INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND PERFORMANCE
Compared to my peers enrolled in this unit, some of my scores on the IPIP display marked disparities. Most significant is my Openness to Experience (Openness) score of 103, almost two standard deviations from the mean (M= 86.75, SD= 10.60), illustrating the statistical significance differentiating me from my peers. Only five individuals scored higher than myself in the total sample (N=145, Range= 53), demonstrating the significant difference between my score relative to my peers.
My neuroticism score of 86 varied moderately from my peers, placing it over 1 standard deviation from the mean (M= 67.81, SD= 16.16) (see Figure 5). 12 scores from the cohort exceeded my score (Maximum = 107), highlighting differences from majority of scores.
Moderately distinct is my Conscientiousness score of 75, displaying large variance from my peers’ (M= 87.24, SD= 12.12) at one standard deviation below the mean (see Figure 3).
The two remaining traits, Agreeableness and Extraversion, only slightly differed from peer scores. My Extraversion score was 76, with the sample mean being 81.25 (SD= 14.45) (see Figure 1). Being 5 points, and under half a standard deviation below the mean, put me within relative standing of the class. My Agreeableness score (96) was six points above the sample mean (M= 90.21, SD= 11.10) (see Figure 2), slightly deviating.
My high Openness score (103) indicates behavioural flexibility and intellectual curiosity (McCrae & Costa, 2008) regarding new and challenging material, suggesting acquisition of a large and broad knowledge base (Zhang & Ziegler, 2016). Additionally, my score implies I am analytical, open to alternative opinions and intrinsically motivated to understand content meaningfully (Poropat, 2009). Openness obtained the smallest range out of the domains, suggesting majority of scores lie around the mean representative of traditional ideologies, and neither simplistic nor complex attitudes (Vedel & Poropat, 2017).
My high Neuroticism score suggests I experience negative emotions, dominating my attention in multiple contexts (Poropat, 2009). Additionally suggesting oversensitive threat perception (McCrae & Costa, 2008), fear of failure and delayed gratification (Komarraju, Karau & Schmeck, 2009) resulting in a maladaptive coping strategies particularly evidenced in high pressure situations (Watson & Clark, 1992) . The antithesis of neuroticism is “emotional stability” reflecting calmness, remediating negative emotions and cope effectively (Watson & Clark, 1992). Neuroticism had the largest range out of all the domains (79), indicating dispersed scores. Peers’ average scores typify positive and negative emotionality, slightly effected by stressful and demanding situations (Richardson, Abraham & Bond, 2012). The distinct difference being ability to cope and recover from negative emotional reactivity (Tamir & Robinson, 2004).
Individuals high in Conscientiousness display strong...