Personality Psychology (740)

         a blog


von Stumm (2018)

Filed under: Uncategorized — drcb @ 4:15 pm
26 Comments to “von Stumm (2018)”
  1. Sophie Schiff says:

    I really enjoyed reading this study and think it was an interesting research question to explore. I did, however, have some comments on the methodology of the paper. The first comment is with regards to the order of assessments. In all 4 studies, participants were shown the material then asked to complete personality measures, and then to complete multiple choice tests on the content they had been presented. I am not confident that the presentation of the stimuli would necessarily impact personality measures, but I think it might have been a cleaner design if participants first completed the personality measure and then completed the task, first with the presentation of the content and immediately after, the multiple choice test.

    Another difficulty I had with the design of this paper was that the authors changed more than one variable between studies. I do believe they successfully stepped up the cognitive demands and situational constraints from study 1 through study 4. However, I think the introduction of incentives in study 3 and 4 may have changed the processes that were being investigated. Specifically, reward learning is a complicated and independent construct that is added into studies 3 and 4. Although the results from studies 3 and 4 are consistent with studies 1 and 2, I am curious about how results may have differed if only situational constraints and cognitive demand were altered, without the added incentive.

    Finally, I was slightly surprised to read that the authors excluded participants for lack of engagement with the stimuli. In the first study, participants were excluded if they failed to engage with the stimuli entirely (reported napping, dozing, staring into space). In study 3, participants were excluded if they spent less than 2 minutes reading the study materials and in study 4, participants were excluded if they spent less than 60s on the learning task. I wonder if these exclusion decisions leave out important data from analyses. For study 1, I understand that if someone napped during the task, they would presumably have a knowledge attainment score of 0 and thus their data may be problematic to include in analyses. However, I think that the individuals who spent less than the stated time on the materials in studies 3 and 4 may have provided some valuable information in analyses. Just because they spent less time on the materials, does not mean that they would necessarily do poorly on the outcome measure. Additionally, I think it would have been interesting to include how much time spent on material factored into the relationship between cognitive ability, openness, intellectual curiosity, and knowledge attainment.

    • Chen Tiferet-Dweck says:

      Thank you, Sophie, for this comment. I agree with you regarding the lack of consistency in the conditions between the studies. I just wanted to add in-line with your last sentence, I think they should have measure time spent on learning material as you said. Also, if they used internet search in the first study, perhaps measuring the number of the different websites subjects were using to explore the lakes would be indicative. Or perhaps just giving them the opportunity to explore more resources in the studies might provide a better indication for intellectual curiosity than the questionnaire they used.

    • minjung park says:

      Hi, Sophie. Thank you for sharing your idea. I agree with you about the lack of consistency that the two studies have. Besides, I was kind of surprised about their belief that the participants with a lack of engagement with the stimuli should be excluded from the study because they would not yield valuable results. However, from those people who were excluded from the studies, the present study might find out the interesting and useful results in analyses. If the researchers think those people should be eliminated, I figure that they make themselves to live in a limited circle.

    • Ariel Zucker says:

      Sophie – thank you for your comment. I had similar concerns regarding the methodology, specifically related to the change in measurements from study to study. For example, study 1 uses the “Need for Cognition scale” to measure intellectual curiosity but studies 2, 3, and 4 use the “NEO-PI-R” to measure intellectual curiosity. The authors mentioned that the “Need for Cognition scale” and the “NEO-PI-R” can be used interchangeably but they don’t seem to elaborate on why they believe this to be the case.

    • Sunghee Kim says:

      Hello, Sophie. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and some of the questions I also felt uncomfortable reading and you mentioned them all so I just want to share my thoughts too. I also got surprised the fact that the researchers eliminated the number of participants who failed to engage with the stimuli thoroughly (but what standard?). I think they still should be included even if they did not complete the learning time and I don’t think they got any notification that they should assume their learning in a given time (which would be more than few mins). And I liked that you mentioned about how each individual spends less/more time in order to learn something. Smart people would take less time to learn things than other people.

