Personality of Students of Economics, Medicine, and Verbal Communication: Preliminary Results

doi:10.4236/psych.2011.23039

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2011. Vol.2, No.3, 248-253

Personality of Students of Economics, Medicine, and Verbal

Communication: Preliminary Results

Jörg Richter1, Rosina Neumann2

1Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Oslo, Norway;

2Faculty of Philosophy, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.

Email: [email protected]

Received December 18th, 2010; revised March 18th, 2011; accepted April 20th, 2011.

Differences on personality between students of economics, medicine and verbal communication should be ex-

plored by means of the Temperament and Character Inventory. Students of economics are mainly characterized

by lower harm avoidance and lower reward dependence and higher self directedness than medical students and

students of verbal communication. Students of all groups seem to overestimate their self-directedness with eco-

nomical students showing the most pronounced tendency of overrating, whereas medical students tend to over-

rate their cooperativeness more than the students from the other groups. The obvious disturbed self-evaluation

corresponds to the students’ professional orientation. The students can be characterized by specific and varying

types and impact of social desirability depending on their professional career.

Keywords: Personality, Temperament, Character, University Students

Introduction

The personality of university students has been the subject of

various investigations, which however focused mainly on rela-

tionships between personality characteristics and academic

performance. E.g., studies in students of economics showed that

those who were more introvert according to the broad Myers-

Briggs categories and who found their source of energy in the

inner life of ideas or concepts, performed better than extroverts

in principles of economics. This tendency seemed to persist

throughout the university training (Ziegert, 2000; Borg &

Stranahan, 2002a, 2002b). Furthermore, students with SJ

(sensing and judging) temperaments, i.e. who trust data and

information perceived thru the five senses, who focus on details

and specifics, work sequentially and prefer experience-guided

learning, and who have a practical and present orientation com-

bined with goal orientation and structured goal planning, per-

formed significantly better than those of a SP (sensing and per-

ceiving) temperament, i.e. who also trust data and information

from the five senses but combined with rather spontaneous and

flexible preferences and a tendency to avoid quick decisions.

By using the NEO-PI-R questionnaire which is based on the

Five-Factor Model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992),

Lievens, Coetsier, de Fruyr, & de Maeseneer (2002) showed

that medical students were characterized as highly extrovert

without significant differences compared to students of law,

economics, psychology, pedagogical sciences and political and

social sciences. Additionally, medical students obtained the

highest scores on agreeableness and average scores for con-

sciousness, openness to experience and neuroticism. The two

dimensions on which, among others, medical students and stu-

dents of economics differed from students of mainly applied

sciences (engineering) refer to interpersonal relationships such

as extraversion (sociable and extrovert vs. shy and introvert)

indicating the frequency of relationships and agreeableness

(warm and friendly vs. cold and aloof) indicating the quality of

relationships.

More recently, Cloninger (Cloninger, Przybeck, Svrakic, &

Wetzel, 1994) proposed a new psychobiological model of per-

sonality. An assumed distinction between temperament and

character seems to be related to differences in major brain sys-

tems for the adaptation to the experiences on various levels

which can be described as the contrast between percept versus

concept, emotion versus volition, instinct versus will, and habit

versus cognition. The temperament dimensions are defined to

be genetically homogenous and independently inherited. These

inherited neurophysiological mechanisms influence tendencies

to activate (novelty seeking—NS), maintain (reward depend-

ence—RD), or inhibit (harm avoidance—HA) behaviour and

determine the perception of the environment and society. Ac-

cording to this theory, HA reflects a heritable bias in the inhibi-

tion or cessation of behaviours. Subjects high in HA are pessi-

mistic, worrying, and fatigable, shy with strangers, and become

tense in unfamiliar situations. NS is viewed as a tendency to-

wards exhilaration in response to novel stimuli or cues. Sub-

jects scoring high in NS are described as showing an increased

frequency of explanatory behaviour, impulsive decision-making,

a quick loss of temper and active avoidance of frustration. RD

reflects a tendency to maintain or pursue ongoing behaviours.

People with high scores on RD are sentimental, socially at-

tached and dependent on the approval of others. Persistence

(PS), the fourth temperament dimension, reflects the persever-

ance in behaviour despite frustration and fatigue.

