DISCPP (DISC Personality Profile) Psychometric Report

Transcription

1 Psychometric Report

2 Table of Contents Test Description... 5 Reference... 5 Vitals... 5 Question Type... 5 Test Development Procedures... 5 Test History... 8 Operational Definitions... 9 Test Research and Rationale... 9 Data Collection - Methodology Limitations of Study Sample Description Descriptive Statistics Normative Information Percentiles - General Population Percentiles Women Percentiles Men Percentiles Below 18 age group Percentiles 18 to 29 age group Percentiles 30 to 39 age group Percentiles 40+ age group Descriptive Statistics: Graphical Results EEOC Compliance Statistics Group Comparisons: Gender Gender Analysis... 26

3 Gender Analysis Graphical Results Group Comparisons: Age Age Group Analysis Age Group Analysis Graphical Results Group Comparisons: Disability Disability Analysis Disability Analysis Graphical Results Group Comparisons: Ethnicity Ethnicity Analysis Ethnicity Analysis Graphical Results Reliability Analysis Pearson s Correlations Criterion Validity Analysis (concurrent validity) Comparison variable: Working with others Re-sampled Analysis Comparison variable: Working with others Graphical Results Comparison variable: Desire to be liked by others Re-sampled Analysis Effect Size and Power: Comparison variable: Desire to be liked Graphical Results Comparison variable: Ability to make tough decisions Re-sampled Analysis Effect Size and Power: Comparison variable: Ability to make tough decisions Graphical Results Comparison variable: Approach to conflict... 96

4 Re-sampled Analysis Effect Size and Power: Comparison variable: Approach to conflict Graphical Results Comparison variable: Conflict-resolution strategy Re-sampled Analysis Effect Size and Power: Comparison variable: Conflict-Resolution Strategy Graphical Results Comparison variable: Work Situation Comparison variable: Work Situation Graphical Results Comparison variable: Methodical approach to work Re-sampled Analysis Effect Size and Power: Comparison variable: Methodical approach to work Graphical Results Annexes Annex 1 Means and standard deviations for Gender Annex 2 Means and standard deviations for Age Annex 3 Means and standard deviations for Disability Annex 4 Means and standard deviations for Ethnicity Annex 5 Means and standard deviations for Working with others Annex 6 Means and standard deviations for Desire to be liked by others Annex 7 Means and standard deviations for Ability to make tough decisions Annex 8 Means and standard deviations for Approach to conflict Annex 9 Means and standard deviations for Conflict-resolution Strategy Annex 10 Means and standard deviations for Work Situation Annex 11 Means and standard deviations for Methodical approach to work

5 Test Description Reference Jerabek, I., & Muoio, D. (2013).. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: PsychTests AIM Inc. Vitals This test contains 193 questions. It is recommended for assessing a person s personality, to be used as a supplemental tool to standard hiring processes or for creating work teams. The test is available online. A paper-pencil version is not available. Scoring and interpretation are computer-generated by system-expert and AI algorithms based on rules developed by subject matter experts (SMEs). Norms for different industries and the general population are available in the benchmark report available to professional users. Clients also have the ability to create custom benchmarks. Question Type This test uses self-report (3-point Likerts) and scenario/multiple choice type questions. The questionnaire is interactive - test-takers drag and drop their responses to questions into the appropriate box. Note: In order to protect our intellectual property due to recurring issues of plagiarism - we do not disclose which items are linked to which scales, nor do we provide item-total correlations. Test Development Procedures Phase I: Test design and initial launch 1) Define test concept 2) Research available literature 3) Develop a pool of questions 4) Eliminate extraneous questions through debate of SMEs

6 5) Assign weights to questions and answer options through debate of SMEs 6) Develop scoring system 7) Develop interpretation of test results 8) Quality assurance testing 9) Launch on Queendom and PsychTests 10) Opt-in data collection, feedback from users (face validity) Phase II Preliminary statistical analysis 1) Preliminary statistical analysis on small pool of respondents a. Descriptive statistics (distribution, frequencies, means, variability, percentiles) b. Preliminary reliability and validity analysis (split-half, coefficient alpha, item-total correlations, inter-item correlations and co-variances) c. Factor analysis (exploratory) 2) Addition, removal, or modification to questions based on statistical findings 3) Quality assurance testing 4) Re-launch on Queendom and PsychTests Phase III Large-scale statistical analysis 1) Large-scale statistical analysis a. Descriptive statistics (distribution, frequencies, means, variability, percentiles) b. Exploratory analysis (correlations, ANOVAs, ANCOVAs, t-tests) c. Reliability analysis (Cronbach s alpha) d. Validity analysis: (Note: Results of validation questions serve as a revision basis)

