1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Background of the Study

Sociability is at the core of social learning and

emotional well - being. It is the state of being sociable or

the person who is easily engaged to other people. Human beings

are sociable creatures and have developed many ways to

communicate their messages, thoughts and feelings with

others. There had been several studies about sociability over

the years.

(Northouse, 2007) defined that leaders who show

sociability are friendly, outgoing, courteous, tactful, and

diplomatic. They are sensitive to others’ needs and show

concern for their well - being. Social leaders have good

interpersonal skills and create cooperative relationships

with their followers.

(Horvath et al, 2011) in their study stated that

sociability is correlated positively with the examined brain

structures if they control the effects of body sizes,

differences and ages. These results suggest that the social

brain theory can be extended to human inter - individual

differences and they have some implications to personality

and psychology too.

 2

(Blakemore, 2008) revealed that the term “social brain”

refers to the network of brain regions that are involved in

understanding others. Behavior that is related to social

cognition changes dramatically during human adolescence. This

is paralleled by functional changes that occur in the social

brain during this time, in particular in the medial prefrontal

cortex and the superior temporal sulcus, which show altered

activity during the performance of social cognitive tasks,

such as face recognition and mental - state attribution.

Research also indicates that, in humans, these parts of the

social brain undergo structural development, including

synaptic reorganization, during adolescence. Bringing

together, two relatively new and rapidly expanding areas of

neuroscience — social neuroscience and the study of brain

development during adolescence — will increase our

understanding of how the social brain develops during

adolescence.

(Kazdin, 2000) said that personality refers to

individual differences in characteristic patterns of

thinking, feeling and behaving. The study of personality

focuses on two broad areas: First, is by understanding

individual differences in particular personality

characteristics, such as sociability or irritability. The

 3

other, is by understanding how the various parts of a person

come together as a whole.

The term personality has been defined in many ways, but

as a psychological concept two main meanings have evolved.

The first pertains to the consistent differences that exist

between people: in this sense, the study of personality

focuses on classifying and explaining relatively stable human

psychological characteristics. The second meaning emphasizes

those qualities that make all people alike and that

distinguish psychological man from other species; it directs

the personality theorist to search for those regularities

among all people that define the nature of man as well as the

factors that influence the course of lives.

This duality may help explain the two directions that

personality studies have taken: on one hand, the study of

ever more specific qualities in people, and, on the other,

the search for the organized totality of psychological

functions that emphasizes the interplay between organic and

psychological events within people and those social and

biological events that surround them. The dual definition of

personality is interwoven in most of the topics discussed

below. It should be emphasized, however, that no definition

of personality has found universal acceptance within the

field.
 4

(Holzman, 2000) elucidated the idea that people fall

into certain personality type categories in relation to

bodily characteristics has intrigued numerous modern

psychologists as well as their counterparts among the

ancients. The idea that people must fall into one or another

rigid personality class, however, has been largely dismissed.

Being able to identify personality types can help

everyone exert their influence, improve relationships,

communicate more effectively and achieve success in whatever

pursuit is in play, whether it’s getting their kids to pick

up their toys or motivating a sales team to reach a lofty

goal.

Los Angeles - based author and researcher Dario Nardi,

Ph.D., peers into the brain and maps explains what makes us

tick. He came face to face with these realizations as his

neuroscience research and training business began to grow.

“I’m not somebody who’s particularly gifted in anything

managerial,” Nardi says. “I am an introvert, and very much do

my own thing. Just to know that there are these different

types of people out there, and to not force everybody into

how I think, is a wonderful step. Listening to them, learning

the keywords that they use so I can effectively communicate

with them, is critical. It’s putting into practice all of the

 5

stuff that I think some people just come to naturally but a

lot of folks need to learn somewhere along the way.”

(Ostdick, 2015) stated that one expert in the field,

John D. Mayer, Ph.D., author and professor of psychology asked

that “Does it matter that we know other people’s

personalities?” He does think that it matters because each

and everyone has the zone of comfort and a zone of ability in

which he can engage. By knowing their own zones of comfort

and their own zones of challenges — what they are able and

not able to do — they can guide themselves. And then if they

know about the people around them, they can also help guide

themselves amidst those people.

The researchers experienced many things in life. They

have struggles in exploring themselves and they do not know

what characteristics they need to improve for them to be

better than who they are. The most common experience they had

was when entering in a new school that gives them a culture

shock because of the new ambiance and new faces they

encountered. It is hard to meet someone to become a friend

because it always depends on the personality that individual

has. The researchers become curious about the relationship

between the sociability level and the personality type of a

person. So, they decided to formulate a topic regarding this

study to answer the questions that bothered their minds.

 6

They aim to determine the relationship between the

sociability level and the personality type of the students,

including all the different factors that have an effect on

them. This research carefully takes into account the

variables that directly and indirectly influence change on

the student’s social life.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

People have long struggled to understand personality and

numerous theories have been developed to explain how

personality develops and how it influences behavior. One such

theory was proposed by a psychologist named Raymond Cattell.

He created a taxonomy of 16 different personality types that

could be used to describe and explain individual differences

between people's personalities.

Cattell's personality factors have been included in the

Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) that is

widely used today. It is used for career counseling in

education and vocational guidance. In business, it is used in

personnel selection, especially for choosing managers. It is

also used in clinical diagnosis and to plan therapy by

assessing anxiety, adjustment, and behavioral problems.

(Cattell, 1946) stated that there is a continuum of

personality traits. In other words, each person contains all

of these 16 traits to a certain degree, but they might be

 7

high in some traits and low in others. While all people have

some degree of abstractedness, for example, some people might

be very imaginative while others are very practical.

(Cooley, 1902) explained that a person’s self grows out

of society’s interpersonal interactions and the perceptions

of others. The term refers to people shaping themselves based

on other people’s perception, which leads people to reinforce

other people’s perspectives on themselves. People shape

themselves based on what other people perceive and confirm

other people’s opinion on themselves.

(Mead, 1934) developed a theory of social behaviorism to

explain how social experience develops an individual’s

personality. Mead’s central concept is the self: the part of

an individual’s personality composed of self-awareness and

self-image. Mead claimed that the self is not there at birth,

rather, it is developed with social experience.

 8

Grade 11 Students of
Roosevelt College
Incorporated – Rodriguez
Campus School Year 2017 -
2018

Sociability Level Personality Type

INFJ ENFJ
High Sociability (The Counselor) (The Giver)

INFP ENFP
Average Sociability (The Idealist) (The Champion)

INTJ ENTJ
Low Sociability (The Mastermind) (The Commander)

INTP ENTP
(The Thinker) (The Visionary)

ISFJ ESFJ
(The Nurturer) (The Provider)

ISFP ESFP
(The Composer) (The Performer)

ISTJ ESTJ
(The Inspector) (The Supervisor)

ISTP ESTP
(The Craftsman) (The Doer)

Figure 1. Model of Theoretical/Conceptual Framework of the

Study

This conceptual framework shows the relationship between

the sociability level and personality type of the selected

Grade 11 students.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the relationship between

the sociability level and the personality type of the selected

 9

Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College Incorporated -

Rodriguez Campus school year 2017 - 2018.

More specifically, it sought answer to the following

specific questions:

1. What is the sociability level of the selected Grade 11

students in Roosevelt College Incorporated – Rodriguez

Campus during the school year 2017 - 2018?

2. What is the personality type of the selected Grade 11

students in Roosevelt College Incorporated – Rodriguez

Campus during the school year 2017 - 2018?

3. Is there any significant relationship between the

sociability level and the personality type of the

selected Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College

Incorporated – Rodriguez Campus during the school year

2017 - 2018?