Character is defined as individual differences in self-con-

cepts, which vary in the extent to which a person identifies

him/herself as an autonomous individual (self-directedness—

SD), as an integrated part of the humanity (cooperativeness—

CO), and as an integral part of the whole universe (self-tran-

scendence—ST). It represents the second domain of personality,

which is predominantly determined by socialisation processes

J. RICHTER ET AL. 249

during the life span. Changes in cognition and the self-concept

during the development of personality are supposed to be re-

lated to personal, social, moral, and spiritual maturation. An

individual, who is low in SD, could be described as irresponsi-

ble, aimless, undisciplined in behaviour and of poor im-

pulse-control in general. CO is related to the extent to which a

person identifies himself or herself as an integral part of the

society as a whole. Uncooperative individuals are characterised

as hostile, aggressive, hateful, and as revengeful opportunists.

ST reflects the tendency of identification with unity of all

things and is associated with deficits in transpersonal identifi-

cation or conscience. Individuals low in ST show conventional

and materialistically oriented behaviour with little or no con-

cern for absolute ideas, such as goodness and universal har-

mony. The theory assumes that personality is determined by an

interaction between social, environmental, and genetic influ-

ences during the whole life span.

Based on this theory, Vaidya and colleagues (2005) investi-

gated a large sample of medical students by means of the re-

lated questionnaire, the Temperament and Character Inventory

(Cloninger et al., 1994), with focus on differences in personal-

ity characteristics between students of various medical speciali-

ties. The authors described mainly differences between the

students groups concerning temperament dimensions, i.e., fu-

ture surgeons were lower in HA and RD than others, students

choosing primary care specialities, emergency medicine, ob-

stetrics and gynaecology were high on RD with paediatricians

scoring highest.

This topic of personality differences between medical stu-

dents who decided for various medical specialties has of been

investigated primarily suggesting that those who preferred any

surgical specialty described themselves as being more resistant

to stress and having high self-esteem (Linn & Zeppa, 1984); as

more masculine and lower on depression (Zeldow & Daugherty,

1991); or as high on impulsive sensation seeking and low on

neuroticism-anxiety (Hojat & Zuckerman, 2008) compared to

medical students who preferred other specialties. For example,

those who were interested in a hospital-based specialty scored

lower on sociability.

Generally, persons who have decided to study at university

will assume some kind of managing or leading position after

some years of occupation. Investigations revealed differences in

personality characteristics between students of various speciali-

ties (Buddeberg-Fischer, Klaghofer, Abel, & Buddeberg, 2003).

From an organizational psychological perspective, personality

characteristics assessed by measures of the five factor model of

personality were found associated with career interests corre-

sponding to types of occupational environment based on Hol-

land’s theory of career interest (1985, 1994). Strong associa-

tions were particularly found between the enterprising (indi-

viduals with this interest type generally like persuading or di-

recting others more than working on scientific or complicated

topics) and artistic (individuals with this interest type generally

like working with creative ideas and self-expression more than

routines and rules) vocational interest type and the openness

and extraversion personality traits in meta-analyses (Larson,

Rottinghaus & Borgen, 2002; Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003).

However, we could not find any longitudinal investigation

that followed the personality development from a university

student to a more or less successful professional career. There-

fore, we decided to initiate a 20 years survey of personality in

university students of various specialities with waves of two

years interval. The following research questions will be inves-

tigated: (A) Are there differences between medical students, of

verbal communication and communication disturbances and

students of economics concerning personality characteristics?

(B) Can the personality characteristics of these student groups

as assessed by the Myers-Briggs temperament types and/or by

the NEO-PI-R be confirmed by the TCI (i.e., a cross-validation

of former results and of the construct validation of the TCI)? (C)

Are the responses of students from various specialities differ-

ently determined by tendencies of self-presentation (i.e., of

varying impact of social desirability)? (D) Are there differences

in the development of personality characteristics throughout the

period of university training and subsequent years depending on

the speciality, place of work, position, and/or major changes in

private life?

Preliminary results of the 1st wave of this survey are pre-

sented below. The study design does not allow addressing the

research question D at this juncture.

