Some factors influence the motivation to learn in Slovenian upper secondary schools

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002

by

Janez Kolenc Educational Research Institute, Gerbičeva 62, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Darja Kobal Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Nada Lebarič Educational Research Institute, Gerbičeva 62, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Paper presented at the School of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Lisbon

Correspondence:

Janez Kolenc, E-mail: [email protected]

Darja Kobal, E-mail: [email protected]

Nada Lebarič, E-mail: Nada.Lebarič@pei.si

June, 2002 Revised August, 2002 Some factors influence the motivation to learn in Slovenian upper secondary schools

1. Definition of the Problem

Motivation is the phenomena, which is difficult to define exactly although different authors agree, that with motivation it is possible to explain the causes of behaviour (Lamovec, 1986; Pintrich, Schunk, 1996). Our working hypothesis proceed from definition that the motivation is a process, which is stimulating and directing behaviour of individuals to achieve the specific goal. It is not possible to observe motivation directly, moreover it could be observed only through the behaviour of individuals; for example through the effort of someone involved in the particular activity, through tasks of someone doing it and, last but not least, through that, what someone is saying about motivation itself. Pintrich and Schunk (1996) argued, that goal and activity are of the central importance for understanding the motivation.

The goal could be presented explicitly or implicitly ( McMeniman, 1989). If the goal is explicitly presented, than the individual is clearly aware of it and in accordance with his own experience could change it. But if the goal in the process of motivation is presented only implicitly, the individual do not know very well, what he wanted to do with his own behaviour. But, also implicitly presented goal could be changed through the experience of individual and became explicit. The both sort of goals are in common the awareness of the individuals, that they are trying to achieve something.

Other general information’s about the term motivation are to many, that is not possible to represent them inside our theoretical framework. In our research we are limiting us only on those suppositions, concepts and theoretical approaches, which have explained motivation in educational environment. Beside this, the selected sample for our empirical study consisted from the group of Slovenian upper secondary school boys and girls, we are focusing our attention on motivation to learn, characteristical for the period of adolescence.

Researching correlation’s between learning and motivation to learn we are based upon those results of different studies (Watkins, Akande, 1994), which show, that motivation to learn influence the learning strategies of students. Namely, factor analyses indicate, that correlation’s between motivation to learn and learning strategies show in three different forms that students have toward learning: (1) in the form of superficial approach towards learning, which is mainly related on memorising and reproduction of knowledge.(2) In the form of a deep approach to the learning, which is mainly related to the interest of students toward learning content and toward understanding of this content and (3) in the form of the attitude of students toward success, which is related to the motivation for the best possible achievement, which correlates as with learning as with academic self-concept.

2. Methodology and Sample Sample

2 We formed a random population of upper secondary school students from the fourth grade. The population included 287 students, consisting of 114 (39.7%) male students and 173 (60.3%) female students. Most of them (65.2%) was aged 18 (187 male /female students); aged 17 were 83 or 28.9%; whereas 16 male /female students or as little as 5.6% were aged 19. There was also one 16-year-old among them (0.3%).

Most of the students concluded the previous school year with medium grades (44.9%, i.e. 129 students), 35.2% or 101 students with good grades and 8% or 23 male/female students with excellent grades. Satisfactory grades were exhibited by 11.2%.

The educational structure of parents shows that the majority of mothers have finished high school (90), followed by university education (73), higher education (49) and finally vocational education (46). Twenty of them have finished only primary school. Amongst 9 mothers 6 have not finished primary school education and in 3 cases we were not able to determine the level of education. The level of education for only 10% of the mothers was lower than vocational school, whereas almost 74% (73.9%) of them had high school, higher or university education.

Most of the fathers had university education (80), followed by vocational (74) and high school (74) education. 34 of them had higher education and 13 had primary education. Amongst the remaining 12 fathers 6 have not finished primary school, in other cases we were not able to determine the school education (6). As regards the level of fathers' education, we can conclude that as much as 65% had high school, higher or university education.

The students from the population were asked about the study courses they would choose in the continuation of their studies. The majority answered they would choose social sciences (126), 54 male and female students would opt for natural sciences, 28 declared for art and 27 for mechanics; whereas 44 of the future students would like to study arts and sciences and 21 biomedicine.

Instruments

For the purpose of the self-concept analysis we used the shortened version of the self-concept questionnaire (SDQ III; Marsh, O'Neil, 1984), measuring 13 fields of self-concept: mathematical abilities, verbal expression, academic self-concept, problem solving and creativity, physical abilities and sports, external appearance, relationships with peers of the same gender, relationship with peers of different gender, relation to parents, religion, honesty and reliability, emotional stability and general self-concept.

The reliability of the instrument was high. The Cronbach alpha coefficient amounted to 0.8481, and the Guttman split-half coefficient was 0.8137.

For the purpose of learning styles analysis we used the questionnaire of learning styles by Kolb (Marentič-Požarnik et.al., 1995). The reliability of the instrument as regards the Cronbach alpha coefficient was low: 0,2644, yet higher, i.e. 0,7637, if measured by means of Guttman split-half coefficient, which allows us a certain degree of interpretation.

3 4 3. Results of the Study

We have analysed data from our empirical study (N=287) with chi-square statistic and measures of association: Phi, Cramer’s V, Contingency Coefficient, Pearson’s R and Spearman Correlation.

1. When we observed data in Table 1. (see Appendix I.) these are show, that emotional stability is slightly dependent from the school, students are visiting it (Chi-square= 78,407, df=60, Sig.=0,05). When we examined data in Table 1. more carefully these are show, that relatively more emotionally stable are students in schools in urban area (Ledina, Vič, Šubičeva), as are those, which are visiting schools in rural area (Litija) of Slovenia (Cramer's V=0,303, Contingency Coefficient= 0,464). We can not accepted the null hypothesis, while correlation coefficients (Pearson's R=0,103; Spearman's R=0,097, Sig.=0,082) are to low, that we can conclude that emotional stability and place of the schools are in causal relationship.

2. Statistically significant differences (Sig.=0,006) are indicated also, when it goes for the relationship between gender as independent variable and concrete experience as one of dimensions of learning style. Measures of association show (Chi-square= 33,542, df=16), that these two variables are slightly dependent (Cramer's V= 0,344; Contingency Coefficient=0,325), meanwhile these variables are also in correlation with each other (Pearson's R= 0,294; Spearman's R=0,283, Sig.= 0,000). But they are not in correlation so much, that we could rejected the null hypothesis and than accepted the opposite hypothesis about positive and causal relation between them. In further but we can conclude, that girls are learning better on the basis of the concrete experience as boys do. (see Table 2. in Appendix I.).

