Edited by:
Reviewed by:
*Correspondence:
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
The purposes of this study were to identify interpersonal value profiles and find out whether there were any differences in academic performance and social thinking. The study sample was 885 high school students of whom 49.8% (
Interpersonal values are convictions about a certain behavior model the individual has at a given time, and which is personally or in the view of society, is preferable to another mode of behavior (
Values are acquired in the family and educational environments, where the family provides the first experience for beginning construction of the individual’s identity and facilitates acquisition of a primary value structure (
In adolescence, the family context continues to influence shaping of the psychosocial connection, even though peer group contributions seem to be determinant. Results of some studies show that an adequate positive environment exerts a favorable effect on the development of the adolescent and his/her behavior (
Values are more abstract in women than in men, who give them a more egocentric and instrumental load. As they grow older, adolescents show preference for values more in harmony with terms of equality and dignity, and start opposing more egocentric values centered around “I,” or confrontation with others (
Since the 20th century, academic performance, specifically during the period of education before university, has been transformed into one of the major problems of industrialized cities, attracting the attention of both students and teachers (
In general, the school is an institution where children should be provided with all the resources necessary to become successfully integrated in their society (
Cognitive social strategies include skills, such as anticipation or observation, which the individual can use to confront the demands of the society he is immersed in (
Several studies have approached the association of values, attitudes, cognitive-social strategies, and the various ways in which they interrelate.
Isolation or social withdrawal is also directly associated with attention problems (
In view of the above, the final purpose of our work was to analyze the presence of differences in interpersonal value profiles on the social attitudes of the students, and for this we planned a series of specific goals: form groups characterized by different levels of the five interpersonal values, compare the differences among these groups with the academic performance of the students, and finally, find out to what extent these profiles show different values in the social thinking of high school students.
The sample was taken by random cluster sampling (
A total of 1,055 students in third and fourth year of high school were included in the sample, of whom 120 students (11.37%) who were not native Spaniards were disqualified because they could not understand the Spanish language well enough and did not finish the questionnaire in time, and another 50 students (4.74%) were disqualified because of errors or omissions, or not having attended one of the two sessions it was given in. The final sample was made up of 885 high school students of whom 49.8% (
Based on 90 items with two answer choices (YES–NO), the test measures six areas of students’ relationships with others: Stimulation (Being treated kindly, considerately, understandingly, and perceiving support from others), Conformity (following norms, doing what is socially correct, conforming and acting according to what is accepted and suitable), Recognition (Being recognized by others, admired and thought well of, attract positive attention), Independence (Doing and considering that it is your right to do whatever you want, deciding for yourself with your own criteria and being free), Benevolence (Being generous, helping others, and doing and sharing things with them), Leadership (Exert authority over the people under you in the performance of a position of command or power). The Cronbach’s alpha is from 0.78 to 0.89 (
It is developed by
Measured as a function of the items “Have you ever failed a subject?” and “Have you ever had to repeat a year?” with yes and no answer choices in both cases.
First, meetings were held with the directors and counselors at the schools selected to explain the purpose of our research, show them the instruments to be used and request their permission and cooperation to implement the study. After the parents had been informed in a meeting at which the researchers responsible were present, and their consent for participation by their children had been acquired, questionnaire administration was scheduled. The questionnaires were given in two 50-min sessions, with a rest period of variable length between them, separated by a class and a recreation period, or just recreation, but always over 20 min. The questionnaires were given in groups, voluntarily and anonymously in the classroom itself, or someplace else in the school if several classes took it together.
Since it was a large sample, quick cluster analysis (
When the groups had been formed, student distribution in the different groups by the failing and repeating variables was found using the Chi square test.
Apart from this, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done to find out the differences in social thinking among the groups, and the magnitude or effect size was found using eta square (η2). Where the differences were statistically significant, Scheffe
In the cluster analysis it was attempted to make each group as homogeneous as possible and the intergroup differences as large as possible, while also considering their theoretical fit. The results enabled three groups to be differentiated by level of the five interpersonal values analyzed (
Cluster 1 (
Cluster 2 (
Cluster 3 (
Profiles and prevalence of failing and repeating.