Methods

Sample

Students of economics (n = 84), medicine (n = 65), and of

verbal communication and communication disturbances (n =

43)1 of the University of Rostock, Germany, were willing to

participate voluntarily in a 20-years follow-up study on person-

ality characteristics between January 2004 and June 2005. It

represents a convenient sample. The mean age was 22.4 ± 2.4

years. There was no significant difference between the three

study groups according to age (F = 0.38; p = 0.687) or gender

(χ2 = 0.43; approx. p = 0.805). In the instruction, it was clearly

stated that this investigation cannot be performed anonymously

due to its repeated measures design. We intend investigating the

students very two years by the Temperament and Character

Inventory and a life event list.

Measurement

The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) (Cloninger

et al., 1994) was used to measure temperament and character as

major personality domains. It measures the four temperament

dimensions based on Cloninger’s unified biosocial theory of

personality: NS (novelty seeking) and HA (harm avoidance),

both composed of four lower-order subscales; RD (reward de-

pendence), composed of three subscales; and, PS (persistence),

as a single-scale dimension; as well as the three character di-

mensions: SD (self-directedness) and CO (cooperativeness),

each comprising five lower-order dimensions, and ST (self

transcendence) with three subscales.

1Currently, this is a B.A. study at the Philosophical Faculty, University o

Rostock, mainly aiming to teach pedagogs in a wide range of applied com-

munication sciences with the focus from rehabilitation centres and schools

for disabled children to communication disturbances in intercultural

team-work. Students should become prepared to deal with phenomena o

verbal communication that deviate from common communication processes.

Furthermore, they are trained in understanding and management of disturbed

communication in various contexts (http://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/insti-

tut/igerman/spr_komm/html/studiengang.html).

J. RICHTER ET AL.

250

The inventory is a self-administered paper-and-pencil test of

240 items of a true/false format. It takes about 20 to 30 minutes

to complete. Its psychometric properties have been demon-

strated separately for versions of several languages (for the

German version Richter, Eisemann, Richter & Cloninger, 1999)

using established personality theories, in different groups of

normals and patients, and with respect to neurobiological pa-

rameters.

Statistics

To compare the mean scores between the students` groups,

t-tests for independent groups, one-way ANOVAs concerning

the personality scores and multiple ANOVAs concerning the

personality profile were calculated. In order to evaluate the

impact of self-presentation, the so-called performance scores,

personality scores derived by multiple regression analysis from

validity scores indicating the individual formal response style,

were compared with the real response scores by paired-sample

t-test (Table 2).

Results

At the dimensional and sub-scale level, students of econom-

ics scored lower on ‘NS3 Extravagance vs. Reserve’, ‘HA1

Anticipatory Worry vs. Optimism’, ‘HA3 Shyness with Strang-

ers’, HA dimension, ‘RD1 Extravagance vs. Reserve’, RD di-

mension, whereas they obtained higher scores on ‘SD3 re-

sourcefulness vs. inertia’, ‘SD5 Congruent second nature vs.

bad habits’ and the SD dimension than medical students fol-

lowed by the students of verbal communication sciences.

Medical students and students of verbal communication did not

significantly differ in any of the personality scores (Table 1).

Economics students and those of communication were similar

on ‘CO5 Pure hearted principles vs. self-serving advantage’

whereas medical students reached higher scores.

At the multivariate level, we found a main effect for the stu-

dents’ specialty at the level of the sub-scales (Wilks’ λ = 0.625;

F (50/322) = 1.75; p = 0.002; η.2 = 0.21; Power = 1.00) based

on significant effects on NS3, HA1, HA3, HA4, RD1, SD2,

SD3, SD5, and CO5). In a MANOVA using the TCI dimen-

sions, main effects for students’ specialty (Wilks’ λ = 0.817; F

(14/366) = 2.77; p = 0.001; η.2 = 0.094; Power = 0.992—based

on HA, RD and SD) and gender (Wilks’ λ = 0.920; F (7/182) =

2.27; p = 0.030; η.2 = 0.080; Power = 0.830—based on CO)

occurred.

The significant differences (paired sample t-tests) between

the test scores of the students and the corresponding, evaluated

performance scores make us assume that students of all groups

seem to overestimate their SD (self-directedness) with eco-

nomical students showing the most pronounced tendency of

overrating, whereas medical students tend to overrate their CO

(cooperativeness) more than the students from the other groups.