3. The relationship between gender as one of independent variables and external appearance as one of variables of the self-concept (see Table 3. in Appendix I.) indicate, that these two variables are slightly dependent with each other (Chi-square=34,873; df=19, Sig.= 0,014). These relation is confirmed also with measures of association (Cramer's V=0,349, Contingency Coefficient = 0,330), not but also with correlation coefficients (Pearson's R= - 0,202; Spearman's R = -0,195; Sig.=0,001). The later measures have even negative values, what means, that variables of gender and external appearance are in opposite proportion: thus, more is increasing the importance of external appearance, less is that connected with gender. However correlation coefficients are not high enough, that we can accepted an alternative hypothesis about the causal relationship between these two variables.

4. Mutual dependency (see Table 4. In Appendix I.) is indicated also by variables of age and sincerity (Chi-square = 174,599, df=54, Sig.=0,000), what is confirmed also with both measures of association (Cramer's V= 0,451; Contingency Coefficient = 0,616; Sig.=0,000). Still both correlation coefficient are to low, that we could talk about positive or negative or even causal relationship between these two variables (Pearson's R= 0,056; Spearman's R= 0,026, Sig1.= 0,343, Sig2 = 0,665). For that reason age and sincerity of respondents are not in the causal relationship, meanwhile but their mutual dependency is caused and influenced by covariation variables, what we were not examined on this stage of analysis. The null hypothesis about independence of variables could not be accepted or rejected.

5. The place of the school and pleasantness (see Table 5. in Appendix I.) are reciprocally independent variables what is indicated by all measures of association and their statistical

5 significance (Chi-square = 109,730; df=87; Sig.= 0,050; Cramer's V= 0,358; Contingency Coefficient=0,527, Sig.=0,050). Correlation coefficients are low and negative and could be statistically neglected (Pearson's R= -0,043, Spearman's R= -0,050; Sig.1= 0,473; Sig.2= 0,399). For that reason could be concluded, that the place of the school and pleasantness are mutual independent variables and then this personal characteristic are distributed equally across different schools we have examined it in our sample.

6. Variables age and openness (see Table 6.) show the mutual dependency (Chi-square = 335,469, df=96, Sig.=0,000) also if we measured them with measures of association (Cramer's V= 0,626; Contingency Coefficient = 0,735, Sig.=0,000). But there are not any positive or negative connection, while correlation coefficients are to low and statistically insignificant (Pearson's R=0,038: Spearman's R= 0,012, Sig.1= 0,525; Sig.2= 0,836). So, we could conclude, that these two variables are influenced by covariation factors, what we were not specially examined in our analysis. We can not accept or reject the null hypothesis, while correlation coefficients are so low.

7. The specific level of mutual dependency show variables of father's education and religion of respondents (see Table 7. in Appendix I.). So, measures of association show the following picture: Chi-square=156,470; df=120; Sig.= 0,01; Cramer's V= 0,303; Contingency Coefficient = 0,596; Sig.=0,01. Although correlation coefficients are low and negative, their statistical significance is very high (Pearson's R=-0,236; Spearman's R=-0,244; Sig.1=0,000; Sig.2=0,000) what indicate, that father's education and religiosity are in mutual negative relationship. This could be interpreted in that way, that higher than father's education is, lesser are respondents religious.

8. Father's education and extrovertness (see Table 8.) are mutual dependent variables (Chi- square=290,307, df=216, Sig.=0,001) what indicate also both measures of association (Cramer's V= 0,411; Contingency Coefficient=0,710; Sig.= 0,001). However but, these variables are not in any positive or negative linear connection, while both correlation coefficients are to low and statistically insignificant (Pearson's R=0,083; Spearman's R=0,083; Sig.1=0,161, Sig.2=0,126). There is not any causal relationship between these variables, that we could conclude, that higher than father's education is higher extrovertness of respondent is as well.

9. Learning success in the last year and mathematical capability of respondents (see Table 9. in Appendix I.) are mutual dependent and connected variables. This indicate measures of association as well (Chi-square=100,919, df=72; Sig.= 0,01; Cramer's V= 0,298; Contingency Coefficient = 0,511; Sig.= 0,01) as both correlation coefficients and very high statistical significance all of these measures .(Pearson's R=0,277; Spearman's R= 0,267; Sig. = 0,000). We can conclude, that higher success in the last year is higher mathematical capability of students is.

10. Learning success of students in the last year and academic self-concept (see Table 10. in Appendix I.) are also dependent and connected variables (Chi-square=96,649; df=68; Sig.=0,01). This show measures of association ( Cramer's V= 0,291; Contingency Coefficient = 0,503; Sig.= 0,01) as well as both correlation coefficients (Pearson's R= 0,338; Spearman's R = 0,381, Sig.1= 0,000; Sig.2= 0,000), which have statistically very high significance. We

6 can conclude, that academic self-concept of students is even better, higher their learning success in the last school year is.

4. Conclusion

The research show, that in contingent relationships are variables: school and emotional stability (Chi-Square=78,407; Sig.= 0,05), school and pleasantness (Chi-Square=109,730, Sig.= 0,05), gender and concrete experience (Chi-Square=33,542; Sig.=0,006), gender and external appearance (Chi-Square=34,873; Sig.=0,01), age and sincerity (Chi-Square=174,599; Sig.= 0,000), age and openness (Chi-Square=335,649; Sig.=0,000), father’s education and religion (Chi-Square=156,470; Sig.=0,01), father’s education and extrovertness (Chi- Square=290,307, Sig.= 0,001), learning success in the last year and mathematical capability (Chi-Square= 100,919, Sig.=0,01) and learning success in the last year and academic self- concept (Chi-Square=96,649; Sig.= 0,01).

Results we have got it show, that independent variables such as age, gender, school, learning success are, do not influence the majority of motivational variables. Therefore it is more important which motivational variables have been influenced by independent variables the most. Among them the most important pairs of variables are: age and sincerity (Contingency Coefficient = 0,527), age and openness (Contingency Coefficient=0,735), father’s education and religion (Contingency Coefficient=0,596) and father’s education and extrovertness (Contingency Coefficient=0,710). We can conclude that age of students and father’s education are those independent variables which influence the motivation to learn the most.

7 5. References

Kobal Darja (2000). Temeljni vidiki samopodobe. Pedagoški inštitut, Ljubljana

Lamovec, T. (1986). Psihologija motivacije. Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza E.K. v Ljubljani, Oddelek za psihologijo.

Marentič Požarnik Barica et al., (1995). Izziv raznolikosti. Nova Gorica, Educa.

Marsh H.W. & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self description questionnaire III. The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21 (2), 153-174

McMeniman, M. (1989). Motivation to learn. V P. Langford (Ur.), Educational Psychology: An Australian perspective (str. 215-237). Australia: Longman Chesire.

Pintrich, P.R., Schunk, D.H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, Research, and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Watkins, D., Akande, A. (1994). Approaches to Learning of Nigerian Secondary School Children: Emic and Ethic Perspectives. International Journal of Psychology, 29 (2), 165-182.

