A personality dynamics difference Study of MBBS Medical Students living in Hostels and their Homes during their 1st Prof and 2nd Prof Examination.

 

Agarwal A.K. 1*, Gupta Preeti2, Mahore R.N.3

1Department of Community Medicine, G. R. Medical College, Gwalior 474009 (MP) India

2Govt.  Medical College, Kota, Rajasthan India

3L. N. Medical College, Bhopal (MP) India

 

 

ABSTRACT:

Background: Difference in the stress, anxiety and depression level is seen among medical students living in hostel and home. Aims: To assess the difference on personality dynamics of Hostellers and residential MBBS students of II and V Semester. Material and Methods: The participants consisted of 120 MBBS students of 1st and 2nd professional in the age group 18-23 years. The students were assessed at their 1st professional and 2nd Professional examination duration respectively by using NEO Five Factor Personality Inventory (NEO FFI). Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate odds ratio (OR).Results: study concluded that as compared to day scholar students, hostilities showed significant difference on major dimensions of personality such as neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness. Conclusion: The anxiety experience was more common due to academics in medical students and seen predominantly among hosteller medical students. Strategy development for eliminating anxiety is necessary for promoting healthy and skilled life.

 

KEYWORDS: Personality Dynamics, Medical students, Hostellers and Day scholar

 

INTRODUCTION:

Medical students often experience significant distress during their study and examination. Along with the other factors impact residential care and environment on personality development has been studied suggesting that those students who live at their homes with their family member are more emotionally stable and confident as compared to hostlers. Personality of an individual is an identity that is moulded by many factors i.e., socialization, training, life experience, social perception and education. The structure in which person acquires education also have strong impact on the development of person’s personality (Jeff, T., and Smith, M. K.(1999).Personality dynamics in general comprised of major dimensions such as on the process of learning, the way problem is solved and the way communication skill are utilized (Seagle2010). Human Dynamics based on the psychological, affection and the bodily aspect of an organism, which are of comparable significance and worth (Seagle 2002).


Some people are psychologically, expressively and bodily centred may be possessing extra or less intellectual qualities, sympathetic, skilful or talented (Ritter 2008) while Cherry (2011) views that an individual’s behaviour is not predetermined rather it is based on his preferences. Important aspects of educational life are the place of residence during that phase. It is found that students reside to hostel causes lack of emotional expression may be results in disruption of self concept and pass through distress of the home sickness. Environmental aspect of a hostel has an effect on the adjustment skills and ability (Terry 1994). Aspect of being alone emotional stability and academic performance are significantly related with hostel life environment. It was suggested that if the physical conditions are not of high-quality it will lead to maladjustment in academic and social aspects of student’s life. (Raju 2009). Examining the effect of homesickness on mental processes, it was found that meddlesome thoughts of home results into symptoms such as loss of attentiveness and reminiscence may lessen capacity to focus and to give attention, but this failure of attention is not enough to be taken as a major cause of low educational capacity. Hostel life experiences may have long lasting unconstructive outcome for the personality development of the students. Hostel lives tend to shatter the family bond as well as it causes deprivation being making them away from their family specific ways of life. Along with the other factors impact residential care and environment on personality development has been studied suggesting that those students who live at their homes with their family member are more emotionally stable and confident as compared to hostellers. Residential care has a great impact on personality development (Little at el., 2005). Lack of emotional expression in hostellers is very much evident which later on converts into problematic behaviour such as feeling of inadequacy, restiveness, antagonism violence and egocentricity. Comparing the level of social adjustment, significance difference was reported, as hostellers exhibited less sociability. With reference to level of personality incorporation integration hostellers showed less personality integration as compared to day scholar students scored high on these dimensions (reaction, irrational fear, formation, rationalization, distrust, depravity. Day scholars are proved to be healthier (physically and emotionally) and especially posses better self concept than hostellers (Dambuzo, 2009). Hostellers’ students have less determined to their ego identity, self esteem and suffer from the problems of absorption in different living setup which results into poor academic performance and emotional maladjustment (Francis and Lewis, 2003). The personality of Hostellers and day scholars was investigated founding that there was any significant difference between both group on major dimension of the personality and which may be proved to be helpful to lessen the rate of disordered the personality among the students.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Subjects: Participants included total 120 students of G. R. Medical College, Gwalior, 60 of MBBS 1st Professional and 60 of 2nd professional and   each sample of 1st and 2nd Prof comprised of 30 hosteller and 30 day scholar. Participants included 60 males and 60 females within the age group of 18-23 years. It was decided to select equal respondents from each professional and hosteller and day scholar by applying convenient random sampling.

