PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

N V Ramanaiah

Publications and source records attributed to N V Ramanaiah.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Spiritual well-being and personality.

The hypothesis that High and Low Spiritual Well-being groups have different personality profiles was tested with 319 psychology undergraduates (132 men and 187 women who completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and the Spiritual Well-being Scale for partial course credit. Univariate analyses of variance indicated that the High Spiritual Well-being group scored lower on Neuroticism and higher or Extraversion, Agreeableness. and Conscientiousness than the Low Spiritual Well-being group. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that the two groups had significantly different personality profiles, supporting the hypothesis.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2000

Personality profiles of environmentally responsible groups.

The hypothesis that groups high and low on environmental responsibility have different personality profiles was tested using responses of 319 introductory psychology students (132 men and 187 women) who completed the ECOSCALE and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory for partial course credit. Results of discriminant function analysis supported the hypothesis, indicating that groups scoring high and low on Environmental Responsibility had significantly different personality profiles and that the standard discriminant function coefficients were quite substantial (> or = .50) for Openness (.72) and Agreeableness (.50).

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Hardiness and major personality factors.

This study tested Maddi and Khoshaba's 1994 hypothesis that Hardiness is an index of mental health. A sample of 241 undergraduates (103 men and 138 women) completed the Dispositional Resilience Scale, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, and the Psychopathology-5 Scales. Using the individual median scores on the three subscales (Commitment, Control, and Challenge) of the Dispositional Resilience Scale, the High Hardiness group was obtained by identifying the individuals who scored above the medians on all the three subscales, whereas the Low Hardiness group were those who scored consistently below the medians on all the three subscales. Multivariate analysis of variance performed for the two hardiness groups using the scales from each personality inventory indicated that the two groups had significantly different mean profiles on the NEO Personality Inventory as well as the Psychopathology-5 Scales. Combined discriminant function analysis performed for the two hardiness groups using all the 10 scales from the two personality inventories indicated that the two groups had significantly different mean profiles and that the standard discriminant function coefficients were substantial (> .3) for the NEO Personality Inventory Openness (.65) and Conscientiousness (.49) scales and the Psychopathology-5 Positive Emotionality (.56) and Psychoticism (-.36) scales, supporting the tested hypothesis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Sex roles and body image.

The hypothesis that women scoring as Sex-typed have less favorable body image than women scoring as Androgynous or Cross-sexed was tested using the Personal Attributes Questionnaire of Spence and Helmreich and the Body Esteem Scale of Franzoi and Shields. These were completed by 121 Euro-American female undergraduates in psychology. Analysis indicated that women classified as Sex-typed and Undifferentiated scored significantly lower than women classified as Androgynous and Cross-sexed on Sexual Attractiveness, Weight Concern, and Physical Condition subscales of the Body Esteem Scale, and the two groups had a significantly different mean profile. In addition, the Sex-typed group had a significantly different mean profile based on the three body-image subscales from that of women scoring as Androgynous but not those classed as Cross-sexed. As expected, there were no differences on body image between women classed as Sex-typed and Undifferentiated.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Structure of personality disorders from the perspective of the Revised Neo Personality Inventory domain scales and the Psychopathology-5 Scales.

This study tested the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model of personality as applied to the Personality Adjective Checklist's (Strack, 1987) personality disorder scales. A sample of 258 undergraduates (113 men and 145 women) completed the Personality Adjective Checklist, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, and the Psychopathology-5 Scales for partial course credit. A combined principal axis analysis with varimax rotation was performed for nonoverlapping scales of the Personality Adjective Checklist, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales and the Psychopathology-5 scales. The results indicated four factors which were identified as Neuroticism, Extraversion, Disagreebleness, and Conscientiousness. Openness did not emerge as a separate factor. These results supported the comprehensiveness but not the generality of the five-factor model as applied to personality disorders.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Structure of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory Personality Disorder Scales from the five-factor model perspective.

Coolidge, et al. in 1994 tested the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model of personality as applied to personality disorder by performing a canonical correlation analysis for the scales from the Coolidge Axis II Inventory and the NEO Personality Inventory testing 178 undergraduates (106 men and 72 women). Their results did not support the generality and comprehensiveness of the five-factor model for interpreting the structure of personality disorders. A major problem with this study was that the data did not show good simple structure and meaningfulness because no rotation was performed for the canonical variates. The present study tested the hypothesis that the results of Coolidge, et al. might be attributed to the failure to rotate canonical variates to obtain good simple structure. For 220 students in introductory psychology (104 men and 116 women), canonical correlation analysis with varimax rotation was performed for scores on the Coolidge Axis II Inventory scales and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory scales. The analysis indicated five canonical variate pairs which were interpreted as Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Disagreeableness, and Conscientiousness, supporting the tested hypothesis as well as the generality and comprehensiveness of this model for describing the structure of personality disorders.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Life satisfaction and the five-factor model of personality.