Hypothesis

The null hypothesis of the study is stated below:

There is no significant relationship between the

sociability level and the personality type of the selected

Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College Incorporated -

Rodriguez Campus.
 10

Significance of the Study

Personality type will hopefully develop a sociability

level of a student. The students will be enlightened more

about who they really are. They will also discover the

differences of each individual and can easily learn to engage

with other people. Besides, they can gain knowledge about the

experiences they get to this study because they will able to

have a greater understanding of their sociability and

personality states which give them a chance to improve

themselves. In school, the teachers are usually the second

parents. Through this study, the teachers will understand

their students more and encourage them to polish their

sociability level and personality type. They will learn how

and when they need to adjust things for the sake of their

students. Aside from that, they can also motivate them by

making some techniques and strategies in teaching to develop

the student’s personality. They can also discover to

themselves that they need to have a big amount of patience

because they can totally know that all of their students have

differences to each other. At home, the parents will be

informed and know the importance of their children’s nature,

thus giving them the ability to help them build and develop

their characters. They can also have an intimate relationship

 11

between them and their child. Further, they can be a role

model to their children to express and tell that our fellow

man is important for everyone, because there is a saying that

“no man is an island”. To the school administrators, they

will be aware of the differences of the student’s personality.

They can also recognize the potentials that every students

possess. Additionally, they can conduct different programs,

activities, meetings, and seminars regarding the developing

of one’s personality. Moreover, they can create a plan of

implementing clubs and organizations that may help and lead

the students to the right path in the future. The future

researchers can use this study as guide and reference in

conducting the same or related study. This will serve as

inspiration for them to make a reliable and good research

too.

Scope and Delimitation

This research focused on the relationship between the

sociability level and the personality type of the selected

Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College Incorporated -

Rodriguez Campus school year 2017 - 2018.

The respondents of the study were the selected grade 11

students of Roosevelt College Incorporated – Rodriguez Campus

school year 2017 - 2018. The simple random sampling technique

was utilized in selecting their respondents. Out of the three

 12

hundred twenty - eight (328) Grade 11 senior high school

students, ninety - eight (98) or thirty percent (30%) were

taken from each eight (8) sections of the eleventh year level.

Definition of Terms

The following terms used in this study are defined

operationally:

INFJ (The Counselor). The people who are introverted,

intuitive, feeling, and judging. They live in a world of

hidden meanings and possibilities. They are visionaries and

idealists who have creative imagination and brilliant ideas.

Mahatma Gandhi and Carl Jung, the founder of the 16

personality types, have this personality type.

INFP (The Idealist). The people who are introverted,

intuitive, feeling, and perceiving. They like spending time

alone themselves in quiet places and analyzing things around

them in hopes of looking for deeper meaning related to life.

William Shakespeare and J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry

Potter, have this personality type.

INTJ (The Mastermind). The people who are introverted,

intuitive, thinking, and judging. They are insightful and are

able to think of new ideas. That makes them good at planning

and making new strategies. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and

creator of the famous social media site Facebook, have this

personality type.
 13

INTP (The Thinker). The people who are introverted,

intuitive, thinking, and perceiving. They are usually very

independent, unconventional, and original. They have the most

logical – minded of all personality type. The 16th president

of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, and the smartest man

that ever lived, Albert Einstein, have this personality type.

ISFJ (The Nurturer). The people who are introverted,

sensing, feeling, and judging. They value harmony and

cooperation, and are likely to be very sensitive to other

people’s feelings and emotions. One famous person who has

this personality type is Mother Teresa.

ISFP (The Composer). The people who are introverted,

sensing, feeling, and perceiving. They like to experiment and

come up with new ideas that are unique and different from

others. Famous artists Rihanna and Michael Jackson have this

personality type.

ISTJ (The Inspector). The people who are introverted,

sensing, thinking, and judging. They are rational thinkers

who value truth and fact in great regard. They are serious,

formal, and proper. The first president of the United States,

George Washington, have this personality type.

ISTP (The Craftsman). The people who are introverted,

sensing, thinking, and perceiving. They are mysterious people

who are good at analyzing logical things and deconstructing

 14

them to figure out how they work. Steve Jobs, Chief Executive

Officer and Co-founder of Apple Inc. have this personality

type.

ENFJ (The Giver). The people who are extraverted,

intuitive, feeling, and judging. They are able to relate with

others with regard to their background and personality. Pope

John Paul II and Oprah Winfrey have this personality type.

ENFP (The Champion). The people who are extraverted,

intuitive, feeling, and perceiving. They are opportunistic

and mostly tries to set themselves from other people. They

refuse to be forced to live inside the box. Walt Disney, the

owner and founder of Disney, have this personality type.

ENTJ (The Commander). The people who are extraverted,

intuitive, thinking and judging. They are natural born

leaders and they live in a world of possibilities to see

challenges and obstacles as great opportunities to push

themselves. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft Corp., have

this personality type.

ENTP (The Visionary). The people who are extraverted,

intuitive, thinking, and perceiving. They have the ability to

discuss theories and facts in extensive detail. Leonardo da

Vinci and Barack Obama have this personality type.

ESFJ (The Provider). The people who are extraverted,

sensing, feeling, and judging. They are the stereotypical

 15

extroverts who lives to interact with other people which

easily makes them popular. They like being the center of

attention, but they also like listening to what other people

say. Mariah Carey and Prince William have this personality

type.

ESFP (The Performer). The people who are extraverted,

sensing, feeling and perceiving. They are commonly seen as

Entertainers. ESFPs are thoughtful explorers who love

learning and sharing knowledge with others. Hillary Clinton

and Leonardo De Caprio have this personality type.

ESTJ (The Supervisor). The people who extraverted,

sensing, thinking, and judging. They are very organized,

honest, dedicated, dignified, traditional, and firmly stand

to their beliefs. One famous person who has this personality

type is Michelle Obama.

ESTP (The Doer). The people who are extraverted,

sensing, thinking, and perceiving. They have the longing for

finding people to talk to and share their feelings along with

their need of freedom. Famous actress Angelina Jolie and

president of United States Donald Trump have this personality

type.

High Sociability Level. It is a sociability level of a

person that has the desire to be with others most of the time
 16

and tend to be more comfortable being socially than being

alone.

Average Sociability Level. It is the sociability level

of a person that enjoys being with other people and can

socially mingle with them as much as other people. At the

same time, they prepared also like being alone and having

space for themselves once in a while, making them balanced

from being socially active and being alone.

Low Sociability Level. It is the sociability level of a

person that enjoys being alone than being socially active.

They are the quiet and shy type of person.

Personality Type. The specific type of personality a

certain person has. They can be classified in a single type

of personality and they generally differ from the opposite of

it based on their shown traits.

Sociability Level. It is the level of a person’s

capability of being sociable. This refers to the ability of

interacting from their disposition to their quality of

conversing.
 17

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter shows the related literature and studies

read by the researchers and are hereby stated.

Related Literature

(Stahl, 2017) writes about Myers - Briggs personality

types previously, but she felt the topic was worthy of a

deeper dive. She also stated that the theory behind Myers -

Briggs is that behaviors which seem to be random are actually

quite predictable based upon the perceptions and judgements.

There are 16 different personality types, which are

determined by an individual’s preferences in four different

categories, as follows: Preference for a focus on the inner

world (Introversion, “I”), or the outer world (Extroversion,

“E”); Focus on basic information as it’s taken in (Sensing,

“S”), or on interpreting and adding meaning to the information

(Intuition, “N); Preference for logic in decision - making

(Thinking, “T), or on people and special circumstances

(Feeling, “F”); and finally; Preference for getting things

decided (Judging, “J”), or being open to new information

(Perceiving, “P”). HINT: The J's love making plans; the P's

love spontaneity and an open calendar. So each letter

represents the preference in each category, totaling 16

 18

distinct personality types based upon preference in each

category. In particular, knowing your personality type can

give you a great deal of insight into the best career path

for you. Here is an overview of the 16 different personality

types and the career implications for each type.

ISTJ - People with this personality type are practical,

factual, organized, and logical. They’re great problem -

solvers who thrive in careers that are heavy with facts,

numbers, and data. They make excellent accountants,

engineers, air traffic controllers, and security guards.

ISFJ - ISFJ’s are warm and sympathetic, but also

detailed, organized, and thorough. They are natural

protectors, so they tend to thrive as health care

professionals or working with children, but because they are

so detail - oriented, they also do well in positions that

work closely with money, like bookkeeping.

INFJ - Sensitive, creative, and intense. They thrive

with language and symbols. They long for meaning in their

careers, and because they are adept at reading people, they

do best in the arts, medicine, education, and science.

