Sex-Dependent Individual Differences and the Correlational Relationship Between Proprioceptive and Verbal Tests
Introduction. The aim of the study was to analyze the relationship between proprioceptive and verbal tests on personality in both sexes separately due to existing proprioceptive differences in fine motor behavior between men and women in our previous studies [1, 2, 3]. Material and methods. 114 middle-aged participants from Belarus completed verbal tests (personality: Eysenck's EPQ, Big Five in Hromov's Russian adaptation, and Rosenberg's Self-esteem) together with Proprioceptive Diagnostics of Temperament and Character (by Tous). Complementary information, such as tests of time perception, was collected and used in correlative and ANOVA analyses with the use of SPSS v.19. Results. The relationship between proprioceptive variables in personality and individual differences, time perception and the results of verbal tests were determined for each sex subgroup and discussed. ANOVA results reflected the corresponding differences and similarities between men and women in the variables of each test. Time perception was found to be significantly correlated to all five dimensions of the Big Five Test in both sexes, and both had a significant relationship to the same variables of the DP-TC test. Conclusions. Time perception can be used as an indirect indicator of personality. Existing individual and personality differences should be taken into account in coaching and education to obtain more effective results.
- 1. Gironell A., Liutsko L., Muinos R., Tous J.M. (2012). Differences based on fine motor behaviour in Parkinson's patients compared to an age matched control group in proprioceptive and visuo-proprioceptive test conditions. Anuario de Psicologia 42(2), 183-197.
- 2. Liutsko L. (2014). Age and sex differences in proprioception (fine motor precision). Scholars' Press.
- 3. Liutsko L., Tous J.M. (2014). Sex and cultural differences in proprioception based on fine motor performance. Perso- nality and Individual Differences 60(Supplement), S29. DOI: 10.1016/j paid. 2013.07.050.[Crossref]
- 4. Mira E. (1923). Somatic reactions of mental work. Doctoral thesis. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, [in Spanish]
- 5. Luria A.R. (1932). The nature of human conflicts. New York: Liveright Publishers.
- 6. Mira E. (1958). Myokinetic psychodiagnosis (M. K. P.). New York: Logos.
- 7. Tous Ral J.M., Muinos R., Tous Lopez O., Tous Rovirosa J.M. (2012). Proprioceptive diagnostics of temperament and character. Barcelona:UniversidaddeBarcelona. [inSpanish]
- 8. Liutsko L. (2013). Proprioception as a basis for individual differences. Psycholog}' in Russia: State of the Art 6(3), 107-119. DOI: 10.11621/pir.2013.0310.
- 9. Tous J.M. (2008). Propioceptive diagnosis of temperament and characterDP-TC. Barcelona: Lab. Mira y Lopez, Depart- ment of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treat- ments, University of Barcelona. DP-TC software, [in Spanish]
- 10. Liutsko L. (2012). The book review “Propioceptive diagnosis of temperament and character” (Tousetal. 2012). Anuario de Psicologia42(3), 421-422. [inSpanish]
- 11. Tous J.M., Viade A., Muinos R. (2007). Structural validity of lineograms of myokinetic psychodiagnosis, revised and digitalised (PMK-RD). Psicothema 19(2), 350-356. [in Spa- nish]
- 12. Muinos R. (2008). Miokinetic Psychodiagnosis: Development, description and confirmatory factorial analysis. Doctoral thesis, University of Barcelona, Barcelona. [inSpanish]
- 13. Liutsko L., Muinos R., Tous J. (2012). Relationship between emotional intelligence based on the proprioceptive information and academic performance in secondary school pupils, l" National Congress of Emocional Intelligence, 8-10 November 2012 (p. 30), Barcelona.
- 14. Liutsko L., Tous J.M. (2013). Quantitative and qualitative proprioceptive analysis of individual differences (description of Multiple sclerosis case study). Acta Neuropsychologica 11(3), 315-323. DOI: 10.5604/17307503.1084555.[Crossref]
- 15. Liutsko L., Tous J.M., Muinos R. (2012). The effects of proprioception on memory: a study of proprioceptive errors and results from the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure in a healthy population. Acta Neuropsychologica 10(4), 489-497. DOI: 10.5604/1730 75 03/103 02 08. [Crossref]
- 16. Liutsko L., Muinos R., Tous J.M. (2014). Age-related differences in proprioceptive and visuo-proprioceptive function in relation to fine motor behaviour. European Journal of Age- ing 11(3), 221-232. DOI: 10.1007/sl0433-013-0304-6.[Crossref]
- 17. Berezin F.B., Varric L.D., Gorelova E.S. (1976). Psychophysiological studies of migrant and indigenous population of the Far Northeast. Human adaptation to the conditions of the North. Petrozavodsk, [in Russian]
- 18. Miroshnikov M.P. (1963). Diagnostic meaning of psychomotricity and its study with use of miokinetic test. In L. Gissen (Ed.), Psycholog}'andpsychohigienein sport, C6., M. (pp. 15-32). [in Russian], 19. Ezhov S.N., Krivoshchekov S.G. (2004). Features of psycho- motor responses and interhemispheric relationships at various stages of adaptation to a new time zone. Human Physio- logy3Q(2), 172-175.
- 20. Draganova O.A. (2007). Psychopisiological markers of personal tolerance in adolescent period. Doctoral thesis, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, St. Petersburg, [in Rus- sian]
- 21. Tous J.M., Munos R., Liutsko L. (2014, in press). Personality differences of applicants for the gun license (proprioceptive and verbal tests). Los Anales de Psicologia 30(3). DOI: 10.6018/ analesps.30.3.171121.[Crossref]
- 22. Hromov A.B. (2000). The five-factor personality questionnaire. Manual. Kurgan: Kurgan State University, [in Russian]
- 23. Liutsko L., Tous-Ral J.M. (2012). Personality traits based on fine motor individual behaviour. In 4lh Russian Scientific Conference Psychology of Individuality, 22-24 November (p. 322), Moscow: Logos.
- 24. Sigmundsson II., Ilaga M., Hopkins B. (2007). Sex differences in perception: exploring the integration of sensory information with respect to vision and proprioception. Sex Roles 57,181-186.
- 25. Rosenbaum D.A. (2005). The Cinderella of psychology. The neglect of motor control in the science of mental life and behaviour. American Psychologist 60(4), 308-317. [Crossref]