HS-LCL (G1) | HRL-LCB (G2) | HCB-RSLI (G3) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Failed | NO | Count | 65 | 25 | 61 |
% | 22.6% | 10.6% | 18.9% | ||
YES | Count | 223 | 211 | 262 | |
% | 77.4% | 89.4% | 81.1% | ||
Repeated | NO | Count | 217 | 144 | 223 |
% | 75.3% | 61.0% | 69.0% | ||
YES | Count | 71 | 92 | 100 | |
% | 24.7% | 39.0% | 31.0% |
That is, the highest percentages for both the failing and repeating variables are in the HRL-LCB Group with 89.4 and 39%, respectively. While the lowest prevalence is in the HS-LCL (high Stimulation and low Leadership and Conformity) Group with 77.4% of students who had failed and 24.7% who had repeated. Finally, the HCB-RSLI (high Conformity and Benevolence and low Stimulation and Recognition) Group has intermediate percentages of prevalence of students who failed (81.1%) and repeated (31%).
As seen in
Mean and SD found for the three groups, η2 and Scheffe test for each Social Thinking scale.
Social thinking | Cluster | DT | η2 | Scheffe | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cv | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 18.55 | 4.65 | 6.18 | 0.01 | 0.01 | | G1–G2|∗ | 0.22 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 19.75 | 4.44 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.21 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 18.46 | 4.81 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Imp | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 23.83 | 6.97 | 19.79 | 0.00 | 0.05 | | G1–G2|∗∗ | 0.39 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 26.69 | 6.58 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.38 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 23.02 | 7.32 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Ind | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 21.69 | 5.82 | 22.74 | 0.00 | 0.05 | | G1–G2|∗ | 0.42 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 23.05 | 5.36 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.41 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 19.73 | 6.23 | | G1–G3|∗∗ | 0.39 | ||||
Dem | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 21.20 | 6.32 | 1.97 | 0.14 | n.s. | | G1–G2| | n.s. |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 20.61 | 5.68 | | G2–G3| | n.s. | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 21.63 | 5.94 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Per | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 19.82 | 5.98 | 13.69 | 0.00 | 0.03 | | G1–G2|∗∗ | 0.33 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 21.85 | 5.82 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.32 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 19.25 | 6.07 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Hos | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 14.45 | 6.79 | 16.38 | 0.00 | 0.04 | | G1–G2|∗∗ | 0.36 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 16.53 | 6.45 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.35 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 13.37 | 6.18 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Obs | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 25.75 | 7.8 | 23.51 | 0.00 | 0.05 | | G1–G2|∗∗ | 0.43 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 29.33 | 7.37 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.42 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 24.90 | 8.14 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Alt | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 26.64 | 6.73 | 15.93 | 0.00 | 0.04 | | G1–G2|∗∗ | 0.35 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 29.55 | 7.28 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.34 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 26.46 | 6.96 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Cons | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 27.37 | 7.35 | 16.8 | 0.00 | 0.04 | | G1–G2|∗∗ | 0.36 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 29.99 | 7.69 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.35 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 26.27 | 7.74 | | G1–G3| | n.s. | ||||
Med | HS-LCL (G1) | 288 | 26.68 | 8.16 | 22.78 | 0.00 | 0.05 | | G1–G2|∗∗ | 0.42 |
HRL-LCB (G2) | 236 | 30.15 | 7.58 | | G2–G3|∗∗ | 0.41 | ||||
HCB-RSLI (G3) | 323 | 25.63 | 8.18 | | G1–G3| | n.s. |
Analysis of variance results show the existence of statistically significant differences in mean scores of the three groups in the following factors:
Finally, with respect to the “Field independence/dependence” factor, the ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in mean scores of the three groups [
The first specific goal of this study was to analyze the different combinations of interpersonal values and define the profiles characterized by the different levels of the five interpersonal values, for which the corresponding cluster analyses were done. Three different interpersonal value profiles were thus identified, each corresponding to different levels of student academic performance. We found one group was characterized by kindness, not exerting much authority and with little respect for the rules. A second group comprised of students who see themselves as recognized and admired by others, who exert authority, who do not respect the rules and are not very generous. This group, that is, subjects with low Benevolence and Conformity, show higher prevalence of failure and repeat the year more often. Thus the second specific goal of this study is met and the hypothesis that relates values like Benevolence, Conformity, and Stimulation with Academic Performance is reaffirmed (
Social competence, which is clearly a factor influencing the individual’s ability to become socially integrated (
It may be concluded that the common denominator of the two profiles, socially competent and incompetent, is Benevolence, that is, in the first profile we find generous individuals willing to help others, while in the second they are the opposite. So like other studies, and in agreement with the hypothesis posed, high levels of Benevolence are present in subjects with prosocial behavior (
We cannot end without suggesting that many factors influence social thinking of individuals, and that in addition to values, perhaps other variables which influence the aspects of social thinking evaluated, such as attention, (
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
This work is the result of Research Project P08-SEJ-04305, co-financed by the Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa (Council of Innovation, Science and Enterprise) of the Junta of Andalucía and FEDER.