122

Piepiora Paweł, Szczepańska Kalina. Students personality and field of study. Pedagogy and Psychology of Sport. 2020;6(2):122-134.
elSSN 2450-6605. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/PPS.2020.06.02.012
https://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/PPS/article/view/PPS.2020.06.02.012
https://zenodo.org/record/3935586

The journal has had 5 points in Ministry of Science and Higher Education parametric evaluation. § 8. 2) and § 12. 1. 2) 22.02.2019.
© The Authors 2020;

This article is published with open access at Licensee Open Journal Systems of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland
Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

provided the original author (s) and source are credited. This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non commercial license Share alike.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Received: 25.06.2020. Revised: 26.06.2020. Accepted: 08.07.2020.

Students personality and field of study

Paweł Piepiora (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6525-3936)*, Kalina Szczepańska

*Corresponding author: Paweł Piepiora, University School of Physical Education in

Wrocław, I. J. Paderewskiego 35 street, Multifunctional Sports Hall room 73, 51-612

Wrocław, Poland, phone: +48 605 39 54 32, e-mail: pawel.piepiora@awf.wroc.pl

Conflict of interest statement: the authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Affiliation: University School of Physical Education in Wrocław.

Abstract

Background and aim. Personality is shaped through external interactions and interests. The

aim of the study was to check whether university students have a similar personality (as

applicants for higher education) or a different personality (due to their field of study).

Material and method. 60 full-time students aged between 20 and 29 years old were

examined in three groups of 20 people from universities: University School of Physical

Education in Wrocław (field of study: Sport), University of Zielona Góra (field of study:

Construction) and University of Economics in Wrocław (field of study: Economics). The

http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/PPS.2020.06.02.012
https://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/PPS/article/view/PPS.2020.06.02.012
https://zenodo.org/record/3935586
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6525-3936)*


123

Personality Inventory NEO-FFI was used to measure personality. Results. Only one

statistically significant difference was noted. Economics students had a lower level of

neuroticism compared to sports students. Conclusions. The personality of students is not

dependent on the field of study. Students as applicants for higher education have a similar

personality.

Key words: pedagogy, psychology, personality, students, universities

Introduction

The issue of personality has long been subject to discussion and research by many

psychologists, sociologists and other scholars. Regardless of the view that is displayed by a

given researcher, everyone simultaneously states that personality consists of several features

or dimensions. Personality is usually defined as a system of permanent psychic traits and

internal mechanisms regulating human behavior (Tokar et al. 1998).

The most commonly used concept of human personality presented by means of

features is the so-called a five-factor personality model called the Big Five, developed by

Costa and McCrea (2007). For many years, until the 1970s, it was thought that personality

was only shaped by the external environment. It was believed that the family environment,

education and upbringing were responsible for the development of personality, individual

traits. However, the validity of this theory was questioned by the results of genetic-behavioral

studies, which showed that the overwhelming number of personality traits show moderate

heritability (McCrae, Costa, 2003). Recently, there has been a return of interest in the

correlation of genetics and personality. This is probably due to the deepening of knowledge

about the genome and the association of individual genes with the occurrence of

psychopathology. In genetic studies that focused on the issue of personality, multidimensional

concepts of personality were most often studied, which covered various aspects of personality.

Nowadays, the NEO-FFI Personality Inventory enjoys the greatest popularity among

researchers. Personality understood in a multidimensional sense, presented by Costa and



124

McCrae includes five main factors, which can also be called dimensions: neuroticism,

extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Mount et al.

1998).

The essence of this study was an attempt to determine the personality of students

depending on the field of study (Barrick, Mount, 1991; Arcidiacono, 2004; Nyhus, Pons, 2005;

Mueller, Plug, 2006; Cunha, Heckman, 2007; Borghans et al. 2008; Krueger, Schkade, 2008;

Arcidiacono et al. 2012). Assuming that the personality is shaped in the course of external

interactions and interests, the purpose of the study was to check whether university students

have a similar personality (as applicants for higher education) or a different personality (due

to the field of study being implemented).

