1. The Relationship Between Personality and Student Engagement in Activism Introduction Ashleigh Dueker and Debbie O’Donnell, PhD Department of Psychology, St. Mary’s College of Maryland Methods Results Conclusions References Since the 1960’s, college students have cycled from apathetic to lively participants in various social movements. Today, campus activism is fragmented and issue-specific, encompassing a broad range of causes varying from human rights, and ‘going green,’ to improving the quality of campus life (Stencel, 1998). There is still no clear picture of the complexities or personal determinants of student activism (Lipset, 1993). Personality is defined as enduring dispositions that cause characteristic patterns of interaction with one’s environment (Goldberg, 1993). Behavior is affected by personality, and once a goal is set, personality contributes to if and how the goal will be attained (Little, Lecci, & Watkinson, 1992). Presently, activist orientation is operationally defined as an individual’s developed, relatively stable, yet changeable orientation to engage in various collective, social- political, problem-solving behaviors spanning a range from low-risk, passive acts to high- risk, active, unconventional behaviors (Corning & Myers, 2002). Among the present sample of liberal arts students, personality traits will correlate with self-reported engagement in activism (see Table 1 for list of traits). Specifically, four personality traits will be particularly high in students with high levels of activism: Self-Acceptance- self-confident, outgoing, and articulate Responsibility- conscientious, attentive to personal actions and experiences Achievement via Independence- bright, independent, high tolerance for ambiguity and complexity Intellectual Efficiency- persevering, intelligent, efficient Hypotheses AOS scores range from 0 – 140; SMC student’s scores ranged from 39 – 134 (M = 84.96, SD = 18.43). A median split was performed on each personality dimension, and responses were re-coded to represent high and low levels on each personality trait. T-tests were used to examine whether mean activism scores differed significantly between high and low levels of each personality trait. Results are displayed in Table 1. Of the 16 tested personality traits, 12 appeared to be significant; Ac, Gi, So, and Wb were not. Twelve individual personality traits, including the four hypothesized traits, do correlate with engagement in activism. In every instance, except for self-control, activism levels are higher at high levels of the personality trait. Individuals with elevated Sc scores are seen as judgmental and disciplined, while low scorers are described as impulsive and pleasure seeking. Perhaps it is important for college activists to be uninhibited while convincing indifferent students to join their cause. Limitations: Cross-sectional study Liberal arts college students Mostly female participants Participants and Procedures A sample of 261 St. Mary’s College of Maryland undergraduates completed a set of online questionnaires that measured personality traits and engagement in activism. Forty-five participants were male (18.4%) and 199 were female (81.6%, 17 did not indicate their gender). Age range 17 – 25 years (M = 19.91, SD = 1.37). Measures Personality traits. The California Psychological Inventory (CPI, Gough & Bradley, 1996) is a multi-purpose instrument for assessing personality traits important in daily life. From this scale, 16 personality traits were chosen. Respondents indicate agreement with the extent to which each item describes them on a 5-point scale ranging from complete disagreement (1 = extremely inaccurate) to complete agreement (5 = extremely accurate). Engagement in activism. The Activism Orientation Scale (AOS, Corning & Myers, 2002) measures activist behaviors in general, ranging from conventional to risky behaviors, and may also predict an individual’s future engagement in activist behaviors. Respondents evaluate how likely it is that they will engage in 35 activities in the future ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 4 (extremely likely). Corning, A., & Myers, D. (2002). Individual orientation toward engagement in social action. Political Psychology, 23, 703-729. Dickinson, J. (1969). Student activism and the characteristics of activists. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa University. Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34. Gough, H., & Bradley, P. (1996). California Psychological Inventory manual (3 rd edn). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Lipset, S. (1993). Rebellion in the University. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Little, B., Lecci, L., & Watkinson, B. (1992). Personality and personal projects: Linking Big Five and PAC units of analysis. Journal of Personality, 60, 501-525. Stencel, S. (1998). Student Activism. The CQ Researcher, 8, 745 – 760. Table 1 Mean Levels of Engagement in Activism by CPI Personality Traits Personality TraitMedian SplitMean (SD)t Dominance (Do)Low82.22 (17.23)2.61** High88.22 (19.65) Capacity for Status (Cs)Low81.40 (17.90)3.00** High88.15 (18.43) Self-Acceptance (Sa)Low81.29 (18.15)3.45*** High89.09 (17.92) Empathy (Em)Low82.23 (18.75)2.68** High88.44 (17.31) Responsibility (Rs)Low81.00 (16.31)3.45*** High88.72 (19.86) Self-Control (Sc)Low88.05 (19.48)3.12** High81.04 (16.61) Tolerance (To)Low80.01 (18.11)4.76*** High90.54 (17.16) Achievement via Independence (Ai)Low79.05 (16.99)6.09*** High92.24 (17.63) Psychological Mindedness (Py)Low82.50 (17.92)2.2* High87.55 (18.81) Flexibility (Fx)Low82.37 (16.79)2.23* High87.45 (20.03) Social Presence (Sp)Low82.35 (18.65)2.23* High88.31 (17.54) Intellectual Efficiency (Ie)Low80.81 (17.45)3.8*** High89.29 (18.59) Note. *p <.05 **p <.01 ***p <.001 Image from http:// www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/24/18626618.php http://www.opentoquestion.org/images/gallery/photos/05.jpg