74909)

1.751

0.000

Table 2 indicates that there are no significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from Accounting, Management and Marketing majors, with regards to gender. The obtained value for the ANNOVA test, for all 5 personality traits and gender was not statistically significant and therefore hypothesis 2 is not supported by the data.

8



Table 3: Comparison of the Big Five Personality Traits of Accounting, Management and

Marketing Majors, on the basis of GPAs using ANNOVA

GPAs

2 and below

Majors

Accounting

E

3.000

(0.70711)

ES

3.75

(0.35355)

Means (SD)

A

3.25

(0.35355)

C

4.25

(1.06066)

OE

4.25

(0.35355)

Management 3.3333

(0.28868)

2.6667

(0.28868)

3.6667

(0.57735)

2.6667

(0.28868)

3.1667

(0.28868)

2-2.5

2.5-3

Marketing

Accounting

Management

Marketing

Accounting

Management

2.900

(0.65192)

3.460

(0.51881)

3.0417

(0.65569)

3.2671

(0.62536)

3.2571

(0.64593)

3.1410

(0.67812)

3.100

(0.65192)

3.080

(0.96480)

3.250

(0.65713)

3.2466

(0.62805)

3.5143

(0.78108)

3.2436

(0.77690)

3,500

(0.35355)

3.92

(0.67206)

3.625

(0.52764)

3.7877

(0.79732)

3.8714

(0.73106)

3.9103

(0.57207)

3.200

(0.27386)

3.28

(0.48045)

2.9167

(0.55732)

3.1712

(0.58740)

2.9143

(0.47721)

2.8077

(0.58056)

3.400

(0.54772)

3.000

(0.80364)

3.4167

(0.55732)

3.2192

(0.9977)

3.1429

(0.72326)

3.3462

(0.64025)

Marketing

3-3.5 Accounting

3.5-4

Management

Marketing

Accounting

Management

3.1695

(0.65397)

3.400

(0.61237)

3.50

(0.54772)

2.9559

(0.70030)

3.000

(0.48305)

3.3333

(0.40825)

3.1186

(0.78421)

3.480

(0.83516)

3.125

(0.84656)

3.250

(0.6770)

3.250

(0.60553)

3.250

(0.61237)

3.7034

(0.68304)

3.860

(0.65383)

3.75

(0.94868)

3.8088

(0.50774)

3.7813

(0.51539)

4.00

(0.54772)

3.0847

(0.62390)

3.0600

(0.56495)

2.9688

(0.38595)

3.1471

(0.55772)

3.125

(0.61914)

3.50

(0.63246)

3.3559

(0.75459)

3.220

(0.76485)

3.5625

(0.87321)

3.2941

(0.74993)

3.1563

(0.50724)

3.9167

(1.02062)

Marketing

Critical Ratios for

Differences

F-score (combined)

2.8571

(0.96931)

1.169

3.000

(0.94054)

0.321

3.4643

(0.53581)

0.711

2.9286

(0.47463)

2.125

3.2857

(0.67123)

0.455

9



Table 3 indicates that there are no significant differences in the Big Five personality traits of students from Accounting, Management and Marketing majors, with regards to GPAs. The obtained value for the ANNOVA test, for all 5 personality traits and GPAs was not statistically significant and therefore hypothesis 3 is not supported by the data.

5. Conclusions and Limitations of the Study

Although choosing three majors namely Marketing, Management and Accounting at the undergraduate level in university with a sample size of 327, can provide an idea of differences in the in the Big Five personality traits of students in those particular majors, the study could also provide data about the major choice being male or female dominated and finally indicate the strength of the

GPAs of students in a particular major choice. The data is insufficient to make generalizations with students from other major subjects unless a bracer study is conducted. However it is imperative for educators to select student‟s based on their traits rather than solely on academic performance at the onset in order to detect the students who have the ability to succeed in that major choice and avoid bias selection because often academic performance could be low due other environmental variables.

An under emphasis of the importance of other external factors, like cognitive skills, socio-economic status, family background, life-time earnings, peer influences etc which are factors that can influence choice of major subjects at the undergraduate level are minimized, as it is presumed that only personality plays an important part.