INTJ - Decisive, innovative, insightful, and logical.

They’re able to apply their big - picture thinking along with

their problem - solving skills, which makes them best - suited

 19

for work in very technical careers like architecture,

science, and engineering.

ISTP - People with this personality type are very hands

- on and are analytical, practical, and exacting. They

are natural troubleshooters and problem-solvers, so they do

very well in careers with computers, electronics, and

technology, but they also thrive in the outdoors so are well

- suited for farming and ranching as well.

ISFP - This personality type is gentle, adaptable,

observant, and loyal. They’re sympathetic and reflective and

love to help others, so they are natural born teachers,

nurses, and coaches.

INFP - INFP’s are creative, empathic, and inquisitive.

They’re natural helpers and are deeply caring. They tend to

have excellent communication skills, so they make great

writers, and they thrive in other artistic positions as well

such as musicians, graphic designers, and in language arts.

INTP - Individuals with this personality type

are intellectually curious but also analytical, objective,

and conceptual. They thrive as architects and engineers, as

well as in various scientific fields and in construction.

ESTP - Smart and energetic, they make great

entrepreneurs. They’re realistic, analytical, and efficient.

They have solid people skills, so they’re awesome in sales,

 20

and they’re best - suited for careers that don’t require a

lot of routine.

ESFP - Energetic, caring, resourceful, and

adaptable. Hands - on. They’re enthusiastic and seek

excitement, so they make fantastic performers. They thrive

when helping others and working closely with people, so ideal

career paths include hospitality, health care professionals,

and food service.

ENFP - Individuals with this personality type

are imaginative, creative, insightful, and caring. They’re

very service - oriented and have great communication skills.

They do best in careers where they are helping others and/or

being creative, so they’re great as counselors, fitness

trainers, and therapists, as well as artists, actors,

dancers, and musicians.

ENTP - This personality type tends to be energetic,

analytical, enthusiastic, and theoretical. They are adept at

solving problems creatively. Because they work so well with

others, they make great leaders. They thrive as executives

and can function well in a variety of different fields,

including business, the arts, and even sports and media.

ESTJ - People with this personality type are logical,

assertive, decisive, and results - oriented. They’re critical

and tend to take charge, so they’re natural - born leaders.

 21

They make excellent executives and are diverse enough to be

successful in a wide variety of industries.

ESFJ - ESFJ’s are sociable, caring, and very people -

oriented. They’re most successful in roles that enable

them to serve others and fulfill their needs — nurses,

doctors, childcare workers, and teachers, to name a few.

ENFJ - ENFJ’s are passionate and charismatic.

They’re sociable, warm, empathetic, and imaginative. Born

leaders, they have strong humanitarian values and do best in

positions that allow them to help and support others. They’re

great communicators and enjoy working with people, so they

are great teachers and counselors, but they also thrive in

the arts.

ENTJ - Individuals with this personality type

are organized, critical, and logical. Organizers and

planners, they’re strong leaders and very career - driven, so

they thrive in the corporate world. They’re exceptionally

hard workers and do very well in the following industries:

legal, engineering, scientific, sports, and even the arts.

Regardless of your own specific personality type, having

some insight into your tendencies and what type of role and

environment best suits you can certainly help guide you

professionally, especially if you’re at a crossroads in your

career. Not everyone is suited for working with detailed

 22

spreadsheets, in the same way that not all people need to

express themselves creatively through their work. Some

individuals thrive when working closely with people, but

others work best independently. Embracing our diversity and

acknowledging the differences in us all can help use those

differences to our advantage, to find the best fits for us

professionally, and be our best and most productive selves.

(Thorton, 2017) states that with their talented and

committed therapists, Bobby, Eve, Sara, Carly, and Jessica,

along with actor Dave, and their clients, new and old, have

been working hard toward growth and success. With the hustle

and bustle of the holidays upon us, they would like to share

a few highlights from the Fall groups.

M a l e t e e n s s o c i a l g r o u p - Eve, Bobby, and Dave's group

has been targeting three specific areas critical to effective

social skills. The teens improved their ability to remain

engaged and to demonstrate it through active listening. They

have also improved their ability to use complex language

during conversations with peers as well as utilize full body

listening to improve the quality of their relationships. They

are learning to mirror the emotional tone of their

communication partners in order to become better perspective

takers and incorporate mindfulness. The teens have enjoyed

 23

the group, developed trusting relationships with peers and

worked hard to make progress over the semester.

T e e n g i r l s - Jessica and Nicole have been working with

the girls on building interpersonal skills and deepening and

maintaining friendships. They are heavily engaged in improve,

role play, and giving and receiving feedback. Their progress

to date has been wonderful.

8 - 1 0 y e a r s o l d g r o u p - Carly and Dave continue to

work on the fundamentals of social thinking, such as, how to

follow a group plan, and how to be curious about your friends

and remember facts that are important to them.

Tween b o y s - Bobby and Dave's group has focused on

core foundational elements of social information

processing. The boys are learning to establish physical

presence in a group while thinking about the group with their

whole bodies to indicate interest and attention all while

interpreting the language and behavior of others to

understand their perspective and respond. The boys have

developed a comfortable, trusting community where they

practice skills through coaching, improve, watching and

analyzing video, and hands on activities. They are also

beginning to practice calming, mindful activities, like yoga

and quiet reflection to promote their regulation and develop

their coping tools repertoire.

 24

Chicago teen b o y s - Eve, Nicole, and Dave's group

worked to improve the basics of social cognition. They focused

on the basics, such as how to stay in the group, how to self

- regulate, and how to improve their conversational skills

and practice perspective taking abilities. The boys developed

positive relationships with one another and gained skills

over the semester.

High s c h o o l - The teens are working on perspective

taking and team work through various improve games including

mine field and one - word sentence. Additionally, the group

is working on reading social cues in order to join a group

conversation and reading and utilizing appropriate non -

verbal in conversations.

C o l l e g e - Sara and Dave's group is working on the challenges

of navigating next steps in becoming an adult (taking college

classes, working at first time jobs, etc.). They are also

working on fulfilling their social goals outside of group and

expressing emotions.

Y o u n g a d u l t s - Sara's young adults are talking about

the challenges of living with their parents, struggling to

finish college, and working at a job that is less than ideal.

They are practicing social communication skills by engaging

in role - plays and incorporating improvisational elements.

 25

(Tan, 2015) explained that with commencement exercises

just around the corner for most colleges and universities in

the country, his seeing mounting anxiety among the graduates

- to - be, and their parents, about looking for a job. That

includes preparing resumes and CVs, and looking for tips on

how to conduct oneself during a job interview.

Unfortunately, there are no surefire formulas or recipes

for landing a job because different jobs have different

requirements. If you want to go into a job related to

marketing, the employers will want someone more aggressive

and persistent, compared to, say, a science research

laboratory, where you want people who talk less, think and do

more.

Smooth talk, power dressing and a slick resume can get

you a job, but it does not guarantee that you will keep the

job. Eventually, the lack of fit — in Filipino, “hiyang” —

will mean the employee leaving, on his or her own volition

or, alas, by being fired. He had just come from a workshop on

academic leadership organized by the University of the

Philippines for its faculty, and one thing I noticed, from

several of the speakers—Singaporean, American, Filipino —

were references to the need for universities to impart social

skills to our students.

 26

Early childhood - The World Bank report on

competitiveness talks about how the development of social and

behavioral skills need to start in early childhood because

these skills become a platform for the child to develop

cognitive and technical skills. A child who is open to new

experiences, for example, is more likely to be creative, to

be inquisitive.