Material and method

Test persons

The study was conducted from October to December 2019, on groups of full-time

students (N = 60) from the University School of Physical Education in Wrocław (field of

study: Sport; 20 people - 10 women and 10 men, hereinafter referred to as USPE), University

of Zielona Góra (field of study: Construction; 20 people - 11 women and 9 men, hereinafter

referred to as UZ) and the University of Economics in Wrocław (field of study: Economics;

20 people - 12 women and 8 men, hereinafter referred to as UE).

Students for the study were selected at random. The selection criteria were full-time

studies at one of the three above-mentioned universities in a given field, age between 20 and

29 years of age and consent to voluntary participation in the study. The project was approved

by the Senate Committee on Ethics of Scientific Research at the University School of

Physical Education in Wrocław, issue 20/2019.

Method

The NEO-FFI Personality Inventory was selected to examine the personality of

athletes in terms of the five-factor Big Five model. NEO-FFI Personality Inventory items are

made up of five measuring scales, factors of the Big Five model:



125

 Neuroticism (anxiety, angry hostility, depression, impulsiveness, vulnerability, self-

consciousness);

 Extroversion (gregariousness, warmth, assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking,

positive emotions);

 Openness to experience (fantasy, aestethics, feelings, actions, ideas, values);

 Agreeableness (trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty,

tendermindedness);

 Conscientiousness (competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-

discipline, deliberation; Costa, McCrea, 2007).

The items in the questionnaire are 60 self-descriptive statements, the truthfulness of

which in relation to themselves was rated by the respondents on a five-point scale: 1 – "I

strongly disagree"; 2 – "I do not agree"; 3 – "I have no opinion"; 4 – "I agree"; 5 – "I

definitely agree". The NEO-FFI Personality Inventory has sten standards for 5 age groups

(15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-80), developed separately for women and men based on large

population samples (Costa, McCrae, 2007).

The NEO-FFI Personality Inventory is internally compliant. Accuracy was

demonstrated on the basis of research on the relationship between the results of the

questionnaire and the evaluations of the subjects made by observers, the heritability of the

measured features and their correlation with other personality and temperament dimensions.

Factor relevance was also verified. The results allow a full description of the respondents'

personalities in a five-factor Big Five perspective and forecast their adaptation possibilities to

the professional environment (Costa, McCrae, 2007).

To answer the research hypotheses, statistical analyzes were performed using the IBM

SPSS Statistics 23 package. With its help, basic descriptive statistics were analyzed together

with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and one-way analyzes of variance in the intergroup

diagram. The classic threshold α = 0.05 was considered the level of significance, in addition,

the test statistic probability results at 0.05 <p <0.1 were considered significant at the level of

statistical tendency.

Results

In the first step, basic descriptive statistics of the quantitative variables tested were

counted along with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, checking the normality of the distribution



126

of these variables. As can be seen in Table 1, a distribution similar to the Gaussian

distribution was noted in the range of four out of five variables studied - neuroticism,

extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness. Only in the case of the level of

agreeableness was the statistically significant result of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

indicating that this distribution is different from the Gaussian distribution. In this case, it is

recommended to verify the skew level. If this value is in the range of -1 to +1, it can be

assumed that these distributions are not significantly asymmetrical in relation to the average.

Such results were obtained in this study. Therefore, this chapter will perform statistical

analyzes using parametric tests.

Table 1. Basic descriptive statistics of quantitative variables tested

M Me SD Sk. Kurt. Min. Maks. K-S p

Neuroticism 24,50 24 5,12 -0,63 0,42 10 33 0,10 0,200

Extroversion 23,88 24 4,45 0,01 0,05 12 33 0,10 0,200

Openness to experience 24,28 24 4,10 0,10 -0,53 14 32 0,11 0,089

Agreeableness 24,82 25 4,77 0,31 0,31 14 37 0,14 0,008

Conscientiousness 25,93 26 4,48 -0,21 -0,47 17 35 0,10 0,200

M - average; Me - median; SD - standard deviation; Sk. - skewness; Kurt. - kurtosis; Min and Max - the lowest and highest distribution value; K-S - Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

result; p - significance

Neuroticism

Due to the failure to meet the homogeneity assumption, a strong Brown-Forsyth

average equality test was performed. As can be seen in Table 2, a statistically significant

result was recorded. Therefore, post-hoc analyzes were performed using Dunnett's test. One

statistically significant difference was noted. EU students had a lower level of neuroticism

compared to USPE students (p = 0.043). UZ students did not differ from the other two groups

even at the level of statistical tendency. The results are presented in Figure 1.