  2. Gregory Rosen says:

    The design of this study was confusing to me. If my understanding is accurate, they changed at least four variables, including cognitive demand, prompt to engage, incentive, and examination. I was left wondering that if they had four studies, why didn’t they only use two variables, such as cognitive demand and prompt to engage, and pair them with each other to create four variations? Don’t the extra variables, especially incentives, create confounds?
    Their finding that openness, rather than intellectual curiosity, aided knowledge attainment was not surprising to me. However, I was surprised that in the conclusion they seemed to equate intellectual curiosity with being intellectual. I would say that intellectual curiosity involves a desire to attain knowledge, while being intellectual is more about ability to think at a high level. Consider the following definition from the Cambridge dictionary: “Intellectual (adjective): relating to the ability to think and understand ideas at a high level, or involving ideas” ( Being intellectual, then, seems closer to cognitive ability, which the authors found to be an important predictor for knowledge attainment.
    It makes sense to me that intellectual curiosity, as a purposeful pursuit, could fail to enhance knowledge acquisition. Having a pursuit in mind could occupy your mental energy and impede your attention. In other words, becoming caught up in having a goal could take you out of the moment. I recall a Thai massage teacher who (repeatedly and adamantly) told me, “Want to know? Never know. Like to know? Never know.”
    I was further surprised that the authors assessed intellectual curiosity with a Need for Cognition (NFC) scale. I think NFC is different from both intellectual curiosity and openness.
    Consider the definitions provided by the authors: “Openness refers to the tendency to cognitively engage with perception, fantasy, aesthetics, and emotions (DeYoung et al., 2012; Kaufman et al., 2016). By contrast, intellectual curiosity captures individual differences in the preference for engaging in mentally challenging tasks and the purposeful pursuit of knowledge (Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Mussel, 2013)”(570). Contrast that with how Cacioppo and Petty (1982) defined the need for cognition (NFC) as “the tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy thinking” (p.116). It seems to me that enjoyment of thinking (NFC) is different from both openness toward thinking and wanting to pursue knowledge.
    To better accumulate more cognitively demanding knowledge, I hypothesize that it might be more helpful to cultivate NFC and cognitive ability, rather than openness or intellectual curiosity. Combining enjoyment of thinking and ability to think seems more potent than having willingness to think or desire to know.
    Cacioppo, J. R. and Petty, R. E. 1982. The need for cognition, Journal of Personality and
    Social Psychology 42: 116–31

    • Dakota Egglefield says:

      Hi Greg,

      I appreciated your comment and agree that I was also not surprised to see that openness, rather than intellectual curiosity, aided knowledge attainment. I find it interesting that they took out the three Ideas items that are usually seen as facets of openness on the NEO, since these might entail more intellectual components of openness to experience. I praise the attempt to separate openness to experience and intellectual curiosity, especially for the importance of predictive divergent validity that the authors speak about. However, since the openness to experience subscale as a whole encompasses some items that imply intellectual openness, I wonder if these two concepts are really as separate as the article poses them to be?

      • Ulzhan Yeshengazina says:

        Hi Dekota,

        I agree with you on the authors’ attempt to separate these two concepts. In my comment, I had a hard time separating “openness to experience” and “intellectual curiosity.” I think that intellectual curiosity may drive you to be more open to experience, and openness to experience put your in advantage to obtain knowledge. After reading yours and Greg’s comments, it made me think how the definition of a word plays a crucial role in interpreting the data.

    • Scott Ewing says:

      Yeah, I think I’m in support of your skepticism regarding the links found here. Seems like another example of nebulous constructs and questionable methods for measuring those constructs. For example, they’re using the Big-5’s depiction of ‘openness’, but then removing key items from the questionnaire that measures it; makes me question the construct and content validities of the other scales. Also, I like your final thoughts above. Being open or intellectually curious doesn’t guarantee you have the capacity to acquire new knowledge efficiently, and trying hard anyway may work against you. And capacity without enjoyment = limited learning. If you have the capacity and enjoy it though, different story.

  3. Chen Tiferet-Dweck says:

    I found von Stumm’s et al. (2018) article interesting because it revealed something new to me which I believe can very useful. The authors showed that openness is associated with knowledge achievement, while intellectual curiosity or “hungry mind” are not associated with knowledge attainment. If that so, we should apply these findings in the pedagogy world. I will try and offer here a suggestion of application for their findings:

    I am not an education expert, I do not have experience with the education system in the US yet, and I do not live here long enough to draw solid conclusions. However, I feel today, relative to my own school days experience, and specifically here in the US, there is high effort to increase intellectual curiosity among young students. School activities such as debating competitions, student government, student clubs, sports team- are mostly aimed at increasing intellectual interest. They expose the students to new experiences and new situations, which indirectly challenge their openness level, but they are not intentionally improving or enhancing openness.
    In line with this paper findings, if openness is associated with knowledge achievement, then the school system should aim its activities to enhance openness to experiences. Culture clubs and volunteering is one way. However, I think a more radical way to enhance openness will be to break social and educational norms. For example, one elementary school here in NY has no walls between classes. That is a totally different teaching and learning experience. It is forcing the students to be considered to the other class and not to be too loud. It enhances the students’ and the teacher’s attention and it is challenging the openness level of both students and the teacher to be willing to studying in this unconventional situation. Another example is a unique outdoor daycare (operates in Israel), runs by a male teacher and not a female teacher (which is rare and open-minding by itself). In this daycare, the kids, the teacher, and his assistants are all learning and playing and napping outside in a forest. They learn and play with and about nature, every day, all day. Whether it is cold and rainy or hot and sunny. They even use the toilet in nature. Now, this example is very radical and I am sure it attracts parents that are already high on openness, and their kids are probably high on openness as well. But, imagine exposing young children to this kind of experience, national wide, for even a brief period and not for the whole year. These kinds of activities, that challenge openness can help enhance openness and hopefully improve knowledge attainment.

    • Sophie Schiff says:

      Hi Chen – your comment is really interesting and makes me think about how culture, educational style in youth, and upbringing all must factor into the relevance of openness and intellectual curiosity in knowledge attainment. In line with your point, it seems likely that differences both in education style as well as parenting may influence the connection between openness and knowledge attainment. I would imagine that some parents prioritize intellectual curiosity and other prioritize openness as methods to attain knowledge so it would be interesting to incorporate upbringing as well as culture into this research question and explore other relevant factors.

    • Gregory Rosen says:

      Hi Chen, I appreciate you bringing up outdoor daycare – it is my favorite topic at the moment. David Sobel (2014) contrasted nature preschool and forest kindergarten: “Oversimplistically, the difference between nature preschools and forest kindergartens reflects two distinctive approaches towards the “Will my child be ready for kindergarten or first grade?” question. Let me be clear that all these nature-based early childhood programs are more alike than they are different. They all honor the primacy of children immersed in nature. However, their different histories and styles reflect a deep divide in educational pedagogy and approaches to parenting. On the one hand, there’s the cognitive readiness mindset. This is reflected in the beautiful facilities, desks, and slightly more emphasis on formal literacy and numeracy found in nature preschools. On the other hand, there’s the initiative/resiliency mindset found in forest kindergartens, with their emphasis on minimizing indoor facilities, being out in all weathers, and giving children opportunities to solve problems on their own. What’s more important in preschool, learning your letters, or learning to overcome your fear of tromping through that deep puddle? Or does learning to overcome your fear create a foundation for learning letters?” (pp.234-235) Do you think Sobel’s dichotomy is accurate? And do you think modern facilities and formal subject matter contribute more to a cognitive readiness mindset?
      David Sobel. (2014). Learning to Walk between the Raindrops: The Value of Nature Preschools and Forest Kindergartens. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 228-238. doi:10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0228

    • Sara Babad says:

      Hi Chen,

      I really appreciate how you connected this study to pedagogical methodology. I wonder, though, if openness to new experiences can be taught… Perhaps I am thinking about this too rigidly, but I had the thought that some people are more inclined to seek out new experiences (likely due to epigenetic influences), whereas others are more cautious. Is this something we can alter across the majority of school children? I think this also relates to Sophie’s comments above about the confound of adding in reward as a motivation enhancer. Like we’ve discussed in class, perhaps one could increase openness to experience in children, with sufficient rewards to enhance motivation? So perhaps if we were to design a new study parsing out some of the effects in this study, we could determine if using salient motivators enhances openness to experience, which then increases academic performance.

  4. Ariel Zucker says:

    The purpose of this study is to provide direct evidence for the divergent validity of intellectual (i.e., intellectual curiosity) and non-intellectual investment (openness to experience) for knowledge attainment. Because openness to experience (as opposed to intellectual curiosity) was positively associated with knowledge attainment across all four studies and this effect was independent of cognitive ability, the authors suggest that openness and intellectual curiosity should be treated as separate entities in future research.