There is irony, though, in the way early childhood

education runs risks of stunting a child’s social and

behavioral skills. Unfortunately, some parents push too hard

about their children acquiring cognitive and technical skills

as early as in nursery. A recent Dutch work, headed by Eddie

Brummelman and published in the Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science last month, found that parents who

overvalue their child — boasting that their child knows almost

everything — run higher risks of developing a narcissist

because kids pick up these inflated views. The study was

cleverly designed: Parents were asked if their children knew

about certain “facts,” which included such bogus items as a

“Beijing Revolution.” Overrating parents would answer “yes”

even to these items. That study was conducted because of an

observation that narcissism has been increasing among Western

youth. But he can see how we may be moving in that direction

as well, even as we tackle an older problem of children who

 27

have low self - esteem. Traditional child - rearing in the

Philippines tends to put down kids — for example, other people

are told, in front of the child, that this particular one is

not good in school or, more brutally, “bobo.” That creates a

problem of low self - esteem that will affect the child all

throughout school, and into his or her career. The converse

is also dangerous: A child who is raised to believe that he

or she is smarter than everyone else. The trend has been to

encourage children, so well captured by praise like “Good

job!” But overdoing this can also be counterproductive,

especially if it comes from a parent who is convinced that

the child is the smartest kid in the universe. The adverse

consequences can be lifelong: Narcissists tending to believe

that the world owes them the best. When they don’t get what

they want, they fight, they demand. Good for you if you are

independently wealthy and can afford to start your own

business, but generally, even if you are exceptional,

employers and work colleagues are not about to tolerate your

belligerence. Narcissists can actually get jobs easily

because the initial impression they give is one of

intelligence and self -confidence. But once they start work,

they can become what management people call “emotional

vampires,” sapping an office or organization of “blood”

because they’re always putting down other people, and

 28

demanding more for themselves. Social skills need to be

instilled early in life, at home and in school. Some private

schools even devote special attention to students who may

have been born with problems like Asperger’s syndrome, and

whose inability to read people’s emotions can lead to social

awkwardness and an impression that they are narcissistic. At

the university level, there can still be a reversal of

problems of low self -esteem, through nurturing professors

who help students to discover and develop their strengths. It

can be more difficult to reverse narcissism; in fact, students

might still be able to make it through, even with honors, but

will find it tough once they go out into the world.

Related Studies

(Allport et al, 2017) stated that as differences of

personality are of a qualitative rather than a quantitative

sort and difficult to measure, the author's aim is personality

study and description rather than personality testing.

Problems arising from the interaction of personalities are

social problems, and personality measurements aim at

readjustments, beneficial both to society and the individual.

An effort has been made to consider only "those fundamental

and pervasive tendencies which constitute the main currents

of human personality" rather than superficial traits, such as

tactfulness, which can be referred to more fundamental

 29

traits. A tentative outline of such tendencies falls into

four main divisions; first, intelligence, which determines

the quality and success of an individual's general

adjustments; second, temperament, as judged by emotional

breadth and emotional strength; third, self - expression or

strength, terms which are used to include such traits as

extro-version or intro-version, ascendance or submission,

expansion or seclusion, compensation, insight and self -

evaluation; fourth, sociality, comprising social

participation, self - seeking, and susceptibility to social

stimuli. Possibly the above traits "form the needed basis of

sociability, habit formation and character." When traits are

rated or, if possible, tested, they can be plotted in

graphical form, giving a refined impression of the individual

which facilitates intelligent treatment.

(Asendorpf et al, 2016) revealed that speech and heart

rate were continuously monitored during 7 days from morning

to evening in 41 Grade 2 children selected for high or low

parental judgments of sociability and shyness. Ss attended

school in the mornings and were free in the afternoons; the

child's social situations in the afternoon were reconstructed

with the child and a caretaker. During the afternoons sociable

Ss spent more time in conversations than unsociable Ss, but

the groups did not differ in their verbal participation within

 30

conversations. Shy Ss spent as much time in conversations and

spoke as much in familiar situations as nonshy children but

spoke less in moderately unfamiliar situations. Neither

sociability nor shyness had an effect on heart rate

reactivity. The results show that sociability affects the

exposure, and shyness the reactivity, to situations and that

these traits are clearly distinct despite some similarity in

lay judgments of personality.

(Scholte et al, 2005) suggested that the three

personality types: resilient, over controllers, and under

controllers exist. In this article, we searched for subtypes

within each of the three main personality types. Using cluster

analysis on the Big Five personality self - descriptions of

3,284 Dutch adolescent boys and girls, we distinguished

communal and agentic resilient, vulnerable and achieving over

controllers, and impulsive and oppositional under

controllers. About two - thirds of the communal resilient and

vulnerable over controllers were girls; agentic resilient and

oppositional under controllers were mainly boys. The

personality subtypes were further validated on a

comprehensive set of self - and peer - reported adjustment

measures, including perceived relational support,

psychological well - being, delinquency, bullying

involvement, peer acceptance and rejection, and peer -

 31

reported behavior. The personality subtypes were associated

with very distinctive adjustment patterns.

(Sheeks et al, 2007) said that Computer - mediated

communication (CMC) offers its users a reduced - cues

environment, a chosen degree of identifiability to others,

and a forum to express facets of one's self. Previous research

suggests CMC is more appealing than traditional forms of

communication to certain individuals whose desires to be

sociable with others are prohibited by social inhibitions.

The present study predicted that individuals who indicated

higher levels of both shyness and sociability would be able

to express their true - selves to a greater extent online.

Their relationships online would grow more quickly and be

more satisfying relative to others. The pattern of results

supports our hypotheses, except for the predicted

relationship between true self - expression and CMC use.

Suggestions for future research as well as implications for

the application of CMC use in therapy for certain populations

are addressed.

(Eisenberg et al, 2016) stated that the relations of

shyness and low sociability (i.e., the no fearful preference

to be alone) to measures of regulation and emotionality were

examined. College students and (for some variables) friends

reported on their relevant dispositional characteristics. In

 32

general, shyness was associated with low regulation and high

negative emotionality (including intensity, negative

affectivity, and personal distress), low positive affect, and

low constructive coping. In contrast, low sociability was

unrelated to negative emotionality; associated with low

positive emotional intensity, low physiological reactivity,

and high inhibition control; and correlated with low seeking

of social support as a means of coping. The findings are

considered within a heuristic model in which emotional

reactivity and regulation are proposed as predictors of

social responding.

(Thompson, 2015) explained that the relationships

between stranger sociability, temperament, and social

experience were examined in a short - term longitudinal

investigation. At 12 1/2 and 19 1/2 months, sociability was

assessed using a brief procedure based on that of Stevenson

and Lamb . After each assessment, mothers completed a

questionnaire concerning caregiving arrangements and family

circumstances which included the Infant Behavior

Questionnaire (Rothbart, 1981), which is a measure of infant

temperament. At 19 1/2 months, temperament measures for

fearfulness, distress to limitations, smiling and laughter,

and activity level were related to stranger sociability.

There were fewer significant correlations between sociability

 33

and temperament at 12 1/2 months, and few relationships

between sociability and social experience variables at either

age. However, changes in family circumstances, especially

those involving changes in parental employment status, were

associated with lower sociability scores at 19 1/2 months. At

each age, sociability scores correlated negatively with the

temperament dimension of fearfulness. Measures of both

sociability and temperament showed significant stability over

the 7 - month period.

(Cohen et al, 2003) stated that there is considerable

evidence that social relationships can influence health, but

only limited evidence on the health effects of the personality

characteristics that are thought to mold people's social

lives. We asked whether sociability predicts resistance to

infectious disease and whether this relationship is

attributed to the quality and quantity of social interactions

and relationships. Three hundred thirty - four volunteers

completed questionnaires assessing their sociability, social

networks, and social supports, and six evening interviews

assessing daily interactions. They were subsequently exposed

to a virus that causes a common cold and monitored to see who

developed verifiable illness. Increased sociability was

associated in a linear fashion with a decreased probability

of developing a cold. Although sociability was associated

 34

with more and higher - quality social interactions, it

predicted disease susceptibility independently of these

variables. The association between sociability and disease

was also independent of baseline immunity (virus-specific

antibody), demographics, emotional styles, stress hormones,

and health practices.

(Manea, 2013) explained that their research is focused

to confirm the fact that the practice of democratic –

participative management at the level of the educational

entity and the transfer of the managerial style at the micro

– pedagogic level of the relationship professor – classroom,

due to the secured socio- emotional climate established and

also to the increased frequency of the situations in which

students had the possibility to participate in informal

activities thus widening the sphere of social interactions,

leads to the generation of visible beneficial effects also in

what concerns the students’ degree of sociability, this being

a basic formative priority for persons manifesting special

educational requirements.

