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).