127

Table 2. Level of neuroticism in the studied groups

USPE

(n = 20)

UZ

(n = 20)

UE

(n = 20)

M SD M SD M SD F p η2

Neuroticism 26,35 3,86 25,10 3,96 22,05 6,38 4,12 0,023 0,13

Figure 1. Level of neuroticism in the studied groups

Extroversion

A one-way analysis of variance was performed in the intergroup diagram. However, as

can be seen in Table 3, no statistically significant result or even close statistical significance

was reported. The results are presented in Figure 2.



128

Table 3. Level of extraversion in the studied groups

USPE

(n = 20)

UZ

(n = 20)

UE

(n = 20)

M SD M SD M SD F p η2

Extroversion 23,30 3,45 24,30 4,82 24,05 5,06 0,27 0,766 0,01

Figure 2. Level of extraversion in the examined groups

Openness to experience

A one-way analysis of variance was performed in the intergroup diagram. However, as

can be seen in Table 4, no statistically significant result or even close statistical significance

was reported again. The results are presented in Figure 3.



129

Table 4. Level of openness to experience in the studied groups

USPE

(n = 20)

UZ

(n = 20)

UE

(n = 20)

M SD M SD M SD F p η2

Openness to experience 24,50 4,98 23,80 3,64 24,55 3,71 0,20 0,816 0,01

Figure 3. Level of openness to experience in the studied groups

Agreeableness

Another one-way analysis of variance was performed in the intergroup diagram.

However, as can be seen in Table 5, no statistically significant result or even close statistical

significance was recorded this time either. The results are presented in Figure 4.



130

Table 5. Level of agreeableness in the studied groups

USPE

(n = 20)

UZ

(n = 20)

UE

(n = 20)

M SD M SD M SD F p η2

Agreeableness 24,55 5,22 23,70 3,92 26,20 4,96 1,44 0,245 0,05

Figure 4. Level of agreeableness in the studied groups

Conscientiousness

Another one-way analysis of variance was performed in the intergroup diagram.

However, as can be seen in Table 6, no statistically significant result or even close statistical

significance was recorded again. The results are presented in Figure 5.



131

Table 6. Level of conscientiousness in the studied groups

USPE

(n = 20)

UZ

(n = 20)

UE

(n = 20)

M SD M SD M SD F p η2

Conscientiousness 25,20 4,87 27,30 4,08 25,30 4,35 1,42 0,25 0,05

Figure 5. Level of conscientiousness in the studied groups

Discussion

The results of the conducted research showed that the students of the three respondents

are characterized by a similar personality with an average intensity of all five dimensions:

neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness.

There was no correlation between personality and the chosen field of study. The first

supposition was generally confirmed that students as applicants for higher education have a

similar personality. USPE students are not distinguished by personality typical for athletes,

UZ students are not distinguished by personality typical of exact sciences and EU students are

not distinguished by personality typical for social sciences (O'Connor, Paunonen, 2007).



132

But one statistically significant difference was noted. UE students had a lower level of

neuroticism compared to students of the USPE. Whereas UZ students did not differ from the

other two groups even at the level of statistical tendency. This shows that UE students are

more emotionally stable (Borghans et al. 2008) than USPE students.

Since there is no knowledge about the personality of the respondents from earlier

periods of their careers, there is no reason to conclude on how much school interests and

predispositions influenced possible modifications of this important human property (Roberts

et al. 2001). In addition, it is not known to what extent education in secondary schools could

have a decisive impact on the formation of student personality. Apart from the influence of

primarily teachers and other entities of the students' immediate social environment. Therefore,

social and cultural factors cannot be excluded (de Fruyt et al. 2006). Factors disturbing or

supporting the development of a young person creates his immediate environment (Piepiora et

al. 2017a, 2017b, 2018). This, in turn, is expressed in self-esteem, which has a significant

impact on the personality and competence of high school students who decide to study

(Heckman et al. 2006). Personality is more important than cognitive skills, i.e. mathematical

and verbal skills. In order to achieve education, the impact of personality on the choice of

field of study is comparable to the impact of cognitive skills (Humburg, 2017).