The researcher could also conduct cross-cultural studies to get a better idea of personality traits in various cultures and discover what motivates persons from different cultures with choice of major. It is also likely that there are surely gender differences in each culture with regard to choice of major and the crowding hypothesis could occur with certain majors like Nursing Science for women and

Engineering for men depending on the culture. Longitudinal studies may also provide an idea about changes that occur with student‟s choices and the reasons for the choices.

The Big Five Personality traits apparently do have an impact on one ‟s choice of major at the undergraduate level in college/ university from the present study but the impact of traits on academic performance cannot be ignored because at the end of the day educators and parents are eager to predict not only the academic outcomes but career choices as well because the Big Five Personality traits could contribute to scholastic aptitude and this in turn could influence career choice. Having knowledge of a student‟s academic outcomes as well as a combination of personality traits can create simplicity to the process of discovering who has the right cognitive skills, ability motivation so as to counsel students in the right direction and alleviate problems of probation, stress, boredom and incorrect choices in the future.

Research that is cross-cultural and longitudinal can also be conducted and other variables like socioeconomic factors, earning capacity of parents, age, peer influences could also be taken into consideration. To obtain accurate predications experimental studies can be implemented whereby students with creative personality traits can be assigned to groups to conduct activities and the cohesiveness or conflict can be recorded. This can be an indicator of whether personality affects culture or culture affects personality. Another question that can be answered is” do immigrants integrate with the new culture over the long-term or do their traits remain like that of the home country over the period of years?

” This is particularly of importance with the implementation of the Asean

Economic Community in 2015.The present study included only 3 majors form one faculty but after the merger with the AEC an in-depth study with every faculty can be conducted.

10



6. References

Allport, G. W.1937. “ The American Journal of Psychology ”, vol.50, pp. 141-156.

Almlund, M., Duckworth, A.L., Heckman, J.J., & Kautz , T.D. 2011. “ Personality Psychology and

Economics ”, NBER Working Papers 16822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 2000.

“The CPA vision project: 2011and beyond”.

New York: AICPA.

Arcidiacono P. 2004. “Ability sorting and the returns to college major. Journal of Econometrics121 ”, vol. (1-2), pp. 343-375.

Barón, J. D., & Cobb-Clark, D. A. 2010.

“Are Young People's Educational Outcomes Linked to their

Sense of Control? IZA Discussion Papers 4907

”,

Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. 1991. “ The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a metaanalysis. Personel Psychology ”,vol. 44,pp. 1-26.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O.P. 1998. “Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups:

Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology ”, vol. 75, no. 3,pp.

729-750.

Besser, A., & Shackelford, T.K. 2007. “Mediation of the effects of the big five personality dimensions on negative mood and confirmed affective expectations by perceived situational stress: A quasi-field study of vacationers. Personality and Individual Differences ”, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1333-

1346.

_______________________________

“Mediation of the effects of the big five personality dimensions on negative mood and confirmed affective expectations by perceived situational stress: A quasi-field study of vacationers. Personality and Individual Differences

”,

Vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1333-1346.

11



Borghans, L., Duckworth, A.L., Heckman, J.J., & Weel, B. ter. 2008.

“The Economics and

Psychology of Personality Traits. Journal of Human Resources 43(4) , University of Wisconsin

Press ”, pp.972-1059.

Bouchard, T.J., Jr., & McGue, M. 2003. “Genetic and environmental influences on

human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology ”, vol. 54,pp.4–45.

Briggs, S.P., Copeland, S., & Haynes, D. 2007. “Accountants for the 21 st

Century, where are you? A five-year study of accounting students personality preferences. Critical Perspectives on

Accounting ”, vol.

18 , pp.511-537.

____________________________________ “Accountants for the 21 st

Century, where are you? A five-year study of accounting students personality preferences. Critical Perspectives on

Accounting ”, vol.

18 , pp.511-537.