    While I appreciate the notion that it might be “better” to be open rather than intellectually curious in terms of accumulating knowledge, I am struggling to understand the practical implications of this research. What does it mean for the field that people who are more open accumulate more knowledge than people who are intellectually curious? For example, would the conclusions from this study help to inform classroom placement for children in school (i.e., put children who are more open in more advanced classes)? Even if we chose to implement a policy like this, would that be ethical?

    We are learning in our psychometrics class how the consequences of testing can sometimes be considered an intrinsic part of construct validity. For example, if a construct and its measure seem to benefit people who are open more than people who are intellectually curious, then we should be concerned about the use of the test. While the idea of “consequential validity” is a debatable topic in the field, proponents of “consequential validity” do argue that science can never be separated from social and personal values. As such, it is important to consider the possible adverse social consequences for a person or for a group of people when testing. If we did apply interventions based on these research findings, I’m failing to see what practical benefits can arise from this information.

    • Shira Russell-Giller says:

      Ariel, you bring up such an interesting point in questioning the practical implications of this research. I think your question is especially justified considering the authors spent so little time in their discussion section positing why their findings are different then all the previous research. I think if we understand a little bit more WHY these findings happened, then we would be able to better understand the potential consequences of these findings.
      We know that a large component of personality is innate, but I think particularly with young children, investment personality traits can be fostered and encouraged. From this lens, it is important to know which traits to foster in order to encourage optimal learning and knowledge attainment. So if openness really does maximize performance under certain learning conditions, that would be important to know if we want to nurture and exercise that trait under similar learning conditions.

      • victoria fairchild says:

        Ariel and Shira, I think you both bring up really interesting points in this article. I also wondered what the utility of this knowledge might be, as well as whether intellectual curiosity was operationalized in such a way that we can definitively conclude that openness is more predictive of actual learning. I think that nurturing openness as an important quality in younger children is likely beneficial for a number of reasons including and beyond maximizing learning. That being said, I don’t know that I would emphasize openness above intellectual curiosity. Most children tend to be focused/have more restricted interests so perhaps nurturing a broader application of intellectual curiosity might be helpful as well?

  5. Ulzhan Yeshengazina says:

    I enjoyed reading the paper. I remember reading a similar article in one of the psychology websites that reviewed a study that also indicated how openness to experience could be a good predictor of performance in test and knowledge attainment. I could see why this article sound so plausible. I believe that people who are open to experience have a broad knowledge of many things. For example, in college, people who are more open to experience are more likely to sign up and attend seminars outside of their major. Thus, they expose themselves to accidental information that may further drive their curiosity and seek more knowledge. Where people who are hungry for knowledge, may not have those same opportunities.

    In one of the psych classes, I remember discussing how children from low SES have lesser opportunities to engage in extracurricular activities. Considering the results of this paper, we can assume that by enforcing in children from an early age to be open to experiences may increase their chances in advancing later in college or workforce.

    Despite likely results of the paper, I need to note that authors failed to control for other four personality traits besides “openness to experience.” I was surprised that the authors didn’t care to control for the possible interaction of high extraversion and high conscientiousness, which could play a role in obtaining knowledge from given studies 1-4. A person can be high in “openness to experience” and similarly high in “conscientiousness.” Wouldn’t that make a difference in how people may perform in the given test?

    I also agree with a comment that Sophie made about the order of the studies. However, due to the large sample size, it is possible that the difference in balance may compensate for order-balance.

  6. Shira Russell-Giller says:

    Using the framework of Investment Personality Theory, von Stumm (2018) conducted four separate learning studies to observe whether intellectual curiosity and/or openness to experience was related to knowledge attainment. The findings consistently demonstrated that openness to experience was significantly associated with knowledge attainment in all for studies while intellectual curiosity was not. Something that struck me while I was reading through this study was the author’s honesty regarding the disparity between her initial hypothesis for studies 1 and 4 and the actual study findings. It is not uncommon for authors to retrospectively change their hypotheses once data analysis is performed in order to strengthen their conclusions, but von Stumm explicitly stated her initial hypotheses and then acknowledged that the hypotheses of studies 1and 4 were not fully supported. In study 1 (everyday learning situation), she hypothesized that both openness and intellectual curiosity would predict knowledge attainment and the results showed that only openness was positively associated with knowledge attainment. In study 4 (formal learning situation), she hypothesized that intellectual curiosity, and not openness, would predict knowledge attainment and the results showed again that only openness was positively associated with knowledge attainment.