The hypothesis that happy and unhappy people have different personality profiles based on five personality factors (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) was tested using 245 undergraduates (111 men and 134 women) who completed the Satisfaction with Life Scale and the NEO Personality Inventory. Analysis indicated that High and Low Satisfaction groups had significantly different personality profiles, supporting the hypothesis.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Type A behavior and the five-factor model of personality.

The hypothesis that people classified as Type A and Type B have different personality profiles based on five major personality factors (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) was tested using the Student Jenkins Activity Survey and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Results based on discriminant function analysis of data from 243 psychology undergraduates (105 males and 138 females) strongly supported the hypothesis indicating that Type A and Type B groups have significantly different Revised NEO Personality Inventory profiles and that the standardized discriminant function coefficients were large for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and moderately large for Extraversion.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Weinberger adjustment typology and the five factor model of personality.

Construct validity of Weinberger's Six-group Typology of Adjustment was investigated by testing the hypothesis that the six personality types have different personality profiles. The Weinberger Adjustment Inventory and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory were completed by 170 psychology undergraduates (84 men and 86 women). Results strongly supported the tested hypothesis.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed1995

Sex-role orientation and satisfaction with life.

The hypothesis that androgynous people are more satisfied with life than others was tested by administering the Personal Attributes Questionnaire and the Satisfaction with Life Scale to 245 undergraduates (111 men and 134 women). Results strongly supported the tested hypothesis for men but not for women.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Revised NEO Personality Inventory profiles of narcissistic and nonnarcissistic people.

This study investigated the construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory against the Revised NEO Personality Inventory to test the hypothesis that narcissistic and nonnarcissistic people have different personality profiles. The two inventories were administered to 96 male and 92 female undergraduates. Multivariate as well as univariate analyses of variance indicated that the Revised NEO Personality Inventory profiles were significantly different for narcissistic and nonnarcissistic groups which supported the construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

Psychological androgyny and the NEO Personality Inventory.

The hypothesis that the personality profile of androgynous individuals is different from those of the other sex-role groups was tested by giving the Personal Attributes Questionnaire and the NEO Personality Inventory to 113 male and 135 female undergraduates. Results strongly supported the hypothesis.

Female↗
PubMed1989

A psychometric study of the PRF ANDRO Scale.

This study investigated the adequacy of the items in the PRF ANDRO Masculinity (M) and Femininity (F) Scales, in terms of the content themes specified by Berzins, Welling, and Wetter (1978), and empirically tested their appropriateness using Bem's (1974) criteria. Results indicated that the PRF ANDRO M and F scales contain a large proportion of items that are theoretically irrelvant and that did not satisfy Bem's criteria. In addition, these scales were found to contain several items with low content saturation. Implications of the results are discussed.

Female↗
PubMed1985

Evaluation of the BSRI masculine and feminine items using desirability and stereotype ratings.

This study empirically tested Bem's (1974) assumption that the BSRI Masculinity and Femininity scales measure sex-typed standards of desirable behavior for men and women in American society. The adequacy of items in the two scales was evaluated by Bem's (1974) criteria using two types of desirability and stereotype ratings. Results obtained in all the experimental conditions except one involving Bem's desirability instructions and Bem's rating scale did not support the tested assumption. Implications of these results for revising the BSRI scales were discussed.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1985

Personality and self-actualizing profiles of assertive people.

This study tested the hypothesis that assertive and nonassertive people have different personality profiles and self-actualizing values. Results indicated that assertive and nonassertive groups differed significantly, in terms of their personality profiles based on the Personality Research Form, and their self-actualization profiles based on the Personal Orientation Inventory, supporting the tested hypothesis.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1984

Effects of instructions and rating scales on item selection for the BSRI scales.

Walkup and Abbott (1978) stated that Edwards and Ashworth's (1977) failure to replicate Bem's (1974) selection of items for the Masculinity and Femininity Scales of the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) may be attributed to differences in the instructions and anchored rating scales used in the two studies. The present study tested the hypothesis that presence of various interaction effects involving instructions and rating scales would influence the acceptability of items for the BSRI Masculinity and Femininity Scales. Results based on the evaluation of individual items by Bem's item selection criteria in each of the four experimental conditions obtained by systematically manipulating two instructions (Bem's and Edwards' instructions) and two rating scales (Bem's and Edwards' rating scales) and also those based on the analysis of variance of item mean desirability ratings from the four experimental conditions supported the hypothesis.

Journal Article↗