(Nie, 2001) stated that during the course of the past

year, at least four different academic surveys have been

conducted, each focusing to some extent on the impact of

Internet use on the quantity and quality of interpersonal

communication and sociability. Remarkably, these studies

 35

arrive at starkly different conclusions regarding the social

repercussions of Internet use. At the heart of this debate is

whether Internet use can be a potentially isolating activity

or one that leads to substantially greater communication

among people and thus enhances human connectivity and

sociability. Based on an analysis of these studies' key

findings and methodological approaches, this article attempts

to understand the role of the Internet in shaping our

interpersonal relations. The key findings suggest that

Internet users do not become more sociable; rather, they

already display a higher degree of social connectivity and

participation, due to the fact that they are better educated,

better off financially, and less likely to be among the

elderly. And simply because of the inelasticity of time,

Internet use may actually reduce interpersonal interaction

and communication.

(AFP, 2017) suggested that boosting the frequency and

quality of social interactions could help stave off the

negative effects that stress and loneliness can have on

physical and mental health. An individual’s social skills are

acquired all through life, built up from childhood. Social

skills include, for example, the ability to communicate

easily and appropriately with other people, the ability to

provide emotional support to others, the ability to manage

 36

disagreements and stand up to unreasonable requests from

others. These skills could play a beneficial role in our

physical and mental health, according to a study from

researchers at the University of Arizona in the United States.

Researchers surveyed a representative sample of the

American population, comprising 775 adults aged 18 to 91 years

old. They were asked to respond to questions designed to

gather information about their social skills, stress levels

and loneliness, as well as their physical and mental health.

The results showed that people with deficits in the various

social skills reported greater stress, more loneliness, and

were in poorer physical and mental health.

The study also pointed out the negative effects of social

networks and screen time, especially among children and young

people. Taking refuge in virtual means of communication could

lead them to become timid and less able to handle face-to-

face exchanges.

Fearing a major public health problem, the study authors

recommend that parents ensure their children are exposed to

situations where they have to interact in person with others,

such as sports clubs or a summer camps. The researchers now

plan to study other ways in which social skills may impact

health, notably among people living with chronic illness.

 37

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Methods of Research

This chapter presents the methods of research used by

the researchers to determine the significant relationship

between the sociability level and the personality type of the

selected grade 11 students in Roosevelt College Incorporated

- Rodriguez Campus school year 2017 - 2018.

The researchers used the descriptive method of research.

According to Calderon (2008), “descriptive method is also

known as Statistical Research, it describes data and

characteristics about the population or phenomenon being

studied”. The researchers used a descriptive method of

research to assess information about prevailing situations.

Locale of the Study

This study was conducted at Roosevelt College

Incorporated - Rodriguez Campus, one of the members of FEU

Group of Schools, a private non - sectarian institution of

learning which offers secondary courses. Roosevelt College

Incorporated – Rodriguez Campus is located at Lardizabal

Street, Manggahan, Rodriguez, Rizal. It was established on

the year 1962, with the help and cooperation of the Board of

Trustees and its Administration. The said school is

implementing a consolidated vision of resiliency,

 38

compentency, and intergrity to provide high quality of

education towards academic excellence. The school also has a

broad campus with facilities equipment that encourage

students to study in an up - to date and space - age way. In

the first floor; you can find there the Directress Office,

Supervisor’s Office, Registrar’s Office, Finance Office,

Clinic, and 3 Computer Rooms, while the Science Laboratory,

Biology Room and Audio Visual Room have been used as

alternative classrooms for Grade 12 Senior high school

students. There are three faculty rooms for teachers. First,

is for Female Faculty of Junior high school teachers located

at the second floor. Second, is for the Male Faculty of Junior

high school teachers located at the third floor and third,

the combined faculty room for Male and Female Senior high

school teachers can be found at the third floor. Lastly, you

can find GENYO Laboratory at the third floor to provide

advance way of teaching. The school is under the supervision

of the campus head, Mrs. Carmencita V. Alacantara and her

assistant principal, Mrs. Leonila M. Santos. They both

assisted by Mrs. Carolyn B. Santiago, Guidance Counselor,

Mrs. Elsa M. Martinez, Registrar, Mrs. Imelda E. Cruz, Finance

Officer, Mrs. Corazon T. Ignacio, Librarian, Mr. Rommel A.

Vega, Property Custodian, Mr. Gabriel V. Mondala, School

Physician and Dr. Marnie E. Jose, School Dentist. The school

 39

was granted by the Philippine Accrediting Association for

Schools Colleges and Universities (PAASCU) in the accordance

of the department of education for having satisfactory

standards and fulfilled all the requirements of a quality

educational institution of Level II status. The school is on

its journey for Level III status.

Respondents of the Study

The researchers used 98 out of 328 students as

respondents which is thirty percent (30%) of the total

population of the Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College

Incorporated – Rodriguez Campus School Year 2017 - 2018. The

researchers selected their respondents through simple random

sampling technique using lottery method, so that every

student has the chance to be chosen.

Research Instruments

The researchers used two validated questionnaires to

determine the relationship between the sociability level of

the students and their personality type. First, the

Sociability Test Questionnaire that the researchers used was

developed by Goldberg, et al., consists of forty (40) items

and it was evaluated as (5) Very Inaccurate, (4) Moderately

Inaccurate, (3) Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate, (2)

Moderately Accurate, and (1) Very Accurate. Second, the

 40

Personality Test Questionnaire was made by C. Jung and I.

Briggs Myers consists of sixty - four (64) items and it was

evaluated as (5) Strongly Agree, (4) Agree, (3) Uncertain,

(2) Disagree, and (1) Strongly Disagree. The researchers

prepared ninety - eight (98) printed copies of the Sociability

Test Questionnaires and Personality Test Questionnaires.

After that, the list of the students from 11 ABM-A, ABM-B,

STEM-A, STEM-B, STEM-C, STEM-D, HUMMS, and TECH-VOC were

asked from the registrar office through the help of the school

registrar. To choose the respondents for the study, simple

random sampling technique, specifically the lottery method

was used and the selected respondents answered the two test

questionnaires in different days. The researchers encoded the

answers through online and automatically got the results of

each respondent’s personality type and sociability level.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers first formulated a problem for their

research work and sought the approval of the campus head,

Mrs. Carmencita V. Alcantara and the assistant principal,

Mrs. Leonila M. Santos, in order for them to conduct a study

on “The Relationship between the Sociability Level and the

Personality Type of the selected Grade 11 students in

Roosevelt College Incorporated – Rodriguez Campus School Year

 41

2017 - 2018”. They started their work by asking the advice

and guidance of Mrs. Bella V. Carreon, their research teacher

and Mrs. Marife D. Baliwas, their research adviser. Then,

they sought also the advice of Mr. Felipe A. Mallabo about

his ideas on this topic and consulted him about the test

questionnaire that the researchers will be used. After that,

they asked the total population of the Grade 11 students from

the registrar office and used the simple random sampling

technique to select the respondents for their study. 98 out

of 328 respondents were chosen from eight sections. The

researchers prepared and disseminated two types of

questionnaires: Sociability test questionnaire and

Personality test questionnaire. They told their respondents

to answer the test questionnaires seriously and told them

that the data collected would be the results of their

sociability level and personality type. The researchers

computed for the information they needed and finally, the

data gathered were analyzed and interpreted for better

understanding.
 42

Statistical Tools/Treatment of Data

To determine the results of the data gathered, the

following statistical tools were used:

Frequency – The condition of occurring frequently.

Percentage – A rate or proportion per hundred.

f
%= ∗ 100
n
Where:

f = frequency of the group

n = total frequency

Chi Square (x 2 ) - Two variables and Data are categorized.

(row total)(column total)

fe =
grand total

2
(fo − fe)2
x = ∑[ ]
fe

Where:

x 2 = Chi square

fo = original frequency

fe = expected frequency
 43

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with the data gathered and are hereby

presented for the result and interpretation.