    These findings are fascinating, particularly because they are not intuitive. The hungry mind concept in general is much more intuitive, since it is logical that the interplay of cognitive ability and investment personality traits are the core that drives knowledge attainment. However, when we split investment personality traits into ‘intellectual curiosity’ and ‘openness to experiences,’ it is harder to imagine that openness rather than intellectual curiosity predicts knowledge attainment, especially since previous research substantiated contradictive findings. The author briefly speculated about the reasons for the findings in this study, mentioning that perhaps earlier meta-analyses overestimated the association between intellectual curiosity and knowledge attainment (due to reliance on few diverse studies), and underestimated associations between openness and knowledge attainment (due to previous studies not separating out openness from investment traits). However, I had an alternative thought as to why openness predicted knowledge attainment while intellectual curiosity did not. The author stated that this is the first study to observe the predictive validity of these investment traits in a controlled laboratory setting in which participants were asked to complete multiple tasks related to knowledge attainment. Perhaps the unique findings of this study are due to the nature of the study – specifically that ‘knowledge attainment’ was measured in the lab. I can imagine that while people with high intellectual curiosity might gravitate towards cognitively challenging tasks, they not be as comfortable or adaptive to new environments as people with high openness to experience. Since these series of studies required learning in a new and unfamiliar environment, flexibility and adaptiveness might have been important components that mediate optimal performance.

    • Crystal Quinn says:

      Hi Shira, I also agree the findings were interesting, but not intuitive. I was surprised by the results, given the hungry mind theory. I really liked your alternative explanation for the findings, that those open to experience might do better in a new and novel laboratory setting. This makes a lot of sense to me, and appreciate your critical analysis. I would also think that those with openness might have felt more comfortable and perhaps this influenced knowledge attainment. Thanks for your perspective!

  7. victoria fairchild says:

    I enjoyed reading this article as I have always though that intellectual curiosity was likely the biggest motivator toward learning and being open to learning from every situation. It was interesting to differentiate between investment personality traits that aid in learning. However, the way that learning opportunities were operationalized in these studies was a little confusing to me. Studies went from the possibility of learning passively, to being actively instructed toward learning specific content. This makes some sense, but I did think that by changing not only the type of learning, but the time commitment and memory capability (short term recall vs. long term) that one might need to demonstrate whether learning had occurred, it makes it harder to compare the studies to one another.

    Additionally, I was interested in the diversity of the participant population as a limiting factor of the study’s generalizability. Participants gender was not always reported, and while there appeared to be a range of participants, in actuality it appears that the majority of participants were university students. With that in mind, it might stand to reason that many of these students may be high in both intellectual curiosity and openness, just by virtue of being in a new environment and being presented with new information consistently through school. I question whether the type of information that was presented to them in the study made a difference as to their desire to explore or encode it. For example in the first study, it is possible that more visual learners may have spent time observing only the picture gallery, and would thus have lower scores on the recall.

    I would be curious to understand how this study could be used in real life. Typically when we think of how to learn more efficiently we think of how things might be used in schools. Is openness something that could be taught to students to increase their learning opportunities/capacity? Is it even possible to teach openness or is it a more inherent trait that one either has or does not have?

    • Katherine Chang says:

      I thought this article was really interesting as well but definitely had my reservations in taking the results too to heart. I agree about the generalizability but also I wonder about how they set up the experiments to look at intellectual curiosity and “the hungry mind.” When I’ve heard of “the hungry mind,” I always assumed it was related to the subject of that person’s interest, not knowledge in general (although there might be that type of person out there). So I had some problems with the Studies that had a more rigorous structured learning like reading essays. What if those essays didn’t cater to their interests? I understand why they would want to make the subjects something that people wouldn’t already know to avoid confounding factors but I feel like it’s possible that they didn’t give actual cater to someone’s intellectual curiosity.