7 i. Content validity ii. Criterion-related validity (concurrent validity and method of contrasted groups) iii. Internal consistency: item-total correlations, inter-item correlations and covariances; convergent and discriminant validity) 2) Re-evaluation of validity and reliability evidence 3) In some cases, revision of test items and test structure 4) Re-launch of revised version of the test 5) Note: Statistics are run on each test on a bi-annual basis

8 Test History The first version of DISC was developed in 2012 by Ilona Jerabek, Ph.D. and Deborah Muoio. After collecting data for a year, the test was revised based on the statistics (reliability, factor analysis). The revised version of DISC was released in With the following changes: Certain questions were reworded to make them easier to comprehend. Based on the results of the factor analysis, some questions were added/removed from the four factors (Dominance, Influence, Supportiveness, Conscientiousness). Seventeen questions were added; nineteen were dropped due to poor reliability. A new section was added to the report in which we compare the traits a person currently possesses, and the traits he or she would like to improve/develop (i.e. current self vs. ideal self). The four over-arching factors are calculated using scales. The following scales share questions: a. Dominance and Influence (6 items) b. Dominance and Supportiveness (3 items) c. Dominance and Conscientiousness (6 items) d. Influence and Supportiveness (6 items) e. Influence and Conscientiousness (2 items) f. Supportiveness and Conscientiousness (4 items)

9 Operational Definitions 1) Dominance: Individuals who score high on this trait show a great deal of determination and a strong drive to succeed. They fearlessly take on challenges, are highly ambitious, and are always focused on success. 2) Influence: Individuals who score high on this trait are gregarious and sociable. They enjoy being around people and tend to have a great deal of charisma that draws others to them. They are always full of ideas and tend to bring enthusiasm and energy to any group or project they take on. 3) Supportiveness: Individuals who score high on this trait are committed to doing their job well. They can be relied upon to put in a wholehearted effort into every project, and are dependable and loyal employees. They are considerate of others needs, helpful, and easy to work with. 4) Conscientiousness: Individuals who score high on this trait take their work very seriously. They tackle projects carefully and systematically, always making sure that every detail is taken care of to the best of their ability. They can be relied on to provide top quality work. Test Research and Rationale This personality test is based on the original behavioral theories of William Mouton Marston (1928), and the subsequent psychological inventory known as DISC, first developed by John G. Geier in The four personality factors that form the basis of this version of the assessment include Dominance, Influence, Supportiveness, and Conscientiousness. Marston believed that nearly everyone possesses each of these four characteristics to varying degrees, creating a unique personality blend with different strengths and challenges. References Ritchey, T (2002) I m Stuck, You re Stuck. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Rohm, R. A. (1993) Positive Personality Profiles. Mariette, GA: Personality Insights Inc. Straw, J. (2002) The 4-Dimensional Manager. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

10 Data Collection - Methodology DISC was released on and for data collection in order to further validate the scales. Test-takers accessed the test via a link promoted on the homepage or in the test listings. The test was offered free of charge. The subjects received a free Summary report when they completed the assessment and the validation questionnaire. A Full test report is offered for a fee. The sample was uncontrolled; the subjects self-selected to take the assessment. Data was collected from 2012 to Subjects who completed the test had the option to participate in the validation study and were not financially compensated for their participation. Declining to participate in the validation study had no impact on the procedure everyone, regardless of their participation in the validation study, received the free Summary report. All validation items were gathered through self-report. All items on the validation questionnaire were optional, and the subjects could select the I prefer not to answer option for each question. Please note that T-test and ANOVA analyses are dependent on sample size. Therefore, a seemingly large difference between two groups may not show statistical significance because of a group s small sample size. By the same token, with very large groups, small but systematic differences between groups may be statistically significant without having any noticeable practical impact. Effect sizes are reported in relevant analyses. With regards to validation questions where the number of subjects in the validation sample was not equally balanced (i.e. the n for some groups was very high), a smaller, random sample was selected from the larger groups whenever possible, in order to level out the Ns and conduct the analyses effectively. Note: Psychometric reports are available to all clients upon request.