Table 1
Frequency Distribution of the Sociability Level of the
Selected Grade 11 Students

Sociability Level F %

High 5 5.10

Average 85 86.73

Low 8 8.16

Total 98 100

The table 1 presented the frequency distribution of the

sociability level of the selected Grade 11 students. It showed

that out of ninety - eight (98) respondents, there were only

five (5) who gained a high sociability level. Eighty - five

(85) of them had an average sociability level, and the

remaining eight (8) respondents got the sociability level of

low. It implied that approximately 87% of the respondents

have an average sociability level, which means that most of

the students enjoy being with other people and can socially

mingle with them as much as other people. At the same time,

they prepared also like being alone and having space for
 44

themselves once in a while, making them balanced from being

socially active and being alone.

Table 2
Frequency Distribution of Personality Type of the Selected
Grade 11 – Students

Personality Type F %
ENFJ (The Giver) 12 12.24
ENFP (The Champion) 9 9.18
ENTJ (The Commander) 3 3.06
ENTP (The Visionary) 1 1.02
ESFJ (The Provider) 20 20.41
ESFP (The Performer) 11 11.22
ESTJ (The Supervisor) 4 4.08
ESTP (The Doer) 3 3.06
INFJ (The Counselor) 4 4.08
INFP (The Idealist) 5 5.10
INTJ (The Mastermind) 8 8.16
INTP (The Thinker) 1 1.02
ISFJ (The Nurturer) 6 6.12
ISFP (The Composer) 6 6.12
ISTJ (The Inspector) 1 1.02
ISTP (The Craftsman) 4 4.08
Total 98 100

The table 2 exhibited the frequency distribution of the

personality type of the selected Grade 11 students. Among the

ninety - eight (98) respondents, majority of them with a

frequency of 20, had a personality type of Extraverted,

Sensing, Feeling, and Judging (ESFJ) or The Provider and there

were unique students, one (1) each with a personality type of

Extraverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Perceiving (ENTP) or The

Visionary, Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Perceiving

(INTP) or The Thinker, and Introverted, Sensing, Thinking and

 45

Judging (ISTJ) or The Inspector, while there are twelve (12)

students who had a personality of Extraverted, Intuitive,

Feeling and Judging (ENFJ) or The Giver and eleven (11)

students who had a ESFP personality type or The Performer. It

implied that the Grade 11 students who got the most number of

frequency in ESFJ type, also known as The Provider, are good

in interacting with other people which makes them popular.

They like being the center of attention, but they also like

listening to what other people say. They are also natural

leaders which makes it easier for people to socialize and

follow them. Although they are vulnerable to criticisms and

tend to be defensive when someone close to them is hurt, they

strive to avoid conflict and seek harmony which makes them

likable.
 46

Table 3
Significant Relationship Between the Sociability Level and
the Personality Type of the Selected Grade 11 Students

Personality Type Sociability Level Total

High Average Low
ENFJ (The Giver) 0 12 0 12
ENFP (The Champion) 1 8 0 9
ENTJ (The Commander) 1 2 0 3
ENTP (The Visionary) 0 1 0 1
ESFJ (The Provider) 0 20 0 20
ESFP (The Performer) 2 8 1 11
ESTJ (The Supervisor) 0 4 0 4
ESTP (The Doer) 0 3 0 3
INFJ (The Counselor) 0 4 0 4
INFP (The Idealist) 0 4 1 5
INTJ (The Mastermind) 1 5 2 8
INTP (The Thinker) 0 1 0 1
ISFJ (The Nurturer) 0 5 1 6
ISFP (The Composer) 0 6 0 6
ISTJ (The Inspector) 0 1 0 1
ISTP (The Craftsman) 0 1 3 4
Total 5 85 8 98
(Computed Value)x 2 = 48.20
(Critical Value) x 2 (30,0.05) = 43.77
Decision: The null hypothesis is rejected.
Interpretation: There is a significant relationship between
the Sociability level and Personality type of the selected
Grade 11 students.

The table 3 presents the significant relationship

between the sociability level and the personality type of the

selected Grade 11 students. It showed the frequencies of the

respondent’s sociability levels which were categorized into

high, average, and low, while the personalities of the

 47

students were categorized into sixteen (16) types. As shown

in the table, all of the students who got ESFJ, also known as

The Provider showed the most number of frequencies in relation

to average sociability level. The total number of students

that were treated in this study is ninety - eight (98). Using

the chi-square test, it showed that the computed x 2 value is

48.20, while the critical value of x 2 with the degree of

freedom of 30 and margin of error of 0.05 or 5% is 43.77.

Since the computed value of 48.20 is greater than the

critical value of 43.77. Therefore, the result stated that

the null hypothesis of the study is REJECTED. There is a

significant relationship between the sociability level and

the personality type of the selected Grade 11 students. It

implied that the personality type is a factor that affects

the sociability level of the students. It means that the way

people interact with others will also reflect on their

personalities. People who are extraverted feel more

interested in engaging the environment, the people, and

objects around them. Introversion or a reserved attitude, on

the other hand, associates with lower sociability level since

they like to spend most of their time alone than go out and

socialize with others. People who are introverted find their

 48

happiness through solitude rather than in company with

others.
 49

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter deals with the summary, conclusion and

recommendation after the research study.

Summary

Every person has his own personality type and

sociability level, but it cannot be determined if they are

related with each other. So, to clear this statement and

provide more information about this, the researchers decided

to conduct a study between the relationship of the sociability

level and the personality type of the selected Grade 11

students in Roosevelt College Incorporated – Rodriguez

Campus.

More specifically, it sought answer to the following

questions:

1. What is the sociability level of the selected Grade

11 students in Roosevelt College Incorporated –

Rodriguez Campus during the school year 2017 - 2018?

2. What is the personality type of the selected Grade 11

students in Roosevelt College Incorporated –

Rodriguez Campus during the school year 2017 - 2018?

3. Is there any significant relationship between the

sociability level and personality type of the selected

 50

Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College Incorporated –

Rodriguez Campus during the school year 2017 - 2018?

The researchers used descriptive method of research

because they see it appropriate and helpful to their study.

According to (Calderon, 2008), descriptive method is also

known as Statistical Research, it describes data and

characteristics about the population or phenomenon being

studied. The researchers used a descriptive method of

research to assess information about prevailing situations.

In order to compare the relationship between the

sociability level and the personality type of the selected

Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College – Rodriguez Campus,

the researchers used the following statistical tools:

frequency, percentage, and chi-square(x 2 ).

Based on the gathered and analyzed data, the findings of

the study were summarized below:

1. The frequency distribution of the sociability level of

the selected Grade 11 students showed that out of ninety

- eight (98) respondents, there were only five (5) who

gained a high sociability level. Eighty - five (85) of

them had an average sociability level, and the remaining

eight (8) respondents got the low sociability level.

 51

2. The frequency distribution of the personality type of

the selected Grade 11 students showed and explained that

among the sixteen (16) types of personality, majority of

them, with a frequency of 20, had a personality type of

Extraverted, Sensing, Feeling, and Judging (ESFJ) or The

Provider and there were unique students, one (1) each

with a personality type of Extraverted, Intuitive,

Thinking and Perceiving (ENTP) or The Visionary,

Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Perceiving (INTP)

or The Thinker, and Introverted, Sensing, Thinking and

Judging (ISTJ) or The Inspector, while there were twelve

(12) students who had a personality of Extraverted,

Intuitive, Feeling and Judging (ENFJ) or The Giver and

eleven (11) students who had a ESFP personality type or

also known as The Performer.

Conclusion

Based on their findings and interpretation of the

gathered data, the researchers were able to draw the following

conclusion:

1. The sociability level of the selected Grade 11 students

in Roosevelt College Incorporated – Rodriguez Campus

school year 2017 - 2018 are mostly average level of

sociability, with a frequency of 85 out of 98 respondents

which means that most of the students enjoy being with

 52

other people and can socially mingle with them as much

as other people. This is attributed to their active

membership in the different clubs the school offer.

Likewise, the numerous performance task assigned to them

by their subject area teachers developed further their

social skills.

2. The personality type of the selected Grade 11 students

in Roosevelt College Incorporated – Rodriguez Campus

School Year 2017 – 2018 with the most frequency is

Extraverted, Sensing, Feeling, and Judging (ESFJ), also

known as The Provider, consists of 20 out of 98

respondents which means that most number of frequency in

ESFJ type are good in interacting with other people which

makes them popular. They like being the center of

attention, but they also like listening to what other

people say. They are also natural leaders which makes

them easier for people to socialize and follow them.