Additionally, students of economics and medical students

overrate their persistence. However, the students of social

communication and the medical students seem to a somewhat

lesser degree overrate their reward dependence whereas the

economical students, on average, highly underrate their HA

(harm avoidance). Concerning the number of students who

over- or underrate their personality traits, about one third of all

students overrate their self-directedness (Table 3) with an over-

representation of females (40% vs. 25%) and most pronounced

among the medical students (42% vs. 18%). Furthermore, about

one sixth of the medical and one seventh of the economics stu-

dents overrate their persistence, one tenth of the medical stu-

dents overrate their cooperative abilities, one tenth of the stu-

dents of verbal communication overrate their dependency on

rewards and one fifth of the students of economics underrate

their harm avoidance. Female medical students generally show

a trend of overrating in any of the personality dimensions.

Covariance analyses of the group differences lent support to

the assumption that a response bias of over- or underrating the

personality significantly influences the personality scores ex-

cept of reward dependence (Table 3).

Discussion

The aim of the investigation was to establish baseline data of

a longitudinal study on personality development of future lead-

ers of various professions. Furthermore, differences on person-

ality between students of economics, medicine and verbal

communication sciences should be explored by means of the

Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI).

The interpretation of these preliminary results from the 1st

wave of this survey is limited by its relatively small sample size.

However, on the long run data from this prospective investiga-

tion should enable us to draw conclusions about possible im-

portant personality traits of the various professions which be

more markedly developed during university training and during

the first years of the occupational practice.

Several differences, especially between students of econom-

ics and the both other groups, i.e. students of medicine and of

verbal communication, were found (research question A). Eco-

nomics students described themselves as more reserved, con-

trolled and restrained, frugal or stingy (NS3) as well as more

uninhibited, nonchalant, carefree (HA1), bold, forward, outgo-

ing and seldom inhibited by uncertainty of unfamiliarity (HA3)

and rather practical, tough minded, odd, aloof with difficulties

to establish social rapport (RD1), generally more practical, cold,

withdrawn, detached, and independent (RD) compared with

medical students and students of communication. The latter

group reported an even lower degree of these characteristics

than the medical students. Furthermore, students of economics

rated themselves as more resourceful, effective, productive,

competent, and innovative, and tended to look at difficult situa-

tions rather as challenges or opportunities (SD3), with a higher

self-discipline, more rarely confusing their priorities and feeling,

more often safe and self-trusting (SD5), as well as they describe

themselves generally as more mature, strong, responsible, goal-

oriented, reliable, and constructive (SD) compared with medi-

cal students and students of communication. On the other hand,

economics students described themselves as more opportunistic

with a tendency to treat people unfairly in a self-serving manner,

behaving more often manipulative and deceitful (CO5) as

compared with the other two groups. These differences corre-

spond mainly to those based on other measurements like the

NEO-PI and the Myers-Briggs temperament types and, there-

fore, have to be regarded as a construct validation of these re-

sults and as construct volition of the TCI (question B).

J. RICHTER ET AL. 251

Table 1.

Comparisons of means of the personality scores among student groups.

Medicals

students

Economics

students

Communication

students

Medical vs.

Economics1 post hoc

Medical vs.

Communication

Economics vs.

Communication 3 post hoc

1 way

ANOVA

Significant

Post hoc tests/P

N = 65 N = 84 N = 43 t p t p t p F Sig. 1 3

Age 22.3 ± 2.4 22.4 ± 2.3 22.7 ± 2.8 −0.34 0.733−0.82 0.416−0.61 0.540 0.38 0.687