11 Limitations of Study 1) Subjects self-selected to take the test, which could create a biased sample. 2) Test-takers responses to test questions and validation questions are in self-report format, which can result in inaccuracies, and an under or over-estimation of their abilities, skills, or behavior. 3) Sample size may not be large enough to generalize to population. 4) Given that the test-takers self-selected to take the test, we do not have the ability to run test re-test reliability.

12 Sample Description Sample size: 5,325 subjects Gender distribution: Women: 3,109 subjects (58.4%), Men: 1,315 subjects (24.7%), Unknown: 901 subjects (16.9%) Age distribution: Below 18 (n = 1073) (20.1%) (n = 2074) (38.9%) 40+ (n = 563) (10.6%) Unknown (n = 1158) (21.7%) (n = 457) (8.6%) Ethnicity distribution: Asian (n = 711) (13.3%) Black (n = 165) (3.1%) Caucasian (n = 2,277) (42.8%) Hispanic (n = 193) (3.6%) Jewish (n = 26) (0.5%) Middle Eastern (n = 71) (1.3%) Native American (n = 36) (0.7%) Two or more of the above (n = 164) (3.1%) Other (n = 97) (1.8%) Unknown (n = 1585) (29.8%) Education distribution: Grade school (n = 130) (2.4%) Some high school (n = 388) (7.3%) High school (n = 818) (15.4%) Junior College (n = 813) (15.3%) College (n = 398) (7.5%) Associate s degree (n = 147) (2.8%) Bachelor s degree (n = 675) (12.7%) Master s degree (n = 385) (7.2%) Ph.D./Doctoral degree (n = 74) (1.4%) Unknown (n = 1404) (26.4%) Technical/Trade school (n = 93) (1.7%)

13 Socio-economic Status distribution: Independently wealthy (n = 75) (1.4%) Upper level ($ or more) (n = 253) (4.8%) Upper middle level ($ to $ ) (n = 395) (7.4%) Middle level ($ to $75 000) (n = 595) (11.2%) Lower middle level ($ to $50 000) (n = 542) (10.2%) Lower level ($ to $25 000) (n = 214) (4%) Lowest level ($ or less) (n = 477) (9%) Unknown (n = 2774) (52%)

14 Descriptive Statistics Scales N Scale Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness (Std. Error:.034 Kurtosis (Std. Error:.067) Dominance to Influence to Supportiveness to Conscientiousness to

15 Normative Information Percentiles - General Population Percentiles DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

16 Percentiles Women Percentiles DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

17 Percentiles Men Percentiles DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

18 Percentiles Below 18 age group Percentiles DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

19 Percentiles 18 to 29 age group Percentiles DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

20 Percentiles 30 to 39 age group Percentiles DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

21 Percentiles 40+ age group Percentiles DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

22 Descriptive Statistics: Graphical Results

23 Psychometric Report

24 EEOC Compliance Statistics If a scale is EEOC compliant (i.e. significant differences between scores are less than 10%), it will be labeled as Yes in the appropriate column. Scales that are not EEOC compliant will be labeled as No. Scale Name Gender Age Disability Ethnicity Dominance YES YES YES YES Influence YES YES YES YES Supportiveness YES YES YES NO Conscientiousness YES YES YES NO

25 Group Comparisons: Gender In the validation questions that appear at the end of the assessment, participants were asked to select their gender from a dropdown menu. All participants can choose not to answer the question by either skipping it entirely or choosing I don t want to answer. 4,424 people responded to the gender question; 901 chose not to. The following is an Independent-measures t-test comparing two groups: Men (n = 1315) and Women (n = 3109). Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

26 Gender Analysis Gender: Women (n = 3,109) Men (n = 1,315) Analysis shows significant differences on the following scales (p <.05): Men (xˉ = 39.3) outscored women (xˉ = 38.2) on the Dominance scale (t(4422) = ; p < 0.05). Women (xˉ = 50.6) outscored men (xˉ = 47.1) on the Supportiveness scale (t(4422) = 6.028; p < 0.001). Significant differences were not found for the Influence scale and the Conscientiousness scale.