Although they are vulnerable to criticisms and tend to

be defensive when someone close to them is hurt, they

strive to avoid conflict and seek harmony which makes

them likable. Mariah Carey and Prince William have this

personality type.

3. There is a significant relationship between the

Sociability level and Personality type of the selected

 53

Grade 11 students in Roosevelt College Incorporated

since the computed Chi (x-squared) of 48.20 is greater

than the critical value of 43.77. It implied that the

personality type is a factor that affects the

sociability level of the students. It means that the way

people interact with others will also reflect on their

personalities. People who are extraverted feel more

interested in engaging the environment, the people, and

objects around them. Introversion or a reserved

attitude, on the other hand, associates with lower

sociability level since they like to spend most of their

time alone than go out and socialize with others. People

who are introverted find their happiness through

solitude rather than in company with others.

Recommendations

In relation to the aforementioned conclusions, the

researchers categorized the recommendations by the scope of

their study. The recommendations are as follows:

To students, they should be the first one to know their

own personality; differences and similarities. They should

only change the bad side or attitude they possess that they

know it could take risks. The students classified as low

sociability level, should have self-confidence and somehow

cope their shy personality. Being sociable is the best way to

 54

have friends, friendship is a priceless treasure. In

addition, they should develop and improve their good

attitudes they possess.

To teachers, they must continue their willingness to

understand the behavior and attitude of the students. They

should never lose patience and make it even longer because it

could affect the personality and sociability of the students,

more so they should understand their individual differences

from one another and help them develop or improve their

personality.

To parents, knowing their children very well, they must

give enough time and attention in everything they do. They

should be the number one (1) supporter in all aspect, and

always acknowledge their works and always right there in all

sides especially in bad times. They should never pressure the

things they are not good at instead they should help them

with their best shot, more so train them the way they should

be.

To school administrators, they should prolong their

patience and continue dealing with the students in a kind a

nice way. They should understand the personality and

sociability of the students by their expressions. The

progress and development of the school facilities must

continue. They should also introduce more school activities

 55

to further develop the personality traits and social skills

of the students like conducting seminars, orientations,

recollections, and sport and academic events for their

holistic development.

Lastly, to the future researchers, they are advocated to

conduct this kind of study in other year or grade levels and

probably, in other school departments. When the time they

will use it, somehow include the gender of the respondents as

a secondary problem in their study so that they will come out

with very accurate and precise result. The administration of

the personality type test and sociability type test should be

taken seriously and should be monitored closely to prevent

spurious data.
 56

APPENDIX A
Letter of Permit

Mrs. Carmencita V. Alcantara

Directress / Campus Head
Roosevelt College Inc. – Rodriguez Campus

Dear Ma’am:

Greetings!

We, the sixth group of researchers from XII – STEM C, are

whole-heartedly asking your permission and approval to
conduct a research study entitled, “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE SOCIABILITY LEVEL AND PERSONALITY TYPE OF THE SELECTED
GRADE 11 STUDENTS IN ROOSEVELT COLLEGE INCORPORATED –
RODRIGUEZ CAMPUS SCHOOL YEAR 2017-2018”.
This is in compliance with the partial requirements for
graduation.
Your approval to this request will be highly appreciated.

Respectfully yours, Recommended by:

Jandale M. Pajara Mrs. Bella V. Carreon

Research Teacher

John Ernest R. Decipolo

Mark Amiel D. Diaz Noted by:

France Evan R. Manuel Mrs. Leonila M. Santos

Assistant Principal
Gerald Anthony E. Moares

Vincent Jerome A. Saddi Approved by:

Jessica M. Saludes Mrs. Carmencita V. Alcantara

Directress / Campus Head
Mellennie G. Umali
 57

APPENDIX B

ROOSEVELT COLLEGE INCORPORATED – RODRIGUEZ CAMPUS

Research School Year 2017 – 2018

“THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOCIABILITY LEVEL AND THE

PERSONALITY TYPE”

SOCIABILITY LEVEL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: Date:

Section: Gender:

Direction: The following statements concern your perception

about yourself in a variety of situations. Your task is to
indicate the strength of your agreement with each statement.
PLEASE ANSWER IT HONESTLY. All your answers will be treated
with utmost confidentiality.

5 – Very Inaccurate 2 – Moderately Accurate

4 – Moderately Inaccurate 1 – Very Accurate
3 – Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate

Neither
Very Moderately Inaccurate Moderately Very
Item Inaccurate Inaccurate nor Accurate Accurate
Accurate
1. I enjoy being on
the go.
2. I can’t do
without the
company of
others.
3. I never stop
talking.
4. I am hard to get
to know.
5. I don’t like
crowded events.
6. I enjoy silence.
7. I do most of the
talking.
 58

8. I am quiet around
strangers.
9. I keep others at
a distance.
10. I don’t talk a
lot.
11. I keep in the
background.
12.
I speak softly.
13. I amuse myself
easily.
14. I avoid contacts
with others.
15. I like to attract
attention.
16. I bottle up my
feelings.
17.
I talk too much.
18.
I go my own way.
19. I act comfortably
with others.
20. I start
conversations.
21. I make a lot of
noise.
22. I enjoy being
part of a loud
crowd.
23. I am a very
private person.
24. I like to be
alone.
25. I talk to a lot
of different
people at
parties.
26.
I radiate joy.
27. I reveal little
about myself.
28. I keep my
thoughts to
myself.
 59

29. I make myself the

center of
attention.
30.
I seek quiet.
31. I love large
parties.
32. I am open about
my feelings.
33.
I speak loudly.
34. I dislike
neighbors living
too close.
35. I demand to be
the center of
interest.
36. I warm up quickly
to others.
37. I don’t like to
draw attention to
myself.
38. I dislike talking
about myself.
39. I make friends
easily.
40. I am the life of
the party.
 60

APPENDIX C

ROOSEVELT COLLEGE INCORPORATED – RODRIGUEZ CAMPUS

Research School Year 2017 – 2018

“THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOCIABILITY LEVEL AND THE

PERSONALITY TYPE”

PERSONALITY TYPE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Name: Date:

Section: Gender:

Direction: The following statements concern your perception

about yourself in a variety of situations. Your task is to
indicate the strength of your agreement with each statement.
PLEASE ANSWER IT HONESTLY. All your answers will be treated
with utmost confidentiality.

5 – Strongly Agree 2 – Disagree

4 – Agree 1 – Strongly Disagree

3 – Uncertain

Strongly Strongly
Item Agree
Agree Uncertain Disagree
Disagree

1. You are almost never

late for your
appointments.
2. You like to be engaged
in an active and fast-
paced job.
3. You enjoy having a
wide circle of
acquaintances.
4. You feel involved when
watching TV soaps.
 61

5. You are usually the

first to react to a
sudden event: the
telephone ringing or
unexpected question.
6. You feel that the
world is founded on
compassion.
7. You think that
everything in the
world is relative.
8. Strict observance of
the established rules
is likely to prevent
attaining a good
outcome.
9. It is difficult to get
you excited.
10. When making a
decision, you rely
more on your feelings
than on analysis of
the situation.
11. You often think about
humankind and its
destiny.
12. You believe the best
decision is one which
can be easily changed.
13. You often ponder the
root cause of
phenomena and things.
14. You prefer to act
immediately rather
than speculate about
various options.
15. You trust reason
rather than feelings.
16. You are inclined to
rely more on
improvisation than on
prior planning.
17. You spend your leisure
time actively
socializing with a
group of people,
attending parties,
shopping, etc.
18. You usually plan your
actions in advance.
 62

19. Your actions are

frequently influenced
by your emotions.