Study Period: September 2012 and March 2013 this was just one month before their 1st Prof and 2nd Prof Examination.

 

Study Design:

The study design was quantitative with cross sectional study was employed to compare and investigate the data.

 

Research Instruments: In order to assess the personality dynamics, IPPI Five factor personality inventory (NEO FFI) developed by Paul T Costa Jr and Robert R McCrae11 for use with adult (17+) men and a woman without overt psychopathology was used in the present study. The test was consisted of 60 items and 30 facets (12 items and 6 facets per domain) with five response options, measuring Five Factors Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, neuroticism and Openness to Experience. Positive items were scored as Strongly agree=5, Agree=4, Undecided=3, Disagree=2, Strongly disagree=1, whereas Negative valence items were scored as Strongly Agree=1, Agree=2, Undecided=3, Disagree=4, Strongly Disagree=5, respectively.

 

Procedure:

For the data collection respondents were personally approached by the researcher and questionnaires were distributed individually in face to face situation. Clear instructions were prepared for the respondents. They were requested to go through the general instructions first and then to respond. The respondents were asked to decide about agreement with the statements and mark the relevant response category honestly. The data were analyzed using MS Excel spreadsheet. Mean, standard deviation, mean percentage, ‘t’ test and regression analysis  were used for assessing the difference between personality dynamics domains and facets of hosteller and day scholar students.

 

Table1. Tabulation of Frequencies semester and gender wise (N=120)

MBBS Semester

Hosteller

Day Scholar

Male

Female

Male

Female

II Semester

15

15

15

15

V Semester

15

15

15

15

 

RESULTS:

The present study was conducted among 120 medical students. Out of the total 120 respondents 60 each selected in 1st prof. and 2nd prof. both with 15 each as male and female and total 30 hosteller and 30day-scholar among each prof for equality of sample size. (Table 1)

 

The age ranged from 18-23 years with a mean (SD) of 20.3 (±1.40) years [Table 3).

 

The results in table 2 exhibits that calculated reliability of applied personality inventory is 0.57 to  0.76 which shows measurement of personality Dynamics in hosteller and day scholar medical students is reliable after comparing with internal consistency of NEO FFI were N=0.79, E=0.79, O=0.80, A=0.75, C=0.83 [Table 2).

 

The mean (SD) Personality Dynamics score for hosteller and Day scholar were 85.53 (3.92) and 83.33(4.48) respectively. The commonest odd ratio (1.71) for neuroticism was found among hosteller than day scholar.[Table 4]

 

On comparing the mean scores according to  personality domains, there was a high score found in hosteller on Neuroticism and Agreeableness  domain while high scores were present in day scholar on Extraversion and Openness domain and these difference were statistically significant (p=0.05) except conscientiousness where findings was more or less same in both group.(Table 4).

 

Students of both group hosteller and day scholar scoring on each 6 facets of personality is given in Table 5 for all the six domains i.e., Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness had clinical importance in regard to the personality status and quality of life of medical students.


 

Table 2. Alpha Reliability coefficient for personality Dynamics Scale domains

Scales domains

N of facets

Mean

SD

Reliability

Neuroticism

6

17.34

3.13

0.64

Extraversion

6

18.12

2.11

0.57

Agreeableness

6

16.70

3.57

0.59

Openness

6

19.65

2.09

0.73

Conscientiousness

6

18.78

2.05

0.76

 

 

Table 3. Frequencies distribution by age and semester wise (n=120)

Age

Residence

Hosteller(N=60)

Day Scholar(N=60)

II Semester

V Semester

II Semester

V Semester

18-19

17

0

19

0

20-21

10

22

7

21

22-23

3

8

4

9

 

 

Table 4. Personality Dynamic Scale domains score comparison in students as hosteller and           day scholar

Personality Scale

Hosteller     (n=60)

Mean (SD)

Day Scholar 

n= (60) Mean (SD)

Odds

Ratio

t

df=118

p

value

Overall Personality Dynamics

85.53 (3.92)

83.33 (4.48)

1.06

2.86

0.004

Neuroticism

19.28(2.67)

15.4(2.24)

1.71

8.62

0.000

Extroversion

17.08(1.90)

19.15(2.2)