27 Gender Analysis Graphical Results

28 Psychometric Report

29 Group Comparisons: Age In the validation questions that appear at the end of the assessment, participants were asked to select their age from a dropdown menu. All participants can choose not to answer the question by either skipping it entirely or choosing I don t want to answer. 4,167 people responded to the age question; 1,158 chose not to. Note: Age data was recoded into the following age categories: Below 18 (n = 1073) (n = 2074) (n = 457) 40+ (n = 583) Note: In the Anova using the entire sample (a one-way, independent-measures test with 4 groups), the assumption of Homogeneity of Variance was violated for 2 of the 4 scales. To remedy this problem, another Anova, adjusted for sample size, was performed by selecting a random sample of 457 for the Below 18, 18-29, and 40+ age groups. Below, we show the Test of Homogeneity of Variances tables and Anova tables for both the original sample and the equalized sample. The results that will be reported are based on the Anova using the equalized sample. Post-hoc test used: Tukey.

30 Test of Homogeneity of Variances - Original sample Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS ANOVA - Original sample Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

31 Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS ANOVA - Equalized sample Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

32 Dependent Variable DOMINANCE INFLUENCE Multiple Comparisons Equalized sample (I) Age Groups Below Below % Confidence Mean (J) Age Std. Interval Difference Sig. Groups Error Lower Upper (I-J) Bound Bound Below Below Below Below Below Below

33 Dependent Variable SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS Multiple Comparisons Equalized sample (I) Age Groups Below Below % Confidence Mean (J) Age Std. Interval Difference Sig. Groups Error Lower Upper (I-J) Bound Bound Below Below Below Below Below Below

34 Age Group Analysis Age groups: Below 18 (n = 457) 18 to 29 (n = 457) 30 to 39 (n = 457) 40+ (n = 457) Analysis shows significant differences on the following scales: A significant ANOVA was found on the Influence scale (F(3,1824) = p <.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that the Below 18 age group (xˉ = 39.6) and the 18 to 29 (xˉ = 41.8) were outscored (p <.05) by the 30 to 39 (xˉ = 45.0) and 40+ (xˉ = 44.7) age groups. A significant ANOVA was found on the Supportiveness scale (F(3,1824) = p <.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that the Below 18 age group (xˉ = 45.4) were outscored (p <.001) by the 18 to 29 (xˉ = 50.7), 30 to 39 (xˉ = 52.0) and 40+ (xˉ = 53.2) age groups. A significant ANOVA was found on the Conscientiousness scale (F(3,1824) = p <.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that the Below 18 age group (xˉ = 41.8) were outscored (p <.01) by the 18 to 29 (xˉ =45.5), 30 to 39 (xˉ = 47.3) and 40+ (xˉ = 47.2) age groups. Significant differences were not found on the Dominance scale.

35 Age Group Analysis Graphical Results

36 Psychometric Report

37 Group Comparisons: Disability In the validation questions that appear at the end of the assessment, participants were asked the following question: Are you a person with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? Yes No Participants were then asked to check the box that best describes their disability, and to specify their diagnosis (by typing in a textbox). Disabilities including the following: Physical/Systemic disability (e.g. lupus, MS, CP) Hearing impairment or deafness Visual impairment or blindness Cognitive disability (e.g. learning disability, post-stroke) Psychiatric disability (e.g. depression, bi-polar disorder) Other (with textbox to allow participants to enter their own response) Note: All participants can choose not to answer the question by skipping it entirely. 4,449 people (494 disabled, 3,955 non-disabled) responded to the disability question; 876 chose not to. The sample size of the disabled group was much smaller than the size of the group without a disability. Therefore, an equal-sized sample without a disability was formed by randomly selecting subjects to match for age and gender with the disabled group. The following is an Independent-measures t-test comparing two groups: Disabled (n = 494) and Non-disabled (n = 494).

38 DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means Variances F Sig. t df 95% Confidence Interval Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error of the Difference tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

39 Disability Analysis Groups: Yes (n = 447) No (n = 447) Analysis shows significant differences on the following scales (p <.05): The Disabled group (xˉ = 39.4) outscored the Non-disabled group (xˉ = 36.0) on the Dominance scale (t(892) = ; p < 0.01). Significant differences were not found on the Influence scale, Supportiveness scale, and Conscientiousness scale.