8 Appendix I. Selected Tables

Table 1. Cross-tabulation: Schools by emotional stability

Upper secondary schools / Emotional stability Total 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00 13,00 14,00 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 20,00 21,00 22,00 23,00 24,00 Litija Count 1 3 2 3 1 6 3 5 5 4 6 4 4 1 48 % within 2,1% 6,3% 4,2% 6,3% 2,1% 12,5% 6,3% 10,4% 10,4% 8,3% 12,5% 8,3% 8,3% 2,1% 100,0% school % within 100,0% 60,0% 28,6% 60,0% 7,1% 40,0% 21,4% 22,7% 15,2% 18,2% 14,3% 20,0% 21,1% 8,3% 16,8% emotional stability % of Total ,4% 1,1% ,7% 1,1% ,4% 2,1% 1,1% 1,8% 1,8% 1,4% 2,1% 1,4% 1,4% ,4% 16,8% Ledina Count 1 1 2 1 5 3 5 3 9 5 13 4 10 7 2 3 3 77 % within 1,3% 1,3% 2,6% 1,3% 6,5% 3,9% 6,5% 3,9% 11,7% 6,5% 16,9% 5,2% 13,0% 9,1% 2,6% 3,9% 3,9% 100,0% school % within 20,0% 20,0% 28,6% 12,5% 35,7% 20,0% 35,7% 13,6% 27,3% 22,7% 31,0% 20,0% 43,5% 36,8% 16,7% 27,3% 75,0% 27,0% emotional stability % of Total ,4% ,4% ,7% ,4% 1,8% 1,1% 1,8% 1,1% 3,2% 1,8% 4,6% 1,4% 3,5% 2,5% ,7% 1,1% 1,1% 27,0% Vič Count 1 2 1 5 1 3 4 3 6 15 7 9 2 6 3 5 4 1 2 80 % within 1,3% 2,5% 1,3% 6,3% 1,3% 3,8% 5,0% 3,8% 7,5% 18,8% 8,8% 11,3% 2,5% 7,5% 3,8% 6,3% 5,0% 1,3% 2,5% 100,0% school % within 100,0% 40,0% 14,3% 62,5% 20,0% 21,4% 26,7% 21,4% 27,3% 45,5% 31,8% 21,4% 10,0% 26,1% 15,8% 41,7% 36,4% 25,0% 100,0% 28,1% emotional stability % of Total ,4% ,7% ,4% 1,8% ,4% 1,1% 1,4% 1,1% 2,1% 5,3% 2,5% 3,2% ,7% 2,1% 1,1% 1,8% 1,4% ,4% ,7% 28,1% Šubičeva Count 1 2 2 2 1 5 2 3 8 4 6 14 10 7 5 4 4 80 % within 1,3% 2,5% 2,5% 2,5% 1,3% 6,3% 2,5% 3,8% 10,0% 5,0% 7,5% 17,5% 12,5% 8,8% 6,3% 5,0% 5,0% 100,0% school % within 20,0% 40,0% 28,6% 25,0% 20,0% 35,7% 13,3% 21,4% 36,4% 12,1% 27,3% 33,3% 50,0% 30,4% 26,3% 33,3% 36,4% 28,1% emotional stability % of Total ,4% ,7% ,7% ,7% ,4% 1,8% ,7% 1,1% 2,8% 1,4% 2,1% 4,9% 3,5% 2,5% 1,8% 1,4% 1,4% 28,1% Total Count 1 1 5 5 7 8 5 14 15 14 22 33 22 42 20 23 19 12 11 4 2 285 % within ,4% ,4% 1,8% 1,8% 2,5% 2,8% 1,8% 4,9% 5,3% 4,9% 7,7% 11,6% 7,7% 14,7% 7,0% 8,1% 6,7% 4,2% 3,9% 1,4% ,7% 100,0% school % within 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% emotional stability % of Total ,4% ,4% 1,8% 1,8% 2,5% 2,8% 1,8% 4,9% 5,3% 4,9% 7,7% 11,6% 7,7% 14,7% 7,0% 8,1% 6,7% 4,2% 3,9% 1,4% ,7% 100,0%

9 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 78,407 60 ,056 Likelihood Ratio 82,742 60 ,027 Linear-by-Linear Association 3,026 1 ,082 N of Valid Cases 285

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi ,525 ,056 Cramer's V ,303 ,056 Contingency Coefficient ,464 ,056 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,103 ,058 1,746 ,082 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,097 ,058 1,645 ,101 N of Valid Cases 285 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation.

10 Table 2. Cross-tabulation: Gender by concrete experience

Gender / Concrete experience 7,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00 13,00 14,00 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 20,00 21,00 22,00 23,00 24,00 Total male Count 1 1 2 5 5 8 16 15 12 11 13 9 7 8 1 114 % within ,9% ,9% 1,8% 4,4% 4,4% 7,0% 14,0% 13,2% 10,5% 9,6% 11,4% 7,9% 6,1% 7,0% ,9% 100,0% Gender % within 100,0 100,0% 66,7% 83,3% 50,0% 53,3% 64,0% 57,7% 41,4% 32,4% 31,0% 32,1% 25,0% 42,1% 10,0% 40,1% concrete % experience % of Total ,4% ,4% ,7% 1,8% 1,8% 2,8% 5,6% 5,3% 4,2% 3,9% 4,6% 3,2% 2,5% 2,8% ,4% 40,1% female Count 1 1 5 7 9 11 17 23 29 19 21 11 9 6 1 170 % within ,6% ,6% 2,9% 4,1% 5,3% 6,5% 10,0% 13,5% 17,1% 11,2% 12,4% 6,5% 5,3% 3,5% ,6% 100,0% Gender % within 33,3% 16,7% 50,0% 46,7% 36,0% 42,3% 58,6% 67,6% 69,0% 67,9% 75,0% 57,9% 90,0% 100,0% 100,0% 59,9% concrete experience % of Total ,4% ,4% 1,8% 2,5% 3,2% 3,9% 6,0% 8,1% 10,2% 6,7% 7,4% 3,9% 3,2% 2,1% ,4% 59,9% Total Count 1 1 3 6 10 15 25 26 29 34 42 28 28 19 10 6 1 284 % within ,4% ,4% 1,1% 2,1% 3,5% 5,3% 8,8% 9,2% 10,2% 12,0% 14,8% 9,9% 9,9% 6,7% 3,5% 2,1% ,4% 100,0% Gender % within 100,0 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% concrete % experience % of Total ,4% ,4% 1,1% 2,1% 3,5% 5,3% 8,8% 9,2% 10,2% 12,0% 14,8% 9,9% 9,9% 6,7% 3,5% 2,1% ,4% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 33,542 16 ,006 Likelihood Ratio 37,544 16 ,002 Linear-by-Linear Association 24,535 1 ,000 N of Valid Cases 284 a 14 cells (41,2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is ,40.