NS1 7.1 ± 2.5 7.2 ± 2.1 7.3 ± 2.0 −0.30 0.764−0.65 0.517−0.46 0.646 0.23 0.798

NS2 4.1 ± 2.5 4.0 ± 2.2 4.3 ± 2.0 0.27 0.791−0.46 0.647−0.78 0.436 0.27 0.764

NS3 5.6 ± 2.0 4.9 ± 1.8 6.0 ± 2.0 2.17 0.032−0.90 0.370−2.90 0.004 4.69 0.010 0.014

NS4 4.3 ± 1.7 4.2 ± 1.9 4.6 ± 1.6 .44 0.661−0.91 0.367−1.27 0.206 0.85 0.431

NS 21.1 ± 6.1 20.3 ± 5.0 22.3 ± 4.4 .87 0.387−1.07 0.284−2.16 0.033 1.95 0.145

HA1 4.5 ± 2.6 3.7 ± 1.8 5.0 ± 2.7 2.29 0.024−0.84 0.414−3.22 0.002 5.21 0.006 0.074 0.009

HA2 3.9 ± 2.0 3. 7 ± 1.9 4.5 ± 1.6 0.57 0.570−1.65 0.101−2.36 0.020 2.58 0.079 0.077

HA3 4.0 ± 2.1 3.0 ± 1.9 3. 8 ± 1.9 2.99 0.0030.440.661−2.27 0.025 5.26 0.006 0.0080.084

HA4 2.8 ± 1.8 2.2 ± 1.8 3.0 ± 2.2 1.97 0.051−0.64 0.525−2.29 0.024 3.31 0.039 0.060

HA 15.2 ± 6.2 12.6 ± 5.4 16.3 ± 6.1 2.75 0.007−0.92 0.359−3.53 0.001 6.96 0.001 0.0220.002

RD1 6.4 ± 2.1 5.5 ± 1.9 6.5 ± 1.8 2.90 0.004−0.35 0.727−3.09 0.002 6.38 0.002 0.0100.010

RD3 5.9 ± 2. 0 5.9 ± 2.0 6.6 ± 1.5 −0.03 0.979−1.78 0.079−1.82 0.071 1.85 0.159

RD4 4.1 ± 1.3 3.8 ± 1.4 4.2 ± 1.3 1.55 0.124−0.30 0.763−1.67 0.098 1.90 0.153

RD 16.4 ± 3.9 15.1 ± 3.9 17.3 ± 3.3 2.01 .046−1.21 0.229−3.10 0.002 5.15 0.007 0.008

PS 4.6 ± 2.1 4. 7 ± 2.0 3.9 ± 1.9 −0.30 0.7621.78 0.0792.25 0.026

2.52 0.084 0.094

SD1 6.2 ± 1.7 6.6 ± 1.6 6.1 ± 2.2 −1.26 0.2110.3620.7181.42 0.157 1.25 0.290

SD2 6.4 ± 1.6 6.8 ± 1.4 6.0 ± 1.8 −1.60 0.1121.14 0.2562.67 0.009 3.61 0.029 0.027

SD3 3.9 ± 1.3 4.4 ± 0.9 3.7 ± 1.4 −2.83 0.005 0.920.3593.69 0.001 6.92 0.001 0.0270.002

SD4 7.0 ± 2.8 7.6 ± 2.6 6.9 ± 2.6 −1.42 0.1570.16 0.8741.47 0.145 1.47 0.233

SD5 8.6 ± 2.2 9.3 ± 1.9 8.1 ± 2.4 −2.02 0.046 1.190.2373.08 0.003 4.95 0.008 0.008

SD 32.1 ± 6.8 34.7 ± 5.7 30.7 ± 8.1 −2.46 0.015 0.950.3433.15 0.002 5.55 0.005

0.069 0.006

CO1 6.8 ± 1.2 6.9 ± 1.5 6.4 ± 1.7 −0.20 0.8391.41 0.1611.52 0.131 1.44 0.239

CO2 4.9 ± 1.2 4.9 ± 1.2 5.0 ± 1.4 −0.33 0.742−0.55 0.583−0.29 0.769 0.16 0.855

CO3 6.3 ± 1.0 6.0 ± 1.2 6.0 ± 1.0 1.23 0.2211.560.1210.39 0.698 1.25 0.288

CO4 7.4 ± 2.4 6.5 ± 2.8 6.6 ± 2.9 2.26 0.0251.660.100−0.26 0.793 2.64 0.074 0.085

CO5 7.2 ± 1.1 6. 7 ± 1.6 7.0 ± 1.2 2.44 0.0160.870.389−1.33 0.188

3.26 0.041 0.040

C 32.7 ± 4.6 31.0 ± 5.7 30. 9 ± 5.7 1.92 0.0571.630.106−0.04 0.965 204 0.133

ST1 4.4 ± 2.8 4.1 ± 2.5 4.4 ± 2.4 0.62 0.533−0.08 0.936−0.68 0.501 0.30 0.742