40 Disability Analysis Graphical Results

41 Psychometric Report

42 Group Comparisons: Ethnicity In the validation questions that appear at the end of the assessment, participants were asked the following question: Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Asian Chinese Asian Filipino Asian Vietnamese Asian Japanese Asian Korean Asian Pacific Islander Asian Other Black African Black African-American Black Caribbean Black Other Caucasian European Caucasian North American Caucasian Australian Caucasian Other Hispanic South American Hispanic European Hispanic Other Jewish North American Jewish Middle Eastern Jewish European Middle Eastern Bahraini Middle Eastern Iranian Middle Eastern Egyptian Middle Eastern Persian Middle Eastern Arab Middle Eastern Kuwaiti Middle Eastern Pakistani Middle Eastern - Turkish Middle Eastern Armenian Middle Eastern Indian Middle Eastern Other Native American Two or more of the above Other In order to reduce the amount of groups in the analysis, ethnicity was recoded as follows: Asian Chinese, Asian Filipino, Asian Vietnamese, Asian Japanese, Asian Korean, Asian Pacific Islander, Asian Other => Recoded as Asian (n= 711) Black African, Black African-American, Black Caribbean, Black Other => Recoded as Black (n= 165) Caucasian European, Caucasian North American, Caucasian Australian, Caucasian Other => Recoded as Caucasian (n= 2277) Hispanic South American, Hispanic European, Hispanic Other => Recoded as Hispanic (n= 193) Jewish North American, Jewish Middle Eastern, Jewish European => Recoded as Jewish (n= 26) Middle Eastern Bahraini, Middle Eastern Iranian, Middle Eastern Egyptian, Middle Eastern Persian, Middle Eastern Arab, Middle Eastern Kuwaiti, Middle Eastern Pakistani, Middle Eastern Turkish, Middle Eastern Armenian, Middle Eastern Indian, Middle Eastern Other => Recoded as Middle Eastern (n= 71) Native American => Remained the same (n= 36) Two or more of the above => Remained the same (n= 164) Other => Remained the same (n= 97)

43 Note: All participants can choose not to answer the question by skipping it entirely or selecting I don t want to answer. 3,740 people responded to the question; 1585 chose not to. Below, we show the Test of Homogeneity of Variances tables and Anova tables. Post-hoc test used: Tukey. Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS DOMINANCE INFLUENCE SUPPORTIVENESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS ANOVA Sum of Mean df Squares Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total

44 Dependent Variable DOMINANCE (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Asian Black Caucasian Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

45 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

46 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities

47 Dependent Variable INFLUENCE (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Asian Black Caucasian Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

48 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

49 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities

50 Dependent Variable SUPPORTIVENESS (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Asian Black Caucasian Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

51 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

52 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities

53 Dependent Variable CONSCIENTIOUSNESS (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Asian Black Caucasian Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

54 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity

55 Dependent Variable (I) Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? Native American Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD (J) Which of the following Mean 95% Confidence Interval Std. best describes your Difference Sig. Error Lower Upper ethnicity? (I-J) Bound Bound Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Two or more ethnicities Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Other ethnicity Asian Black Caucasian Hispanic Jewish Middle Eastern Native American Two or more ethnicities

56 Ethnicity Analysis Ethnic groups: Asian (n = 711) Black (n = 165) Caucasian (n = 2277) Hispanic (n = 193) Jewish (n = 26) Middle Eastern (n = 71) Native American (n = 36) Two or more ethnicities (n = 164) Other (n = 97) Analysis shows significant differences on the following scales: A significant ANOVA was found on the Influence scale (F(8,3731) = 4.693; p <.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that the Caucasian group (xˉ = 43.4) outscored (p <.01) the Asian group (xˉ = 40.4). Post-hoc analyses also showed that the Black group (xˉ = 43.0) outscored (p <.05) the Other group (xˉ = 36.4). A significant ANOVA was found on the Supportiveness scale (F(8,3731) = 3.892; p <.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that the Caucasian group (xˉ = 50.5) and the Black group (xˉ = 53.0) outscored (p <.01) the Other group (xˉ = 43.6). A significant ANOVA was found on the Conscientiousness scale (F(8,3731) = 3.590; p <.001). Post-hoc analyses showed that the Other group (xˉ = 37.7) were outscored (p <.05) by the Asian (xˉ = 44.7), Caucasian (xˉ = 44.3), Hispanic (xˉ = 44.4), and Two or more ethnicities group (xˉ = 46.8). Significant differences were not found for the Dominance scale.

57 Ethnicity Analysis Graphical Results

58 Psychometric Report

59 Reliability Analysis Note: Reliability analysis is based on full sample of 5,325. Some scales share questions. For more information, see Test Description. Scale Name Number of Items Cronbach's Alpha Spearman- Brown Coefficient Guttman Split- Half Coefficient Standard Error of Measurement Dominance Influence Supportiveness Conscientiousness