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi ,344 ,006 Cramer's V ,344 ,006 Contingency Coefficient ,325 ,006 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,294 ,054 5,174 ,000 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,283 ,056 4,960 ,000 N of Valid Cases 284

11 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. Table 3. Cross-tabulation: Gender by external appearance Gender / Appearance 4,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00 13,00 14,00 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 20,00 21,00 22,00 23,00 24,00 Total Gender male Count 1 3 3 2 5 9 5 7 12 16 10 12 8 10 6 4 1 114

% within ,9% 2,6% 2,6% 1,8% 4,4% 7,9% 4,4% 6,1% 10,5% 14,0% 8,8% 10,5% 7,0% 8,8% 5,3% 3,5% ,9% 100,0% Gender % within 100,0% 33,3% 25,0% 14,3% 27,8% 75,0% 23,8% 38,9% 36,4% 53,3% 31,3% 42,9% 47,1% 62,5% 66,7% 80,0% 33,3% 39,9% appearan ce % of ,3% 1,0% 1,0% ,7% 1,7% 3,1% 1,7% 2,4% 4,2% 5,6% 3,5% 4,2% 2,8% 3,5% 2,1% 1,4% ,3% 39,9% Total female Count 1 2 5 6 9 12 13 3 16 11 21 14 22 16 9 6 3 1 2 172 % within ,6% 1,2% 2,9% 3,5% 5,2% 7,0% 7,6% 1,7% 9,3% 6,4% 12,2% 8,1% 12,8% 9,3% 5,2% 3,5% 1,7% ,6% 1,2% 100,0% Gender % within 100,0 100,0 100,0% 66,7% 75,0% 85,7% 72,2% 25,0% 76,2% 61,1% 63,6% 46,7% 68,8% 57,1% 52,9% 37,5% 33,3% 20,0% 66,7% 60,1% appearan % % ce % of ,3% ,7% 1,7% 2,1% 3,1% 4,2% 4,5% 1,0% 5,6% 3,8% 7,3% 4,9% 7,7% 5,6% 3,1% 2,1% 1,0% ,3% ,7% 60,1% Total Total Count 1 2 1 5 9 12 14 18 12 21 18 33 30 32 28 17 16 9 5 3 286

% within ,3% ,7% ,3% 1,7% 3,1% 4,2% 4,9% 6,3% 4,2% 7,3% 6,3% 11,5% 10,5% 11,2% 9,8% 5,9% 5,6% 3,1% 1,7% 1,0% 100,0% Gender % within 100,0 100,0 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% appearan % % ce % of ,3% ,7% ,3% 1,7% 3,1% 4,2% 4,9% 6,3% 4,2% 7,3% 6,3% 11,5% 10,5% 11,2% 9,8% 5,9% 5,6% 3,1% 1,7% 1,0% 100,0% Total

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 34,873 19 ,014 Likelihood Ratio 38,655 19 ,005 Linear-by-Linear Association 11,671 1 ,001 N of Valid Cases 286

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi ,349 ,014 Cramer's V ,349 ,014 Contingency Coefficient ,330 ,014

12 Interval by Interval Pearson's R -,202 ,055 -3,482 ,001 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -,195 ,057 -3,345 ,001 N of Valid Cases 286 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. Table 4. Cross-tabulation: Age by sincerity

Age / sincerity Total 4,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00 13,00 14,00 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 20,00 21,00 22,00 23,00 24,00 Age 16 Count 1 1 % within age 100,0% 100,0% % within 50,0% ,3% sincerity % of Total ,3% ,3% 17 Count 1 3 1 1 7 10 9 9 8 9 9 4 4 3 5 83 % within age 1,2% 3,6% 1,2% 1,2% 8,4% 12,0% 10,8% 10,8% 9,6% 10,8% 10,8% 4,8% 4,8% 3,6% 6,0% 100,0% % within 100,0%100,0 25,0% 12,5% 36,8% 33,3% 25,7% 28,1% 26,7% 25,0% 33,3% 18,2% 33,3% 42,9% 62,5% 29,0% sincerity % % of Total ,3% 1,0% ,3% ,3% 2,4% 3,5% 3,1% 3,1% 2,8% 3,1% 3,1% 1,4% 1,4% 1,0% 1,7% 29,0% 18 Count 1 1 3 5 7 10 20 24 20 20 25 17 15 7 4 3 4 186 % within age ,5% ,5% 1,6% 2,7% 3,8% 5,4% 10,8% 12,9% 10,8% 10,8% 13,4% 9,1% 8,1% 3,8% 2,2% 1,6% 2,2% 100,0% % within 100,0% 50,0% 75,0% 100,0% 87,5% 52,6% 66,7% 68,6% 62,5% 66,7% 69,4% 63,0% 68,2% 58,3% 57,1% 37,5% 100,0% 65,0% sincerity % of Total ,3% ,3% 1,0% 1,7% 2,4% 3,5% 7,0% 8,4% 7,0% 7,0% 8,7% 5,9% 5,2% 2,4% 1,4% 1,0% 1,4% 65,0% 19 Count 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 16 % within age 12,5% 12,5% 18,8% 12,5% 12,5% 6,3% 18,8% 6,3% 100,0% % within 10,5% 5,7% 9,4% 6,7% 5,6% 3,7% 13,6% 8,3% 5,6% sincerity % of Total ,7% ,7% 1,0% ,7% ,7% ,3% 1,0% ,3% 5,6% Total Count 1 3 1 2 4 5 8 19 30 35 32 30 36 27 22 12 7 8 4 286 % within age ,3% 1,0% ,3% ,7% 1,4% 1,7% 2,8% 6,6% 10,5% 12,2% 11,2% 10,5% 12,6% 9,4% 7,7% 4,2% 2,4% 2,8% 1,4% 100,0% % within 100,0%100,0 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% sincerity % % of Total ,3% 1,0% ,3% ,7% 1,4% 1,7% 2,8% 6,6% 10,5% 12,2% 11,2% 10,5% 12,6% 9,4% 7,7% 4,2% 2,4% 2,8% 1,4% 100,0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 174,599 54 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 48,271 54 ,694 Linear-by-Linear Association ,901 1 ,343 N of Valid Cases 286

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig.