Burch G St. J, Neil A. 2008. “Personality as predictor of Work Related Behavior and Performance:

Recent advances and directions for future. International Review of Indusrial and Organizational

Psychology”, G.P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford. vol. 23, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cattell, R.B. 1946, The description and measurement of personality, New York, World Book.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. 2005, Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah , NJ,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

_______________________________________ Personality and intellectual competence.

Mahwah , NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cobb Clark, D., Tan, Michelle. 2011. “Noncognitive Skills, Occupational Attainment, and Relative

Wages. Labour Economics”vol.18 (1), pp.1-13.

Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. 2007. “The Technology of Skill Formation. American Economic Review”, vol. 97(2), pp. 31 –47.

De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1997). “The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Holland‟s RIASEC

Interest Types. Personality and Individual Differences ”, vol.23 (1),pp. 87-103.

12



Digman, J.M. (1990). “Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model Annual Review of

Psychology

”, vol. 41, pp. 417

–440.

__________________ “Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model

Review of Psychology ”, vol. 41, pp. 417 –440.

Annual

__________________"Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model Annual Review of

Psychology ”, vol.

41, pp.417

–440.

Goldberg, L. R. 1981. “Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and social psychology ” , vol. 1 ,

141 –165, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

H. J. Eysenck. 1947, Dimensions of Personality ,Transaction Publishers, UK.

H. J. Eysenck., & S. B. G. Eysenck. 1976, Psychoticism as a Dimension of Personality ,

London,Hodder & Stoughton.

Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. 2006.

“The Effects of Cognitive and

Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior.

Noncognitive

Journal of Labor Economics

”, vol.

24(3), pp.411

–82.

______________________________________ “The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive

Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior. Journal of Labor Economics

”, vol.

24(3), pp.411

–82.

Holland, J. L.1992, Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational environments (second ed.) , NJ, Prentice-Hall. personalities and work

Holland, J. L. 1997, Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work

Environments , 3rd Edition, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

13



Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C.

1988. “ Gender differences in verbal ability: A metaanalysis”,

Psychological Bulletin, vol. 104, pp. 53 –69.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. 1999. “The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research”, vol. 2, pp.102

–138. New York: Guilford Press.

____________________________“The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research”, vol. 2, pp.102

–138. New York: Guilford Press.

Judge TA, Chad AH, Carl JT, Murray RB. 1999, The Big Five Personality Traits, General Mental

Ability, and Career Success Across The Life Span. Personality Psychology ”, 52, 3; ABI/INFORM

Global, pp. 621.

Kelly, K. R., &

Shin, Y. 2009. “ Relation of neuroticism and negative career thoughts feelings to lack of information. Journal of Career Assessment”, vol.17, pp.201-213. and

Krueger, A.B., & Schkade

, D. 2008. “Sorting in the Labor Market: Do Gregarious Workers Flock to

Interactive Jobs? Journal of Human Resources

”. vol. 43(4), pp.859-883.

Lounsbury, J.W., Huffstetler, B.C., Leong, F.T., & Gibson, L.W. 2005. “Sense of identity collegiate academic achievement. Journal of College Student

Development”,

46 (5),pp. 501-514. and vol .

Matthews, G., & Oddy, K. 1993. “Recovery of major personality dimensions from trait adjective data.

Personality and Individual Differences”, vol.15, pp. 419–431.

________________________ “Recovery of major personality dimensions from trait adjective data

Personality and Indi vidual Differences”, vol.15, pp. 419– 431.

McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (Eds.). 2002, The Five-Factor Model of personality across

New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. cultures ,

14



McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. 1992. “Discriminant validity of the NEOPIR facet scales.

Educational and Psychological Measurement”,vol. 52,pp

229

–237.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. 1985a. “Comparison of EPI and Psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences

”, vol .

6, pp.587-597.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). “ Does Lorr„s Interpersonal Style Inventory measure the

Five-Factor Model? Personality and Individual Differences ” , vol.

16 , pp.195-197.

McCrae, R.R. (2000). “Introduction; Trait psychology and the revival of personality-and-culture studies. American Behavioral Scientist 44”: vol. 7-9; pp.10-31.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa P.T., Jr. 1999. “A Five-Factor Theory of personality”, In L.A. Pervin and

O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology , New York,Guilford, pp.139-153 .

McCrae, R.R.; Costa, P.T., Jr. 1987. “Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” vol. 52 (1), pp. 81–90

Mount M K, Murray RB, Steve MS 2005. “Higher-Order Dimensions Of The Big Five Personality

Traits And The Big Six Vocational Interest Types. Personality .

Psycho”, vol. 58, pp.447–478

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., and Stewart, G. L. “1998. Five-factor model of personality and

Performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance”, vol. 11, pp.145-

165.

Mueller, G., &Plug, E.J.S. 2006. “Estimating the Effect of Personality on Male and Female Earnings.

Industrial and Labor Relations Review”. vol. 60(1), pp.1-22.

Neumann, G., Olitsky, N., & Robbins, S.2009. “Job congruence, academic achievement, and earnings. Labour Economics”, vol.16(5), pp.503-509.

15



Nyhus, E. K., & Pons, E. 2005. “ The effects of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic

Psychology”,vol.26, pp.363-384.

Ostendorf F, Angleitner A. 1992, “On the generality and comprehensiveness of the five factor model of personality: evidence for five robust factors in questionnaire data. Modern personality psychology, eds. Gian-Vittorio Caprara et al, New York [u.a.]: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp.

73-109.

Quotation on Personality by Albert Camus, French Novelist, Essayist and Playwright, 1957, Nobel

Prize for Literature, 1913-1960). Retrieved on July 16 th

2013 from http://thinkexist.com/quotations/personality/

Rubinstein, G. 2003. “Authoritarianism and its relation to creativity: A comparative study among students of design, behavioral sciences and vol.34, pp.695

–705. law. Personality and Individual Differences”,

_______________

__ “Authoritarianism and its relation to creativity: A comparative study among students of design, behavioral sciences and vol.34, pp.695

–705. law. Personality and Individual Differences”,

Saks, R. E., & Shore, S. H. 2005. “Risk and career choice. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy:

Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy

”

vol.5(1),pp.1-43.

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T, Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Wilcox, K., Segal, N., & Rich, S. 1988. “Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , vol.

54 , pp .

1031-1039.

Thomas, P., Moore, K.S., & Scott, K.S. 1996. “The relationship between self- efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five personality dimensions Journal of

Organizational Behavior ”, vol. 17, no. 4,

pp. 349-362.

16



_______________________________________“The relationship between self- efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the big five

Organizational Behavior

”, vol. 17, no. 4,

pp. 349-362. personality dimensions Journal of

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. 1961. “Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings” USAF ASD

Tech. Rep. No. 61-97, Lackland Airforce Base, TX: U. S. Air Force.

Tupes , E. C., & Christal, R. E. 1992. “Recurrent personality factors based on trait

Journal of Personality” , vol.

60 , pp .

225 –251. ratings

Turner, S.E., & Bowen, W.G. 1999. “The Changing (Unchanging) Gender Gap. Industrial and Labor

Relations Review”, vol. 52(2) , pp.289-313.

Van de Werfhorst, H. G., de Graaf, N. D. & Kraaykamp, G. 2001.

“Intergenerational Resemblance in Field of Study in the Netherlands.

European Sociological Review”, vol. 17 (3), pp.275-294

Wheeler, P.2001. “The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and applications to accounting education and research Issues in Accounting Education”

, vol.16, pp.125-150.

Wilson, G. D., & Jackson, C. 1994. “The personality of physicists. Personality and Individual

Differences”, vol.16, pp.187–189.

17

Proceedings of World Business and Economics Research Conference

The Influence of Personality Traits in Relation to Choice of Major in

University

June Bernadette D' Souza

and Supaporn Saelee

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Data/ Methodology/ Propositions

4. Major Findings and Analysis

5. Conclusions and Limitations of the Study

6. References

Related documents

Products

Support

Proceedings of World Business and Economics Research Conference

The Influence of Personality Traits in Relation to Choice of Major in

University

June Bernadette D' Souza

and Supaporn Saelee

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review

3. Data/ Methodology/ Propositions

4. Major Findings and Analysis

5. Conclusions and Limitations of the Study

6. References

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib