Investigating the relationship between Agreeableness trait and

Benevolence value in the classroom of university students.

ABSTRACT

People may predict behaviour by examining traits or values. The distinctions are clear, while traits
used to describe individual differences in dimensions, values demonstrate motivational goals which
are also guiding principles. The relationship between these two personality constructs draw
researcher`s attention to further investigate human behaviour and motivation. In this study we were
exploring the links between agreeableness trait and benevolence value in 149 university students.
Participants were in their first year of their studies, and 86% of them were female. Two personality
questionnaires were used, the Big Five Inventory by Costa and McCrae (1991) and the Portrait
Values questionnaire by Schwartz (1992). We were interested in whether having a high level of
agreeableness will increase the level of benevolence a person has. A Pearson`s correlation conducted
on the data showed that it was a significant positive correlation between agreeableness trait and
benevolence value (r = .306, one-tailed). Thus, high levels of agreeableness appeared to increase the
levels of benevolence.

1. Introduction

When people find themselves in social situations, they are unconsciously behaving in ways
that best suits their personality. Extrovert people favour social stimulation, conscientiousness
creates hard workers, while agreeableness predicts warm and friendly behaviour. Traits were
described by Costa and McCrae in 1991 as dimensions of individual differences that
underlies the basic structure of personality. The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava,
1999), was created to test people in their level of personality in 5 domains. These were
Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism.
Researchers started to question the links between traits and other personality constructs, such
as values. Schwartz description suggest that values are desirable, trans situational aims, that
are guiding principles in a person`s life (Schwarz, 1992). People may predict behaviour by
examining traits or values. Words can have several meanings or can be seen in different ways
depending on the context, such as it is unclear whether resilience is a trait or a value. Values
have been identified by Schwartz in 1992, and arranged them in a circular representation,
depending on their relationship with one another. The 10 values were power, achievement,
hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and
security. Each value describe a motivational goal, and serve as a standard to justify actions or
choices. Values and Traits are two distinct personality construct, but closely related to each
other, and studying the relationship between them enable researchers to understand further
human behaviour and motivation.

In the present study, we investigated the relationship between agreeableness trait and
benevolence value in 149 university students, using two personality questionnaires, the Big
Five Inventory, and the Portrait Values Questionnaire. We hypothesised that the more
agreeable a person is, the more benevolence values he or she holds, emphasising a positive
relationship between the two variables.
2. Method

2.1 Design

It was a correlational design. Opportunity sampling was used, data were collected
anonymously.

2.2 Participants

Participants were 149 undergraduate psychology students from the University of

Westminster. All participants were in their first semester of studies. Mean age was 20 years
(M=19.8, SD=3.1), and 86 % were women with 128 women and 21 men.

2.3 Materials

The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) was used to measure agreeableness.
The questionnaire consists of nine items, rated from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree
strongly). Scores are sum scores and range from 9 to 45. Higher scores mean higher levels of
agreeableness. A sample statement is `I see myself as someone who is helpful and unselfish
to others`. Benevolence value was calculated with the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ;
Schwartz, 2013). Statements are rated from (not like me at all) to
(very much like me). It consists of mean scores which can range from 1 to 6. Higher scores
mean, the individual finds benevolence values very important. A sample statement is `It is
very important to me to help the people around me. I want to care for their well-being`.

2.4 Procedure
Data were collected in the classroom in individual differences seminar session. Participants
first completed the Big Five Inventory questionnaire, followed by a completion of Portrait
Values questionnaire. Participants were explained the importance of completing the
questionnaire to their best knowledge and made sure they understood the questions.
Participants were required to compute their scores in an Excell document, creating a unique
code, enabling them to stay anonymous. The code consisted of the last two character of their
mothers maiden name, the date they were born, and the last character of their fathers first
name. Subjects also required to compute their age their sex and their scores for each domain.
Researchers collected the data and computed a Pearson`s correlation between Agreeableness
and Benevolence. Results were analysed.
3. Results

Figure 1. displays the relationship between agreeableness trait and benevolence value. The
mean (± s.d.) agreeableness score was 34,41 (5.15). For benevolence value, the mean (± s.d.)
was 5,22 (.691).

Figure 1. The relationship between benevolence values and agreeableness trait

A Pearson`s correlation conducted on the data showed that it was a significant positive
correlation between agreeableness trait and benevolence value (r = .306, N = 149, p = .000,
one-tailed).

Therefore, the hypothesis that the more agreeable a person is, the more benevolence value he
or she possesses was accepted.

4. Discussion

The present article demonstrates the hypothesised relationship between agreeableness trait
and benevolence value. As expected, a positive correlation has been found between these two
variables, meaning, that the more agreeable a person was the more benevolence value the
individual possessed. Agreeableness is strongly linked to values. Individuals who score high
on agreeableness tend to be warm, friendly and cooperative, which sounds very similar to the
description of benevolence. Values and traits draw researcher’s attention to study the links
between these two personality constructs. Although the two constructs are closely related to
each other they are distinct in the same time, as in traits are descriptors of an individual, and
values are motivations, or goals a person holds. While traits are based on behaviour and
emotions without conscious control, values are more cognitive representations of a person`s
goal. According to Rocca (2002) this relationship can be influenced by biological factors,
such as inborn temperament that might develop parallel traits and values. People born with a
high level of agreeableness might also value conformity, and security, as in they strive to
maintain positive relationships with others. Normative influence (people want to be liked).
However individuals who describe greater importance to power and achievement values
might possesses low levels of agreeableness.

Another viewpoint is that people might change their values in order to fit in a society or to
justify their behaviour. People observe their behaviour and when their motivation is
ambiguous they infer from their environment, here I am smoking again, therefore I might like
something. People prioritize what values are important to them, and these hierarchy may lead
them behaving ways that allows them to be consistent with the value they hold. In (researcher
name and year) study, distinguished traits as biologically based, and values as a result of
environmental input such as cultural, educational, upbringing or life events. While traits have
a strong biological basis, they also demonstrate environmental influence, and some values
found to be heritable, such as tradition. Another study (Cloninger, year) distinguish traits as
emotional or behavioural induced, and values as cognitive representations. In his studies the
mid-brain was associated with emotion, and the frontal lobe was linked to cognition. He
hypothesised that traits which holds more cognitive basis will have the strongest relationship
with values, and traits will have the more emotional basis, will be a negative relationship.
Agreeableness found to have a strong positive correlation with a character trait, previously
suggested to be linked with a frontal lobe, as in holding more cognitive basis. Thus
agreeableness was hypothesised to have a strong link with values.

Culture found to be another influence on traits and values, as in depending on the culture you
live in different relationships exists between them. The two most commonly researched
culture are the individualist and collectivist cultures, which found to have a polar opposite
relationship to one another. Individualistic societies value more the individual and personal
goals and motivations, while collectivistic cultures emphasize more group values, as in what
is important for the society.

Limitations of the study might be the instruments that can influence the results, PVQ includes
trait like elements in their questions, which results in a stronger correlation than if they were
used Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz et al., 2012).

Word count : 1443-558 (278 intro – 278 discussion conclusion) + references

Start off with a summary of your results, then relate these findings to the hypotheses and the original aims stated
in the introduction. In the first part of your discussion you should always assume that your data are valid and
reliable and discuss their implications. You should try to relate your findings to published research and theories
and explain how your study adds to current research.

You should also discuss unexpected findings and try to explain them: they could be due a methodological
problem (either on the day or a design flaw) or they might be valid, in which case you need to suggest how they
fit in with current theory and whether the theory need to be altered. The method should be evaluated and
improvements / modifications suggested where appropriate. The last paragraph should summarise your
conclusions and explain what the stage in the research should be, bases on your findings.
The discussion should be 3 paragraphs
Paragraph 1: summary of the results
Paragraph 2: explanation of the results in the context of theory. Did the results confirm your hypothesis? Were
there any unexpected results?
Paragraphs 3: concluding remark and suggestion of future work.

5. References

Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3-29.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factors
and personal values. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 28(6), 789-801.

6. Appendix

Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Agreeableness trait 149 17 44 34.41 5.154
Benevolence values 149 3.3 6.0 5.220 .6917

Valid N (listwise) 149

Correlations
Benevolence Agreeableness
values trait
Benevolence values Pearson Correlation 1 .306**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 149 149
**
Agreeableness trait Pearson Correlation .306 1
Sig. (1-tailed) .000
N 149 149
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Additional points

Finally, a few important points that you should always remember:

- never write in the first person (I or we)
- look at published journal articles – they are your model and your aim!
- Always reference all sources
- Always write in the past tense: you are writing about something you have already done, not
something you are going to do.
- One datum, several data
- Never use the word “being”
- Use proper prose paragraphs