13 Nominal by Nominal Phi ,781 ,000 Cramer's V ,451 ,000 Contingency Coefficient ,616 ,000 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,056 ,063 ,949 ,343 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,026 ,060 ,434 ,665 N of Valid Cases 286 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. Table 5. Cross-tabulation: School by pleasantness School / pleasantness

20,0023 37,00 38,00 39,00 40,00 41,00 42,00 43,00 44,00 45,00 46,00 47,00 48,00 49,00 50,00 51,00 52,00 53,00 55,00 56,00 Total 26 , L Count 1 ,2 4 1 2 1 3 7 7 1 4 6 4 2 49 i t % within 2,0% 4 8,2% 2,0% 4,1% 2,0% 6,1% 14,3% 14,3% 2,0% 8,2% 12,2% 8,2% 4,1% 100,0% school , 1 % within 50,0% 2 36,4% 6,3% 22,2% 12,5% 21,4% 30,4% 35,0% 7,1% 19,0% 26,1% 40,0% 25,0% 17,1% pleasantness 0 , % of Total ,3% , 1,4% ,3% ,7% ,3% 1,0% 2,4% 2,4% ,3% 1,4% 2,1% 1,4% ,7% 17,1% 7 % L Count 2 1 8 3 5 6 4 1 3 8 6 2 4 4 5 2 1 77 e d % within 2 1,3% 10,4% 3,9% 6,5% 7,8% 5,2% 1,3% 3,9% 10,4% 7,8% 2,6% 5,2% 5,2% 6,5% 2,6% 1,3% 100,0% school , 6

% within 2 9,1% 50,0% 33,3% 35,7% 26,1% 22,2% 5,0% 21,4% 38,1% 26,1% 16,7% 36,4% 66,7% 62,5% 25,0% 100,0% 26,9% pleasentness 0 , % of Total , ,3% 2,8% 1,0% 1,7% 2,1% 1,4% ,3% 1,0% 2,8% 2,1% ,7% 1,4% 1,4% 1,7% ,7% ,3% 26,9% 7 % V Count 12 3 2 2 4 3 3 6 6 7 6 6 4 5 1 2 3 1 80 i č % within 12 3,8% 2,5% 2,5% 5,0% 3,8% 3,8% 7,5% 7,5% 8,8% 7,5% 7,5% 5,0% 6,3% 1,3% 2,5% 3,8% 1,3% 100,0% school ,, 5 % within 132 27,3% 12,5% 25,0% 28,6% 13,0% 16,7% 30,0% 42,9% 33,3% 26,1% 50,0% 40,0% 45,5% 16,7% 25,0% 37,5% 100,0% 28,0% pleasantness 00 , 0

14 % of Total ,, 1,0% ,7% ,7% 1,4% 1,0% 1,0% 2,1% 2,1% 2,4% 2,1% 2,1% 1,4% 1,7% ,3% ,7% 1,0% ,3% 28,0% 37 % Š Count 1 %4 3 5 4 5 2 7 11 6 4 2 5 4 2 2 1 1 1 80 u b % within 1,3% 5 3,8% 6,3% 5,0% 6,3% 2,5% 8,8% 13,8% 7,5% 5,0% 2,5% 6,3% 5,0% 2,5% 2,5% 1,3% 1,3% 1,3% 100,0% school , 0 % within 50,0% 4 27,3% 31,3% 44,4% 62,5% 14,3% 30,4% 61,1% 30,0% 28,6% 9,5% 21,7% 33,3% 20,0% 18,2% 16,7% 12,5% 12,5% 28,0% pleasantness 0 , % of Total ,3% 1 1,0% 1,7% 1,4% 1,7% ,7% 2,4% 3,8% 2,1% 1,4% ,7% 1,7% 1,4% ,7% ,7% ,3% ,3% ,3% 28,0% , 4 Count 211 11 16 9 8 14 23 18 20 14 21 23 12 10 11 6 8 8 1 1 286 0 % within ,7%,3 3,8% 5,6% 3,1% 2,8% 4,9% 8,0% 6,3% 7,0% 4,9% 7,3% 8,0% 4,2% 3,5% 3,8% 2,1% 2,8% 2,8% ,3% ,3% 100,0% school 3, 5 % within 100,0%1%1100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% pleasantness 00 0 % of Total ,7%,01 3,5% 3,5% 3,8% 5,6% 3,1% 2,8% 4,9% 8,0% 6,3% 7,0% 4,9% 7,3% 8,0% 4,2% 3,5% 3,8% 2,1% 2,8% 2,8% ,3% 3, 7 %

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 109,730 87 ,050 Likelihood Ratio 128,220 87 ,003 Linear-by-Linear Association ,518 1 ,472 N of Valid Cases 286

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi ,619 ,050 Cramer's V ,358 ,050 Contingency Coefficient ,527 ,050 Interval by Interval Pearson's R -,043 ,057 -,719 ,473 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -,050 ,056 -,844 ,399

15 N of Valid Cases 286 a Not assuming the null hypothesis.b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation.

Table 6. Cross-tabulation: Age by openness Age / openness 222 34,00 35,00 36,00 37,00 38,00 39,00 40,00 41,00 42,00 43,00 44,00 45,00 46,00 47,00 48,00 49,00 50,00 51,00 52,00 53,00 Total 356 Age 16 Count 1 % within age 100,0% % within openness ,4% % of Total ,4% 17 Count 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 4 4 4 9 1 7 2 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 82 % within age 1 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% 4,9% 3,7% 6,1% 4,9% 4,9% 4,9% 11,0% 1,2% 8,5% 2,4% 4,9% 4,9% 3,7% 3,7% 3,7% 2,4% 2,4% 100,0% , % within openness 120,0% 14,3% 7,7% 30,8% 27,3% 41,7% 23,5% 28,6% 19,0% 45,0% 4,3% 31,8% 18,2% 44,4% 36,4% 33,3% 50,0% 42,9% 50,0% 50,0% 28,8% 0 % of Total , ,4% ,4% ,4% 1,4% 1,1% 1,8% 1,4% 1,4% 1,4% 3,2% ,4% 2,5% ,7% 1,4% 1,4% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% ,7% ,7% 28,8% 4 18 Count11 4 6 10 9 8 7 11 9 16 9 21 14 7 5 5 6 2 3 2 2 186 % within age,, 2,2% 3,2% 5,4% 4,8% 4,3% 3,8% 5,9% 4,8% 8,6% 4,8% 11,3% 7,5% 3,8% 2,7% 2,7% 3,2% 1,1% 1,6% 1,1% 1,1% 100,0% 55 % within openness11 80,0% 85,7% 76,9% 69,2% 72,7% 58,3% 64,7% 64,3% 76,2% 45,0% 91,3% 63,6% 63,6% 55,6% 45,5% 66,7% 33,3% 42,9% 50,0% 50,0% 65,3% 00 % of Total,, 1,4% 2,1% 3,5% 3,2% 2,8% 2,5% 3,9% 3,2% 5,6% 3,2% 7,4% 4,9% 2,5% 1,8% 1,8% 2,1% ,7% 1,1% ,7% ,7% 65,3% 44 19 Count 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 16 % within age 12,5% 12,5% 6,3% 6,3% 12,5% 6,3% 6,3% 12,5% 12,5% 6,3% 6,3% 100,0% % within openness 15,4% 11,8% 7,1% 4,8% 10,0% 4,3% 4,5% 18,2% 18,2% 16,7% 14,3% 5,6% % of Total ,7% ,7% ,4% ,4% ,7% ,4% ,4% ,7% ,7% ,4% ,4% 5,6% Total Count111 5 7 13 13 11 12 17 14 21 20 23 22 11 9 11 9 6 7 4 4 285

16 % within age,,, 1,8% 2,5% 4,6% 4,6% 3,9% 4,2% 6,0% 4,9% 7,4% 7,0% 8,1% 7,7% 3,9% 3,2% 3,9% 3,2% 2,1% 2,5% 1,4% 1,4% 100,0% 444 % within openness111100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 000 % of Total,,, 1,8% 2,5% 4,6% 4,6% 3,9% 4,2% 6,0% 4,9% 7,4% 7,0% 8,1% 7,7% 3,9% 3,2% 3,9% 3,2% 2,1% 2,5% 1,4% 1,4% 100,0% 444 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 335,469 96 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 70,854 96 ,975 Linear-by-Linear Association ,406 1 ,524 N of Valid Cases 285

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi 1,085 ,000 Cramer's V ,626 ,000 Contingency Coefficient ,735 ,000 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,038 ,061 ,636 ,525 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,012 ,061 ,208 ,836 N of Valid Cases 285 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation.

17 Table 7. Cross-tabulation: Father's education by religion Father’s education / religion 567 8,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00 13,00 14,00 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 20,00 21,00 22,00 23,00 24,00 Total ,,, father's undefined Count4 1 1 1 1 6 education , education % within father's3 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0% education3 % within religion4 3,1% 6,7% 8,3% 10,0% 2,1% , % of Total , ,4% ,4% ,4% ,4% 2,1% 7 Unfinished Count 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 eeleelemenara % within father's 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 16,7% 100,0% education % within religion 6,3% 6,3% 5,6% 9,1% 8,3% 33,3% 2,1% % of Total ,4% ,4% ,4% ,4% ,4% ,4% 2,1%

Elementary Count 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 school % within father's 7 15,4% 23,1% 7,7% 7,7% 7,7% 15,4% 7,7% 7,7% 100,0% education , % within religion 97 6,3% 17,6% 5,6% 10,0% 8,3% 40,0% 33,3% 33,3% 4,6% , % of Total ,1 ,7% 1,1% ,4% ,4% ,4% ,7% ,4% ,4% 4,6% 4 Vocational school Count732%5 2 5 5 2 5 8 4 3 5 7 2 3 2 1 2 1 74

% within father's9426 2,7% 6,8% 6,8% 2,7% 6,8% 10,8% 5,4% 4,1% 6,8% 9,5% 2,7% 4,1% 2,7% 1,4% 2,7% 1,4% 100,0% education ,,,, % within religion15211738 12,5% 15,6% 29,4% 12,5% 27,8% 42,1% 26,7% 25,0% 50,0% 63,6% 16,7% 37,5% 50,0% 20,0% 66,7%100,0% 26,1% 7083 % of Total2,1,,1, ,7% 1,8% 1,8% ,7% 1,8% 2,8% 1,4% 1,1% 1,8% 2,5% ,7% 1,1% ,7% ,4% ,7% ,4% 26,1% ,,7, Upper secondary Count15613%28 7 8 4 4 3 6 4 4 2 2 3 3 1 1 73 school 0

18 % within father's1842 9,6% 11,0% 5,5% 5,5% 4,1% 8,2% 5,5% 5,5% 2,7% 2,7% 4,1% 4,1% 1,4% 1,4% 100,0% education3,,, % within religion2,422117 43,8% 25,0% 23,5% 25,0% 16,7% 31,6% 26,7% 33,3% 20,0% 18,2% 25,0% 37,5% 25,0% 20,0% 25,7% 4073 % of Total3,2,1,, 2,5% 2,8% 1,4% 1,4% 1,1% 2,1% 1,4% 1,4% ,7% ,7% 1,1% 1,1% ,4% ,4% 25,7% ,,,7 High school Count5 116% 2 2 5 4 2 1 2 2 1 33

% within father's1 31 6,1% 6,1% 15,2% 12,1% 6,1% 3,0% 6,1% 6,1% 3,0% 100,0% education5 ,8 % within religion1, 904, 12,5% 6,3% 29,4% 25,0% 11,1% 6,7% 16,7% 16,7% 25,0% 11,6% 2 ,0 % of Total1, ,12, ,7% ,7% 1,8% 1,4% ,7% ,4% ,7% ,7% ,4% 11,6% , 4, Faculty Count1864%21 4 14 5 6 5 5 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 79 7 % within father's2752 5,1% 17,7% 6,3% 7,6% 6,3% 6,3% 2,5% 1,3% 1,3% 3,8% 2,5% 1,3% 1,3% 100,0% education1,,, % within religion4,463115 25,0% 43,8% 31,3% 33,3% 26,3% 33,3% 16,7% 10,0% 9,1% 25,0% 25,0% 20,0% 33,3% 27,8% 1063 % of Total6,2,1,, 1,4% 4,9% 1,8% 2,1% 1,8% 1,8% ,7% ,4% ,4% 1,1% ,7% ,4% ,4% 27,8% ,,,7 Total Count401141% 16 32 17 16 18 19 15 12 10 11 12 8 4 5 3 1 3 284 1515 % within father's1535 5,6% 11,3% 6,0% 5,6% 6,3% 6,7% 5,3% 4,2% 3,5% 3,9% 4,2% 2,8% 1,4% 1,8% 1,1% ,4% 1,1% 100,0% education4,,, % within religion1,131913 100,0100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0%100,0% 100,0% 0000 % % of Total10503050 5,6% 11,3% 6,0% 5,6% 6,3% 6,7% 5,3% 4,2% 3,5% 3,9% 4,2% 2,8% 1,4% 1,8% 1,1% ,4% 1,1% 100,0% 4,,, ,393 Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 156,470 120 ,014 Likelihood Ratio 146,634 120 ,050 Linear-by-Linear Association 15,759 1 ,000 N of Valid Cases 284

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi ,742 ,014 Cramer's V ,303 ,014

19 Contingency Coefficient ,596 ,014 Interval by Interval Pearson's R -,236 ,059 -4,078 ,000 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation -,244 ,057 -4,226 ,000 N of Valid Cases 284 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. Table 8. Cross-tabulation: Father's education by extrovertness Father’s education / extrovertness 112227,00 28,00 29,00 30,00 31,00 32,00 33,00 34,00 35,00 36,00 37,00 38,00 39,00 40,00 41,00 42,00 43,00 44,00 45,00 46,004445555 Total 8912 7890236 Father’s undefined Count 1 2 1 1 1 6 education % within father's 16,7 33,3 16,7 1 1 100,0% education % % % 66 % within 12,5 22,2 6,3% 1 1 2,1% extrovertness % % 06 % of Total ,3% ,7% ,3% , , 2,1% 33 unfinished Count 1 1 1 11%1 % 6 elementary school % within father's 1 16,7 16,7 111 100,0% education 6 % % 666 % within 1 12,5 6,7% 711 2,1% extrovertness 0 % ,01 % of Total , ,3% ,3% ,,, 2,1% 3 333 elementary Count 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 13 school % within father's 1 7,7% 7,7% 7,7% 23,1 7,7% 7,7% 7,7% 7 7 100,0% education 5 % , , % within 6 9,1% 6,3% 6,7% 18,8 11,1 8,3% 5,9% 1 1 4,5% extrovertness 6 % % 16 % of Total , ,3% ,3% ,3% 1,0% ,3% ,3% ,3% , , 4,5% 7 33 Count 3 1 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 1 6 6 1 2 3 5 4 2 32 331 1 74 vocational school % within father's 4,1% 1,4% 1,4% 5,4% 5,4% 5,4% 4,1% 5,4% 5,4% 1,4% 8,1% 8,1% 1,4% 2,7% 4,1% 6,8% 5,4% 2,7% 4,1%2 441 1 100,0% education ,,,,, % within 50,0 25,0 16,7 44,4 36,4 33,3 25,0 25,0 26,7 10,0 37,5 75,0 14,3 22,2 25,0 29,4 28,6 20,0 50,01 333 1 25,9% extrovertness % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %53736 % of Total 1,0% ,3% ,3% 1,4% 1,4% 1,4% 1,0% 1,4% 1,4% ,3% 2,1% 2,1% ,3% ,7% 1,0% 1,7% 1,4% ,7% 1,0%, 11, , 25,9% 7,,33 upper Count 2 1 3 1 1 3 6 4 4 6 2 3 1 1 2 2 4 6 1 45121 74 secondary 31 school

20 % within father's 21,4% 4,1% 1,4% 1,4% 4,1% 8,1% 5,4% 5,4% 8,1% 2,7% 4,1% 1,4% 1,4% 2,7% 2,7% 5,4% 8,1% 1,4% 56121 100,0% education , ,,,,,1 % within 6 16,7 75,0 16,7 12,5 27,3 50,0 33,3 25,0 40,0 20,0 18,8 12,5 14,3 22,2 16,7 23,5 42,9 10,0 35123 25,9% extrovertness 6 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 001532 % of Total , ,3% 1,0% ,3% ,3% 1,0% 2,1% 1,4% 1,4% 2,1% ,7% 1,0% ,3% ,3% ,7% ,7% 1,4% 2,1% ,3% 11,,, 25,9% 7 ,,373, high school Count11 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 111 33

% within father's33 36,1% 3,0% 9,1% 3,0% 15,2 3,0% 9,1% 3,0% 3,0% 6,1% 3,0% 6,1% 6,1% 3,0% 333 100,0% education,,, % ,,, % within13 3 33,3 16,7 27,3 8,3% 31,3 6,7% 30,0 6,3% 14,3 22,2 8,3% 11,8 14,3 10,0 113 11,5% extrovertness033 % % % % % % % % % % 123 % of Total,, , ,7% ,3% 1,0% ,3% 1,7% ,3% 1,0% ,3% ,3% ,7% ,3% ,7% ,7% ,3% ,,, 11,5% 333 333 faculty Count 3 5 3 1 5 2 2 4 2 1 4 2 5 5 2 6 36322 13 80 13 % within father's 3,8% 6,3% 3,8% 1,3% 6,3% 2,5% 2,5% 5,0% 2,5% 1,3% 5,0% 2,5% 6,3% 6,3% 2,5% 7,5% 3,8%7322 13 100,0% education ,,,,,, % within 50,0 62,5 33,3 8,3% 41,7 12,5 13,3 40,0 12,5 12,5 57,1 22,2 41,7 29,4 14,3 60,0 50,04322 15 28,0% extrovertness % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %602500 % of Total 1,0% 1,7% 1,0% ,3% 1,7% ,7% ,7% 1,4% ,7% ,3% 1,4% ,7% 1,7% 1,7% ,7% 2,1% 1,0%21,, ,1 28,0% ,,773, Total Count1313 6 4 6 8 9 11 12 12 16 15 10 16 8 7 9 12 17 14 10 61198316 286 3044 % within father's,1,12,1% 1,4% 2,1% 2,8% 3,1% 3,8% 4,2% 4,2% 5,6% 5,2% 3,5% 5,6% 2,8% 2,4% 3,1% 4,2% 5,9% 4,9% 3,5% 2,1%43321,2 100,0% education3,3, ,,,,,3, % within1111100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,01111111 100,0% extrovertness % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % of Total0,10,0102,1% 1,4% 2,1% 2,8% 3,1% 3,8% 4,2% 4,2% 5,6% 5,2% 3,5% 5,6% 2,8% 2,4% 3,1% 4,2% 5,9% 4,9% 3,5% 2,1%4030302010,020 100,0% 3,3, ,,,,,3, Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 290,307 216 ,001 Likelihood Ratio 234,133 216 ,189 Linear-by-Linear Association 1,970 1 ,160 N of Valid Cases 286

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi 1,008 ,001 Cramer's V ,411 ,001 Contingency Coefficient ,710 ,001

21 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,083 ,063 1,406 ,161 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,083 ,060 1,403 ,162 N of Valid Cases 286 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation. Table 9. Cross-tabulation: Learning success in the last year by mathematical capability

Learning success in the last year / mathematical capability Total c 45 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00 13,00 14,00 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 20,00 21,00 23,00 ,, Learning 1 Count 1 1 success in the last % within learning 100,0% 100,0% year success in the last year % within mathematical 3,8% ,4% capability % of Total ,4% ,4% 2 Count11 1 1 6 2 7 3 4 5 1 32 % within learning33 3,1% 3,1% 18,8% 6,3% 21,9% 9,4% 12,5% 15,6% 3,1% 100,0% success in the last year,, % within mathematical19 7,7% 8,3% 23,1% 7,7% 31,8% 10,3% 16,7% 19,2% 6,7% 11,2% capability1, % of Total,, ,4% ,4% 2,1% ,7% 2,5% 1,1% 1,4% 1,8% ,4% 11,2% 44 3 Count67 7 7 11 11 10 17 8 12 6 5 8 3 2 4 2 2 128 % within learning45 5,5% 5,5% 8,6% 8,6% 7,8% 13,3% 6,3% 9,4% 4,7% 3,9% 6,3% 2,3% 1,6% 3,1% 1,6% 1,6% 100,0% success in the last year,, % within mathematical66 53,8% 58,3% 42,3% 42,3% 45,5% 58,6% 33,3% 46,2% 40,0% 33,3% 42,1% 25,0% 28,6% 50,0% 40,0% 50,0% 44,9% capability63 % of Total22 2,5% 2,5% 3,9% 3,9% 3,5% 6,0% 2,8% 4,2% 2,1% 1,8% 2,8% 1,1% ,7% 1,4% ,7% ,7% 44,9% ,, 4 Count23 4 4 6 13 5 6 11 8 8 6 10 5 4 2 2 2 101 % within learning23 4,0% 4,0% 5,9% 12,9% 5,0% 5,9% 10,9% 7,9% 7,9% 5,9% 9,9% 5,0% 4,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 100,0% success in the last year,, % within mathematical22 30,8% 33,3% 23,1% 50,0% 22,7% 20,7% 45,8% 30,8% 53,3% 40,0% 52,6% 41,7% 57,1% 40,0% 100,0% 50,0% 35,4% capability27