Conclusions

The personality of students is not dependent on the field of study. Students as

applicants for higher education have a similar personality.

References

Arcidiacono, P. (2004). Ability Sorting and the Returns to College Major. Journal of

Econometrics, 121 (1-2), 343–375.

Arcidiacono, P, Hotz, VJ, Kang, S. (2012). Modeling College Major Choices Using Elicited

Measures of Expectations and Counterfactuals. Journal of Econometrics, 166 (1), 3–

16.

Barrick, MR, Mount, MK. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance:

A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.



133

Borghans, L, Duckworth, AL, Heckman JJ, ter Weel, B. (2008). The Economics and

Psychology of Personality Traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43 (4), 972–1059.

Borghans, L, ter Weel, B, Weinberg, BA. (2008). Interpersonal Styles and Labour Market

Outcomes. Journal of Human Resources, 43 (4), 815–858.

Costa Jr., P., McCrae, R. (2007). NEO-FFI Personality Inventory. Warsaw: Pracownia

Testów Psychologicznych.

Cunha, F, Heckman, J. (2007). The Technology of Skill Formation. American Economic

Review, 97 (2), 31–47.

de Fruyt, F, Bartels, M, van Leeuwen, KG, de Clercq, B, Decuyper, M, Mervielde, I. (2006).

Five Types of Personality Continuity in Childhood and Adolescence. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (3), 538–552.

Heckman, JJ, Stixrud, J, Urzua, S. (2006). The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive

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

Economics, 24 (3), 411–482.

Humburg, M. (2017). Personality and field of study choice in university. Education

Economics, 25 (4), 366-378.

Krueger, AB, Schkade, D. (2008). Sorting in the Labor Market: Do Gregarious Workers

Flock to Interactive Jobs? Journal of Human Resources, 43 (4), 859–883.

McCrae, R., Costa Jr., P. (2003). Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor theory perspective.

New York: Guilford Press.

Mount, MK, Barrick, MR, Stewart, GL. (1998). Five-Factor Model of Personality and

Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions. Human Performance, 11,

145–165.

Mueller, G, Plug, EJS. (2006). Estimating the Effect of Personality on Male and Female

Earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60 (1), 1–22.

Nyhus, EK, Pons, E. (2005). The Effects of Personality on Earnings. Journal of Economic

Psychology, 26, 363–384.

O’Connor, MC, Paunonen, SV. (2007). Big Five Personality Predictors of Post-Secondary

Academic Performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.

Piepiora, P, Cięszczyk, I, Krzesiński, M. (2017a). Wizerunek a agresywność młodych

sportowców na przykładzie wybranych dyscyplin sportowych. Roczniki Naukowe

Wyższej Szkoły Wychowania Fizycznego i Turystyki w Białymstoku, 19 (1), 45-51.



134

Piepiora, P, Cięszczyk, I, Krzesiński, M. (2017b). Young athlete personality model using the

example of selected sport disciplines. Roczniki Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Wychowania

Fizycznego i Turystyki w Białymstoku, 22 (4), 5-13.

Piepiora, P, Cięszczyk, I, Krzesiński, M. (2018). Różnice w temperamencie wśród

młodzieżowych zawodników trenujących sport indywidualny i zespołowy. Roczniki

Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Wychowania Fizycznego i Turystyki w Białymstoku, 25 (3),

44-50.

Roberts, B, Caspi, A, Moffit, T. (2001). The Kids Are Alright: Growth and Stability in

Personality Development from Adolescence to Adulthood. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81 (4), 670–683.

Tokar, DM, Fischer, AF, Subich, ML. (1998). Personality and Vocational Behavior: A

Selective Review of the Literature, 1993–1997. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53

(2), 115–153.


	Students personality and field of study