ST2 2.3 ± 1.6 1.8 ± 1.5 2.3 ± 1.8 1.98 0.050−0.15 0.882−1.86 0.066 2.57 0.079

ST3 4.7 ± 3.5 4. 4 ± 3.2 5.5 ± 3.5 0.44 0.657−1.24 0.219−1.76 0.081 1.53 0.220

ST 11. 3 ± 6.3 10.3 ± 5.6 12.2 ± 6.3 1.04 0.300−0.76 0.451−1.79 0.076 1.59 0.207

NS1 exploratory excitability vs. rigidity, NS2 impulsiveness vs. reflection, NS3 extravagance vs. reserve, NS4 disorderliness vs. Regimentation, HA1 anticipatory worry vs.

optimism, HA2 fear of uncertainty vs. confidence, HA3 shyness vs. gregariousness, HA4 Fatigability and Asthenia vs. Vigor, RD1 sentimentality vs. insensitiveness, RD3

attachment vs. detachment, RD4 dependence vs. Independence, SD1 responsibility vs. blaming, SD2 purposefulness vs. lack of goal direction, SD3 resourcefulness vs.

inertia, SD4 self-acceptance vs. self-striving, SD5 impulse control vs. bad habits, CO1 social acceptance vs. social intolerance, CO2 empathy vs. social disinterest, ST3

spiritual acceptance vs. rational materialism CO3 helpfulness vs. unhelpfulness, CO4 compassion vs. revengefulness, CO5 pure hearted principles vs. self-serving advan-

tage, ST1 creative self-forgetfulness vs. self-conscious experience, ST2 transpersonal identification vs. personal identification.

J. RICHTER ET AL.

252

Table 2.

Performance score comparison between student group.

Medical Economics Communication

Score Performance t p Score Performancet p Score Performance t p

NS 21.4 ± 6.1 20.5 ± 2.9 1.11 0.270 20.3 ± 5.020.4 ± 2.3 −0.140.88822.3 ± 4.4 21.0 ± 2.7 2.060.045

HA 15.2 ± 6.2 16.2 ± 3.0 −1.52 0.134 12.6 ± 5.416.6 ± 2.8 −7.05 0.001 16.3 ± 6.1 16.1 ± 2.5 0.240.813

RD 16.4 ± 3.9 15.2 ± 1.6 2.41 0.019 15.1 ± 3.915.3 ± 1.6 −0.400.68817.3 ± 3.3 14.9 ± 1.6 4.66 0.001

PS 4.6 ± 2.1 3.7 ± 0.8 3.75 0.001 4.7 ± 2.0 3.7 ± 0.7 4.95 0.0013.9 ± 1.9 3.5 ± 0.8 1.480.145

SD 32.1 ± 6.8 27.3 ± 7.5 5.37 0.001 34.7 ± 5.728.5 ± 5.8 9.08 0.00130.7 ± 8.1 26.6 ± 9.0 4.03 0.001

CO 32.7 ± 4.6 30.0 ± 3.8 5.34 0.001 31.0 ± 5.730.5 ± 3.5 0.95 0.34331.0 ± 5.7 29.2 ± 4.6 2.49 0.017

ST 11.3 ± 6.3 11.4 ± 2.8 −0.19 0.852 10.3 ± 5.610.4 ± 2.8 −0.250.80712.2 ± 6.3 10. 9 ± 3.5 1.890.065

Table 3.

Relative frequencies of over- and underrating according to students’ speciality (in %) and covariance analyses with related performance scores as

covariate variable and students’ speciality as fixed factor.