    • Shanna Razak says:

      I don’t think that is possible to teach openness however we can tune in to one’s intellectual curiosity. As stated in my own reflection I thought that intellectual curiosity is realted to school-based learning ( factual information). To tap into this concept one would have to find a specific topic or subject there are interested in. This motivation to learn about the subject would be driven by intellectual curiosity for the subject

  8. Shanna Razak says:

    Openness to experience means to have a clear and willing mind. In other words, you are more likely to welcome change or something new when you have a higher exhibition of openness. I am not surprised that openness to experience is linked to knowledge attainment. Knowledge can be gained in many ways but our natural way of learning is experimenting. Even as a child we would do things such as place items in our mouths or bang on them. With each little experiment, we were able to gain little information about the object at play. However, with each experiment, a bit of change, whether it would be a new taste or sound is welcomed. If we were not welcoming or open to these changes we would not have been able to gain this information as a child
    In terms of the results, I disagree with the findings in terms of intellectual curiosity. Although I believe that our natural instinct to learn is driven on openness to experience, intellectual curiosity may be correlated to our knowledge attainment. However intellectual information may be connected more to factual information learning. In other words intellectual curiosity may be at play when it comes to the information gained in a classroom, book or any other material of the sort. Natural learning relies more on the use of our five senses unlike classroom or book learning.
    When picturing openness to experience I imagine a caveman discovering fire for the first time. However, when I picture intellectual curiosity I immediately think of Einstein. In either situation, both beings crave knowledge of the world. The only difference between these two beings is the reason why they have a hungry mind. Knowledge can be gained in many different types of situations. I think a good improvement to this study would be choosing a learning situation that involves more hands-on manipulation rather than basic factual memorization.

    • Sergiu Barcaci says:

      Hi Shanna, I completely agree with your analyses. The main thing that bothered me about this paper was that it condensed knowledge attainment into simply memorizing and repeating facts without considering practical knowledge as well. Yes, there was the facet of going out of your way to attain that knowledge, but that knowledge was still trivial facts about a lake. An improvement to the study would definitely be what you mentioned- practical, hands-on approaches to also account for knowledge outside of trivial facts. The inclusion of that would have also probably allowed those that didn’t participate properly to actually participate and the data wouldn’t have been omitted from the study (which I have a small issue with as well).

    • Bengi says:

      Thank you for your comment, Shanna. I agree with the insight you provided into conceptualizing intellectual curiosity and openness to experience in that they are not distinctly separated from one another, will be nourished by histories, external situations and individuals factors and both involve much more deeper aspects than could be captured through a laboratory experiment. Also, I have been thinking that there might be confounds in relation to why intellectual curiosity does not predict knowledge attainment as a result of the experiment that they designed, as both intellectual curiosity and openness are shaped as a result of or taking place in the context of situations and specific knowledge and experiences. People are just more capable of taking in some information and not the other or they are drawn to some experiences and not to other. Therefore it was surprising that in Study 3 they framed film as popular, something everybody is interested in. I suspect that particularities of interests will frame how intellectually curious and open people are.

  9. Crystal Quinn says:

    I was surprised by the study findings in this article, given the literature provided (i.e., positive correlations between intellectual curiosity and aspects of intelligence such as academic performance and crystalized intelligence, or openness as a weak predictor of formal learning achievement). I was surprised to find that openness (instead of intellectual curiosity) predicted learning across the studies, generally — with the exception of the last study, which showed that in the high intensity academic setting, cognitive ability better predicts learning. As the authors point out, findings could have resulted because the relationship between intellectual curiosity and knowledge attainment was overestimated in previous research, while the relationship between openness and knowledge attainment was underestimated.

    I suppose I can see the point that openness may allow for more information extraction, no matter the difficulty of the information (mundane or more cognitively challenging). Although, when a task is really challenging, then cognitive ability becomes more crucial. I had a thought that maybe academic success is not a marker of intelligence as suspected in some previous literature, what to you all think?

    I agree that it is also possible that cognitive ability is really driving these associations and in these studies, it was not assessed entirely, restricting range. It seems clear to me, though, that if the task’s cognitive demands increase, then cognitive ability becomes more important in driving knowledge acquisition. Although, it is important to keep in mind that the study results only allow for partial evidence of the “strong situation” hypothesis because openness is still associated with knowledge in the studies.

    I think the researchers did a good job of discussing strengths and limitations. I was also thinking that other variables, such as conscientiousness, or even comprehension, should have been considered. Also, one more note, I am not a stats expert, but if 2 predictors are correlated, doesn’t that lead to multicollinearity in regression analyses? If anyone knows more about this, I would be happy to hear more about it. I thought this should be avoided, but I could be incorrect and would love to hear back on that.

Leave a Reply




Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar