Personality and Prejudice

Personality & Prejudice

Theories of Personality in Empirical Research: "The Relation between Personality and Prejudice: A Variable- and a Person-Centered Approach" by Ekehammar & Akrami

Ekehammar & Akrami's (2003) empirical study, as the title already suggests, mainly deals with the examination of the relationship between personality, the Big Five Personality to be more specific (i.e. Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and prejudice using to approaches, the variable-centered approach and person-centered approach. I shall explain this is more detail when we get to the discussion of methods.

The article did not make any specific, clearly-stated hypothesis. Extracting from the discussion and review of literature, we can say that the study hypothesizes that there indeed is a significant relationship between personality and prejudice based on the results that previous works have already published.

On to the methodology, this study was designed to give quantitative results that are appropriate project objectives. The subject population of this study consists of 156 non-psychology students of Uppsala University and local-authority-administered adult education, 77 of which are women and 79 are men. Their ages are between 18 and 57 years old. The students came from different disciplines: social science, behavioral science, medicine, economics, technology, and dentistry. Sampling procedure was not specified in the article however. The study utilized an official Swedish translated NEO-PI as personality instrument. For measuring prejudice, the study used the Modern and Classical Racial Prejudice Scales, the Swedish Modern and Classical Sexism Scales, the Modern and Classical Attitudes toward Intellectually Disabled Individuals Scales, the Attitude to Homosexuality Scales. The study is a computer-aided interview/survey. There are two ways by which this study is actually framed; one is the variable-centered approach which used linear regression to individually-treated five personality traits while person-centered approach used cluster analysis. By cluster analysis, Big Five Personality profiles were clustered and formed three types: the Resilient, Overcontrolled, and Undercontrolled.

Results of the study showed that: in variable-centered approach, only two of the Big Five Personality factors were statistically significant to prejudice -- Openness to Experience and Agreeableness. These two factors have a negative relationship with prejudice. On the other hand, the person-centered approach showed that the relationship of the three clusters to prejudice was not strong -- it reflect on marginally significant results with Overcontrolled as the most prejudiced personality type while Undercontrolled is on the other end of the scale. Resilients, on the other hand, fall in between. When it comes to pitting the person- and variable-centered approaches against each other, results show that the variable-centered approach has more superior predictive qualities than person-centered approach when relating with prejudice.

II. Critique

Given the objective of understanding the relationship between personality and prejudice using the two approaches (variable and centered), I believe that the quantitative methodology was the appropriate research design as quantitative techniques emphasize precise measurements, numbers, statistics in order to determine and predict variable relationships (Henslin, 1993).

I also would want to note that the numerous survey instruments used in the study are already established ones that have been tested for validity and reliability. They were also constructed in the Scandinavian context hence giving us confidence that any error that may have been committed in the study is not due to the instruments used.

However, one problematic area for me is the sampling method. Firstly, the study did not clearly state how sampling was done. As such, we are not able to identify how the study came up with its sample size, what method for determining sample size was used. The importance of understanding how a study arrives at a particular sample size is central to determining the standard error or the sampling error (Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996; ). Hence the study's failure to demonstrate its sampling procedure prevents us from noting any probable errors brought about by sampling. When it comes to the subject population, I believe that the study is somewhat lacking in terms of its justification of why it chose these subjects or respondents. The paper should have strengthened its position by providing ample discussion of why these subjects or respondents are instrumental in achieving the research objectives.

When it comes to analysis, I believe that the study was able to optimize available statistical methods that very well fit the research questions. The two approaches employed and explored also provided richer understanding of personality and prejudice as well as comparative analyses between these two approaches. The study was also able to keenly account for certain nuances such as differences in results when certain variables where entered first in multiple regression technique. I also appreciate the fact that the researchers took time to discuss the varying degrees of freedom between person- and variable-centered approaches and were able to justify how they can still be comparable through adjustment of df.

Lastly, the article was not able to state its limitations and recommendation for future research works. It does not elaborate on what may be the limitations of this project which may guide future research works on this domain in order to build upon the knowledge this present study has produced. Failing to note its limitations (particularly in the research design) also makes it difficult for the reader to envision the coverage of this study -- what it was able to account and those, for one reason or another, were not well-accounted for.

III. Empirical Work in Relation to Theories of Personality

Through empirical works such as this, we are able to better see the utility and importance of the theories of personality that we have discussed. This is demonstrated by how Arnold Brecht (1959, p.19) would put it, "the relation between practice and theory is well indicated in the popular saying that we learn best through 'trial and error.' Trial is practice; error refers to theory…"

The theory of Gordon Allport is of very much utility in this empirical work. A great deal of Allport's work can be found on his development of trait as an important factor in understanding personality (Feist & Feist, 2002). This research also makes several assumptions, assumptions that are actually rooted in theories. For example the use of Big Five Personality model is heavily hinged on the concept of "trait" and how it is actually possessed by a single respondent/subject. Further extending the theory of Allport, the concept of 'individual trait' is central to the variable-centered approach that this study explored while Allport's theory on the 'common trait' justifies the method of centered-approach theory, i.e. clustering people into certain traits. The idea of 'cardinal trait' or that one trait which dominates a person (ibid) allow for the identification and eventual categorization of the respondents in Big Five Personality factors. It also allowed for the measurement of prejudice among the respondents.