0.75

5.52

0.000

Openness

16.33(1.88)

18.25(2.0)

0.77

5.42

0.000

Agreeableness

20.02(2.16)

19.1(2.0)

1.11

2.42

0.017

Conscientiousness

19.03(2.09)

18.53(2.01)

1.07

1.34

0.184

Table 5. Personality Dynamics Domain items Scores according to Hosteller and day Scholars

Personality Domains and Items

Hosteller            (n=60)

Mean (SD)

Day- Scholars      (n=60)

Mean (SD)

Odds Ratio

‘t’ value

(df=118)

‘p’ value

Neuroticism

ANXIETY

ANGER

DEPRESSION

SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

IMMODERATION

VULNERABLITY

 

3.33(0.84)

1.93(0.65)

2.83(0.76)

2.47(0.80)

3.1(0.71)

3.03(0.6)

 

2.68(0.76)

1.56(0.56)

1.73(0.58)

2.13(0.68)

2.83(0.65)

2.54(0.67)

 

1.75

1.38

1.76

1.31

1.25

1.50

 

4.44

3.34

5.32

2.14

2.17

4.01

 

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.034

0.031

0.000

Extraversion

FRIENDLINESS

GREGARIOUSNESS

ASSERTIVENESS

ACTIVITY LEVEL

EXCITEMENT-SEEKING

CHEERFULNESS

 

2.6(0.67)

3.2(0.34)

2.83(0.87)

2.65(0.62)

2.53(0.82)

2.76(0.72)

 

3.06(0.69)

2.68(0.74)

3.1(0.71)

3.1(0.74)

2.97(0.89)

3.33(0.76)

 

0.64

1.53

0.80

0.69

0.70

0.61

 

2.62

2.54

1.59

3.61

2.82

4.22

 

0.011

0.013

0.115

0.000

0.005

0.000

Openness to Experience

IMAGINATION

ARTISTIC INTERESTS

EMOTIONALITY

ADVENTUROUSNESS

INTELLECT

LIBERALISM

 

2.1  (0.72)

1.9  (0.66)

2.87(0.82)

2.36(0.76)

2.16(0.74)

1.93(0.78)

 

2.43(0.88)

2.13(0.73)

2.4  (0.72)

2.56 (0.77)

2.63 (0.93)

2.4(0.81)

 

0.76

0.82

1.46

0.85

0.69

0.68

 

2.25

2.5

3.34

1.43

3.06

3.24

 

0.026

0.013

0.001

0.154

0.002

0.001

Agreeableness

TRUST

MORALITY

ALTRUISM

COOPERATION

MODESTY

SYMPATHY

 

3.6  (0.67)

3.47(0.53)

3.42(0.82)

3.12(0.71)

3.23(0.76)

3.43(0.86)

 

3.23(0.85)

3.3(0.65)

3.14(0.71)

3.4(0.87)

2.96(0.66)

3.0(0.78)

 

1.41

1.16

1.29

0.78

1.25

1.46

 

2.65

1.58

2.0

1.93

2.08

2.40

 

0.009

0.116

0.047

0.055

0.039

0.017

Conscientiousness

SELF-EFFICACY

ORDERLINESS

DUTIFULNESS

ACHEVEMENT -STRIVING

SELF-DISCIPLINE

CAUTIOUSNESS

 

3.35(0.72)

3.54(0.78)

3.48(0.77)

3.5(0.72)

3.63(0.67)

3.56(0.68)

 

3.06(0.62)

3.26(0.69)

3.1(0.66)

3.16(0.66)

3.3(0.66)

3.26(0.65)

 

1.28

1.28

1.41

1.33

1.37

1.32

 

2.36

2.08

2.90

2.70

2.72

2.47

 

0.019

0.039

0.004

0.008

0.007

0.014

 


DISCUSSION:

The present study was intended to compare personality dynamics between Hostellers and day scholars among MBBS students of 1st and 2nd professional. Another prominent purpose of the present study was to measure the relationship between impacts of place of residence on personality dynamics. The findings proved that place of residence does affect personality and show significant difference on major dimensions of personality such as neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and extraversion (t=2.86, df=118, p<0.004, OR=1.06) among Hostellers and day scholar students. This also supports the earlier findings stating that students residing in hostel causes lack of emotional expression. It is proved, at hostel students feels distraught full which later on results into adaptation of phony personality (Schaverian 2004). The personality of Hostellers and day scholars was found to be significantly different on major dimensions of personality (Kumar et al., 2009). Similar findings were presented by Shagufa (2011) and Terry (1994) suggesting that environmental aspect of a boarding house have an effect on the adjustment skills and ability. Similar views about the aversive effect of hosteller on personality dynamics was presented stating that the aspect of being alone, emotional instability and academic performance are significantly related with hostility.

 

Research findings observed difference between medical hosteller and day scholars on Neuroticism Personality dynamic domain. As compared to day scholars, Hostellers (t=8.62, DF=118, p<0.000, OR=1.71)) exhibits emotional unsteadiness, nervousness, hostility, depression due to their residence in tense and competitive environment of the hostel. Present result is supported by several earlier researcher affirming the homesickness to be one of the negative effects which results in lack of concentration, depression and dysfunctional behaviour (Raju, 2000)7. Residential condition was found to be positively associated with student’s unhealthy personality. It was found that hosteller upbringing weakens the emotional and psychological status; resulting in anxiety, home sickness (Mishra, 1994; Dwelle, 2000).

 

Studying the Extroversion Personality dynamic domain difference between hosteller and day scholar it was proved that hosteller were less extroverted than day scholar (t=5.52, df=118, p<0.000, OR=0.75). Similar finding were reported by Jorm and Christensen, 2003 suggesting religiosity was proved to be positively co-related with Extraversion.

 

Studying on Openness domain it was found that medical hosteller were less open than day scholars  and it was found statistically significant (t=5.42, df=118, p<0.000, OR=0.77).Similar findings were reported by Taylor and MacDonald,(1999) suggesting openness to be fundamentally associated with social events and religious events exposure.

 

Another findings of the present study on Agreeableness Personality dynamics domain proved that medical hosteller were more agreeableness than day scholars  (t=2.42, df=118, p<0.017, OR=1.11). Present research findings are contradictory by Shagufta (2011)13 explained day scholars are more considerate and cooperative but supported by Bronlenbrenner (2007) found that students of hostility were different from day scholars in showing conformity to social values. Agreeableness was significantly positive correlated with avoidant attachment to social norms and religiosity (Rowatt and Kirkpatrick, 2002).

 

 Studying another aspects Conscientiousness  domain of personality dynamic it was found that medical hosteller are significantly more self-efficacious, dutifulness, achievement striving, vigilant and have the sense of right and wrong in performing the order of others (OR=1.28, 1.41, 1.33,1.47 and 1.28, p=0.05) but  in overall difference was not significant(t=1.34,t=118, p=0.184, OR=1.07).Wickstorm and Fleck (1983) suggesting that hostility provides an environment of healthy competition which motivates the students to improve their performance and exceeds over other. In another study it was proved that hostility develops the team spirit and the feeling of kinship which proves to be beneficial for their practical life(Burt, 1993,, Raju,2009).

CONCLUSION:

On the basis of obtained findings it is concluded that place of residence variable does exert the influence on personality dynamics. Significant difference was observed among the students living as Hosteller and day scholars of G. R. Medical College, Gwalior. It further indicates that residence environment proved to be helpful and supportive as providing coping ability in order to deal with everyday life problems, as it was proved that as compared in Hosteller and Day scholar. Medical Day scholars showed less vulnerability to stress and possessed mental wellbeing but exhibited more extroverted tendencies. On the other hand Hosteller medical student are more agreeing, higher grade of organization, persistence, control and motivation in goal directed behaviour. Study also concluded day scholar not only makes an individual independent but also serves as a means of social support, role identity, and personal meaning.

 

The present study found that students residing in hostel had scoring higher in Neuroticism domain but scoring lower in social and functional domain in comparison to day scholars. A positive correlation between emotional unsteadiness, nervousness, hostility, depression, dysfunctional behaviour and hostel life do indicate that attention towards improving the hostel environment status should be accorded high priority to ensure improvement in overall personality of hosteller.

 

Research study have shown that among young adults residing in hostel emphasis on religious and spiritual practices can have positive impact in creating the association between religiosity and improved neuroticism personality dynamics such as lower level of anxiety and depression (Obst and Tham {2009}) and more exposure of social religious events in day to day exposure medical students develops more extroverted and agreeableness personality among them.

 

Considering the functional capacities and personality profile of hostellers, suitable environmental opportunities should be provided to eliminate the stigma attached with hostel life and to improve the social and educational environment of these individuals.