Medical Economical Communication Covariance analyses

over under over under over under F P η.2

NS 1.5 3.1 0.0 1.2 7.0 0.0 49.19 < 0.001 0.208

HA 3.1 6.2 1.2 19.0 7.0 0.0 29.89 < 0.001 0.138

RD 4.6 4.6 3.6 3.6 9.3 0.0 2.67 0.104 0.014

PS 16.9 1.5 13.1 1.2 2.3 2.3 26.42 < 0.001 0.124

SD 32.3 1.5 36.9 1.2 32.6 4.7 82.05 < 0.001 0.305

CO 10.8 0.0 3.6 1.2 7.0 0.0 85.12 < 0.001 0.313

ST 12.3 7.7 6.0 1.2

11.6 2.3 103.75 < 0.001 0.357

However, the students of all groups seem to overrate their

ability to maintain behavior, their self-directedness, i.e. matur-

ity, self-esteem, their effectiveness, and their cooperative abili-

ties including their identification and acceptance of others, their

tolerance, empathy, compassion, and fairness according to the

significant differences between self-scorings and the guessed

performance scores. The fact that the economics students obvi-

ously underrate their harm avoidance (HA) corresponds to their

most pronounced overrating of their self-directed behavior, and

similarly corresponds to the medical students’ and students’ of

verbal communication overrating of their reward dependence as

well as of their cooperative abilities. In both cases, the obvious

disturbed self-evaluation corresponds to their professional ori-

entation. Physicians and persons, who like to train verbal

communication abilities of others, are mainly focused on social

relationships, whereas future economical leaders or managers

are required to be highly self-directed and courageous, com-

posed, and optimistic even in situations which would worry

other people, in order to be able to make the right decisions for

the best of their company.

These results let us conclude that the students of the various

fields can be characterized by specific and varying types and

impact of social desirability depending on their professional

career (question C).

Nevertheless, it should be a meaningful goal during the time

of the university training to reduce the distortions in students’

self-evaluation, e.g., by video-controlled special training of

social competencies and subsequent self-observation and self-

ratings.

Consequently, future leaders and/or service providers in

leading positions (physicians, communication scientists) would

be enabled to use more efficiently their genuine personal poten-

tial and competencies. Our findings support the results of for-

mer investigations in medical and economics student popula-

tions. In addition, based on the psychosocial model of personal-

ity of Cloninger and co-workers (1994), some meaningful dif-

ferences on personality characteristics could be detected which

so far have not been reported on. The application of the per-

formance scores which are exclusively available for the Tem-

perament and Character Inventory (TCI) enabled us to describe

these differences in more detail.

References

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the

relationship between the five-factor model of personality and Hol-

land’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 45-74.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00143.x

Borg, M. O., & Stranahan, H. (2002a). The effect of gender and race on

student performance in principles of economics: The importance of

personality type. Applied Economics, 34, 586-598.

doi:10.1080/00036840110039249

Borg, M. O., & Stranahan, H. (2002b). Personality type and student

performance in upper-level economics courses: The importance of

race and gender. Journal of E conomic Education, 33, 3-14.

doi:10.1080/00220480209596120

Buddeberg-Fischer, B., Klaghofer, R., Abel, T., & Buddeberg, C.

J. RICHTER ET AL. 253

(2003). The influence of gender and personality traits on the career

planning of Swiss medical students. Swiss Medicine Weekly, 133,

535-540.

Cloninger, C. R., Przybeck, T. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Wetzel, R. D.

(1994). The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): A guide to

its development and use. St. Louis, MO: Center for Psychobiology of

Personality.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inven-

tory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) profes-

sional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment resources, Inc.

Hojat, M. & Zuckerman, M. (2008). Personality and specialty interest

in medical students. Medical Teacher, 30, 400-406.

doi:10.1080/01421590802043835

Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of voca-

tional personalities and work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Holland, J. L. (1994). Self-directed search. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.

Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analy-

sis of big-six interests and big-five personality factors. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 61, 217-239. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1854

Lievens, F., Coetsier, P., de Fruyr, F., & de Maeseneer, J. (2002).

Medical students’ personality characteristics and academic perform-

ance: A five/factor model perspective. Medical Education, 36,

1050-1056. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01328.x

Linn, B. S., & Zeppa, R. (1984). Does surgery attract students who are

more resistant to stress?. Annals of Surgery, 200, 638-643.

doi:10.1097/00000658-198411000-00014

Myers, I. (1975). Manual: Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto,

California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ziegert, A. L. (2000). The role of personality temperament and student

learning in principles of economics: further evidence. Journal of

Economic Education, 31, 307-322.

Zeldow, P. B., & Daugherty, S. R. (1991). Personality profiles and

specialty choices of students from two medical schools. Academic

Medicine, 66, 283-287. doi:10.1097/00001888-199105000-00012