22 % of Total,1 1,4% 1,4% 2,1% 4,6% 1,8% 2,1% 3,9% 2,8% 2,8% 2,1% 3,5% 1,8% 1,4% ,7% ,7% ,7% 35,4% 7, 5 Count 1 2 3 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 23 % within learning 4,3% 8,7% 13,0% 4,3% 4,3% 17,4% 4,3% 17,4% 4,3% 17,4% 4,3% 100,0% success in the last year % within mathematical 7,7% 7,7% 10,3% 4,2% 3,8% 26,7% 5,3% 33,3% 14,3% 50,0% 20,0% 8,1% capability % of Total ,4% ,7% 1,1% ,4% ,4% 1,4% ,4% 1,4% ,4% 1,4% ,4% 8,1% Total Count91 13 12 26 26 22 29 24 26 15 15 19 12 7 8 5 2 4 285 1 % within learning33 4,6% 4,2% 9,1% 9,1% 7,7% 10,2% 8,4% 9,1% 5,3% 5,3% 6,7% 4,2% 2,5% 2,8% 1,8% ,7% 1,4% 100,0% success in the last year,, % within mathematical11100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% capability00 % of Total33 4,6% 4,2% 9,1% 9,1% 7,7% 10,2% 8,4% 9,1% 5,3% 5,3% 6,7% 4,2% 2,5% 2,8% 1,8% ,7% 1,4% 100,0% ,,

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 100,919 72 ,014 Likelihood Ratio 94,778 72 ,037 Linear-by-Linear Association 21,721 1 ,000 N of Valid Cases 285

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi ,595 ,014 Cramer's V ,298 ,014 Contingency Coefficient ,511 ,014 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,277 ,050 4,841 ,000 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,267 ,053 4,663 ,000 N of Valid Cases 285 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c Based on normal approximation.

23 Table 10. Learning success in the last year by academic self-concept

Learning success in the last year / academic self-concept Total

47 8,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00 13,00 14,00 15,00 16,00 17,00 18,00 19,00 20,00 21,00 22,00 23,00 ,, Learning 1 Count 0 0 1 1 success in thethe last last year year % within learning 100,0% 100,0% success in the last year % within academic self- 2,9% ,4% concept % of Total ,4% ,4%

2 Count 1 1 4 7 7 4 3 2 3 32

% within learning 3,1% 3,1% 12,5% 21,9% 21,9% 12,5% 9,4% 6,3% 9,4% 100,0% success in the last year % within academic self- 20,0% 16,7% 25,0% 28,0% 17,1% 10,3% 8,8% 5,7% 10,0% 11,2% concept % of Total ,4% ,4% 1,4% 2,5% 2,5% 1,4% 1,1% ,7% 1,1% 11,2%

3 Count12 2 3 3 4 9 13 23 21 16 13 9 6 1 1 1 128

% within learning,1 1,6% 2,3% 2,3% 3,1% 7,0% 10,2% 18,0% 16,4% 12,5% 10,2% 7,0% 4,7% ,8% ,8% ,8% 100,0% success in the last year8, % within academic self-1%16 66,7% 60,0% 42,9% 66,7% 56,3% 52,0% 56,1% 53,8% 47,1% 37,1% 30,0% 27,3% 9,1% 25,0% 50,0% 44,9% concept00 % of Total,0,0 ,7% 1,1% 1,1% 1,4% 3,2% 4,6% 8,1% 7,4% 5,6% 4,6% 3,2% 2,1% ,4% ,4% ,4% 44,9% 47 4 Count % % 1 3 1 3 5 10 12 12 18 16 11 6 1 2 101

% within learning 1,0% 3,0% 1,0% 3,0% 5,0% 9,9% 11,9% 11,9% 17,8% 15,8% 10,9% 5,9% 1,0% 2,0% 100,0% success in the last year % within academic self- 33,3% 42,9% 16,7% 18,8% 20,0% 24,4% 30,8% 35,3% 51,4% 53,3% 50,0% 54,5% 25,0% 100,0% 35,4% concept

24 % of Total ,4% 1,1% ,4% 1,1% 1,8% 3,5% 4,2% 4,2% 6,3% 5,6% 3,9% 2,1% ,4% ,7% 35,4%

5 Count 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 5 4 2 1 23

% within learning 4,3% 4,3% 4,3% 8,7% 13,0% 4,3% 8,7% 21,7% 17,4% 8,7% 4,3% 100,0% success in the last year % within academic self- 20,0% 14,3% 2,4% 5,1% 8,8% 2,9% 6,7% 22,7% 36,4% 50,0% 50,0% 8,1% concept % of Total ,4% ,4% ,4% ,7% 1,1% ,4% ,7% 1,8% 1,4% ,7% ,4% 8,1%

Total Count12 3 5 7 6 16 25 41 39 34 35 30 22 11 4 2 2 285

% within learning,, 1,1% 1,8% 2,5% 2,1% 5,6% 8,8% 14,4% 13,7% 11,9% 12,3% 10,5% 7,7% 3,9% 1,4% ,7% ,7% 100,0% success in the last year47 % within academic self-1%1%100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% concept00 00

% of Total,, 1,1% 1,8% 2,5% 2,1% 5,6% 8,8% 14,4% 13,7% 11,9% 12,3% 10,5% 7,7% 3,9% 1,4% ,7% ,7% 100,0% 47 %%

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 96,649 68 ,013 Likelihood Ratio 92,979 68 ,024 Linear-by-Linear Association 32,395 1 ,000 N of Valid Cases 285

Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Phi ,582 ,013 Cramer's V ,291 ,013 Contingency Coefficient ,503 ,013 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,338 ,054 6,036 ,000 Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,381 ,053 6,929 ,000 N of Valid Cases 285 a Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

25 c Based on normal approximation.

26