 

REFERENCES:

1.       Jeff, T., and Smith, M. K.(1999). What is education? Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/foundations/f-educ.htm.

2.       Seagal, S.(2010). What is Human Dynamics? Retrieved from http://www. humandynamics.com/ind ex.php/about-human-dynamics?

3.       Seagal, S. (2002).The Human Dynamics Body of Knowledge and its Implications for Education: A Brief Account. New Horizons for Learning, Retrieved from http://www.marthalakecov.org/~building/strategie s/styles/horne.html.

4.       Ritter, D. (2008). A Brief Overview of Human Dynamics. Life and Spiritual Coaching, July. Retrieved from http://dritter55.wordpress.com/2008/ 07/09/a-brief-review-of-human-dynamics/

5.       Cherry, K. (2011). About.com Guide to Psychology. Retrieved from http ://psychology.about.com/od/psychology101/u/psychology-theories.htm.

6.       Terry, T.J. (2002). Determinants of Coping: The Role of Stable and Situational Factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 895-910. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU

7.       Raju, T. (2009). Personality and Adjustment of University Hostel students. Retrieved from http://books. google.com.pk/books?

8.        Little, M., Kohm, A., and Thompson, R. (2005). The impact of residential placement on child development: research and policy implications. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14(3), 200–209.

9.       Dambudzo, I. I.(2009). The relationship between learner self-concept and achievement in secondary schools in Zimbabwe. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10500/2393

10.     Francis, L. J., Ziebertz, H.-G., and Lewis, C. A. (2003). The relationship between personality and religion among undergraduate students in Germany. Archive for the Psychology of Religion /Archive for Religions psychology, 24(1), 121-127.

11.     Gosling, S. D.; Rentfrow, P. J.; Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). "A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains". Journal of Research in Personality 37 (6): 504–528.

12.     Schaverien, J. (2004).Boarding school: the trauma of the ‘privileged’ child. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 49, 683–705.

13.     Shagufta Parveen and Kazmi Farhana (2011). Personality Dynamics of Boarders and Day scholars who belongs to Madrassah and Public school. Academic Research Journal, Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2011; pp: 157-172.

14.     Terry, T.J. (2002). Determinants of Coping: The Role of Stable and Situational Factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 895-910. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU RL

15.     Mishra, A.N. (1994). Students and Hostel life: a study of university students. Retrieved from http://books.google.com./books?id=PzWMCFzITZYC

16.     Dwelle, T.L. Personality trait profiles of missionary adolescents. Journal of travel Mdicine,2005,vol 7(9) 112-115

17.     Jorm, A.F., and Christensen, H. (2003). Religiosity and personality: evidence for non-linear associations. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, (6), 14 33-1441.

18.     Taylor, A., and MacDonald, D.A. (1999). Religion and the five factor model of personality: An exploratory investigation using a Canadian university sample. Personality and Individual Differences. 27(6), 1243-1259.

19.     Bronfenbrenner, U. Reaction to social pressure from adults versus peers among Soviet day school and boarding school pupils in the perspective of an American sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.2007.15 (3), 179-189.

20.     Rowatt, W., and Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Two Dimensions of Attachment to God and Their Relation to Affect, Religiosity, and Personality Constructs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 637 – 651.

21.     Wickstom, D. L., and Fleck, J. R. (1983). Missionary Children: Correlates of Self-Esteem and Dependency. Journal of Psychology and Theology La Mirada, Cal. 11(3), 226-235. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft translator.com /BV. aspx?ref=IE8Activity anda= http%3A%2F% 2Fcat.inist.fr%2F.

22.     Obst, P., and Tham, N. (2009). Helping the soul: the relationship between connectivity and well-being within a church community. Journal of Community psychology, 37(3), 342-361.

23.     Kumar, M. M., and Reader, Arun, K. (2009). Comparative study of personality pattern of hostlers and no hostlers at senior secondary school students. Gyanodaya: The Journal of Progressive Education, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.Indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx? Target = ijor: gjpe and volume=2and issue=2andarticle=003.

24.     Wong, Y. J. Rew, L,. and Slaikeu, D.K. (2006). A systematic review of recent research on adolescent religiosity/spirituality and mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 27(2), 161-183. Doi: 10.1080/01612840500436941.

 

Received on 31.12.2014

Modified on 15.01.2015

Accepted on 27.01.2015

© A&V Publication all right reserved

Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 6(1): January-March, 2015, 07-12

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2015.00002.9