20. You are a person

somewhat reserved and
distant in
communication.
21. You know how to put
every minute of your
time to good purpose.
22. You often contemplate
the complexity of
life.
23. After prolonged
socializing you feel
you need to get away
and be alone.
24. You often do jobs in a
hurry.
25. You easily see the
general principle
behind specific
occurrences.
26. You frequently and
easily express your
feelings and
emotions.
27. You find it difficult
to speak loudly.
28. You get bored if you
have to read
theoretical books.
29. You tend to sympathize
with other people.
30. You value justice
higher than mercy.
31. You rapidly get
involved in the social
life of a new
workplace.
32. The more people you
speak to, the better
you feel.
33. You tend to rely on
your experience
rather than on
theoretical
alternatives.
 63

34. As a rule, you proceed

only when you have a
clear and detailed
plan.
35. You easily empathize
with the concerns of
other people.
36. Often you prefer to
read a book than go to
a party.
37. When with a group of
people, you enjoy
being directly
involved and being at
the center of
attention.
38. You are more inclined
to experiment than to
follow familiar
approaches.
39. You are strongly
touched by the stories
about people's
troubles.
40. Deadlines seem to you
to be of relative
rather than absolute
importance.
41. You prefer to isolate
yourself from outside
noises.
42. For you, it is easier
to gain knowledge
through hands-on
experience than from
books or manuals.
43. You think that almost
everything can be
analyzed.
44. For you, no surprise
is better than
surprises - bad or
good ones.
45. You take pleasure in
putting things in
order.
46. You feel at ease in a
crowd.
47. You have good control
over your desires and
temptations.
 64

48. You easily understand

new theoretical
principles.
49. You usually place
yourself nearer to the
side than in the
center of the room.
50. When solving a problem
you would rather
follow a familiar
approach than seek a
new one.
51. A thirst for adventure
is something close to
your heart.
52. When considering a
situation you pay more
attention to the
current situation and
less to a possible
sequence of events.
53. When solving a problem
you consider the
rational approach to
be the best.
54. You find it difficult
to talk about your
feelings.
55. Your decisions are
based more on the
feeling of a moment
than on the thorough
planning.
56. You prefer to spend
your leisure time
alone or relaxing in a
tranquil atmosphere.
57. You feel more
comfortable sticking
to conventional ways.
58. You are easily
affected by strong
emotions.
59. You are always looking
for opportunities.
60. As a rule, current
preoccupations worry
you more than your
future plans.
 65

61. It is easy for you to

communicate in social
situations.
62. You rarely deviate
from your habits.
63. You willingly involve
yourself in matters
which engage your
sympathies.
64. You easily perceive
various ways in which
events could develop.
 66

REFERENCES

Northouse, Peter G. 2007. Leadership: Theory and Practice.

https://www.studypool.com/questions/download?id=312384&pat
h=uploads/questions/158535/20160324050750leadership_theory
_and_practice_7th___peter_g._northouse.pdf

Horváth, Klara. 2011. Is the social brain theory applicable

to human individual differences? Relationship between
sociability personality dimension and brain size.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704911009
00211

Blakemore, Sarah - Janye. 2008. The social brain in

adolescence.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3
308644/

Kazdin, Alan E. 2000. Encyclopedia of Psychology.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4600100.aspx

Holzman, Philip S. 2000. Personality.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/personality

Ostdick, John H. 2015. How to Understand People's Personality

Types. https://www.success.com/article/how-to-understand-
peoples-personality-types

Cherry, Kendra. 2015. Cattell's 16 Personality Factors

Analyzing Personality for Counseling and Career Guidance.
https://www.verywell.com/cattells-16-personality-factors-
2795977

Stahl, Ashley. 2017. What Your Myers- Briggs Personality

Type Means For Your Career.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/05/30/whatyo
ur-myers-briggs-personality-type-means-for-your-
career/#3b3a72854513

Sheeks, Miranda et al. 2007. Shyness, Sociability, and the

Use of Computer - Mediated Communication in Relationship
Development.http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/c
pb.2006.9991
 67

Cohen, Sheldon et al. 2003. Sociability and Susceptibility to

the Common Cold. Pennsylvania, United States of America.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/14679280.01452

Hie, Norman E. 2001. Sociability, Interpersonal Relations,

and the Internet. Stanford University, United States of
America.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000276
40121957277

Thorton, Eve. 2017. SociAbility.

https://www.sociabilitychicago.org/news/

Tan, Michael L. 2015. Social Skills. Philippines.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/83283/social-skills

Sky, Nesher. 2017. How social skills could be beneficial to

physical and mental health. Philippines.
http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/278233/social-skills-
beneficial-physical-mental-health/

Philips, Angela. 2012. Sociability, Speed And Quality In The

Changing News Environment. United Kingdom.
Http://Www.Tandfonline.Com/Doi/Abs/10.1080/17512786.2012.6
89476

Cattell, Raymond. 1946. 16 Personality Factors.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6011/b0ad959a971bf82a719d
132bba54a81e58ea.pdf

Cooley, Charles Horton. 1902. Looking Glass Self.

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/4111/Blumer/Charl
es%20Horton%20Cooley%20-%20Looking%20Glass%20Self.htm

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society.

http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Excerpt%20from%20Mind%20S
elf%20and%20Society.doc

Jung, Carl et al. 1998. Jung Typology Test.

www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

Goldberg, Lewis et al. 2006. HOW SOCIAL ARE

YOU?.https://www.excelatlife.com/questionnaires/sociabilit
y/items.htm
 68

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: John Ernest R. Decipolo

Nickname: Ernes

Gender: Male

Birthday: August 17, 1999

Hobbies: Playing computer games

Address: Block 26 Lot 96 Ph 1-A

Kasiglahan Village, Rodriguez,

Rizal

Age: 18

Contact Number: 09280966327

E-mail Address: ernestator2000@yahoo.com.ph

Preferred School: Roosevelt College Incorporated

Preferred Course: Computer Engineering

Ambition: To become a movie director

Motto: “Time’s arrow marches forward.”

 69

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Mark Amiel D. Diaz

Nickname: Mark

Gender: Male

Birthday: October 30, 1999

Hobbies: Going to Gym

Address: Dona Pepeng, Talisay,

Rodriguez, Rizal

Age: 18

Contact Number: 09153441090

E-mail Address: krammzaidd@gmail.com

Preferred School: World Citi

Preferred Course: Physical Therapist

Ambition: To be the best Pokemon Gym Leader

Motto: “Feeling pain doing the things you love than feeling

the pain of regret not doing it is a whole different

story.”
 70

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: France Evan Manuel

Nickname: Evan

Gender: Male

Birthday: April 9, 2000

Hobbies: Playing computer games

Address: Block 3 Lot 19 Mochai

Subdivision, Manggahan,

Rodriguez, Rizal

Age: 17

Contact Number: 09172599448

E-mail Address: evanmanuel09@yahoo.com

Preferred School: Technological Institute of the

Philippines

Preferred Course: Marine Engineering

Ambition: To reach my goals

Motto: “If you don’t live for something, you’ll die for

nothing.”
 71

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Gerald Anthony E. Moares

Nickname: Rald

Gender: Male

Birthday: May 19, 2000

Hobbies: Playing computer games

and listening to music

Address: Block 32 Lot 6 Montalban

Heights, San Jose, Rodriguez,

Rizal

Age: 17

Contact Number: 09283001080

E-mail Address: geraldmoares@gmail.com

Preferred School: University of Santo Thomas

Preferred Course: Information Technology

Ambition: To have a great life

Motto: “You’re never wrong to do the right thing.”

 72

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Jandale M. Pajara

Nickname: John Loydd

Gender: Male

Birthday: April 15, 1999

Hobbies: Playing Golf

Address: Manggahan, Rodriguez,

Rizal

Age: 18

Contact Number: 819-9246

E-mail Address: jandalepajara@gmail.com

Preferred School: Harvard University

Preferred Course: Nursing

Ambition: I want to be a licensed nurse.

Motto: “When you can’t find the sunshine, be the sunshine.”

 73

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Vincent Jerome A. Saddi

Nickname: Vinjer

Gender: Male

Birthday: January 15, 2000

Hobbies: Playing computer games

Address: Block 4 Lot 79 Phase 1

Centella Homes, San Isidro,

Rodriguez, Rizal

Age: 18

Contact Number: 09551437674

E-mail Address: vinjer55@gmail.com

Preferred School: New Era University

Preferred Course: Information Technology

Ambition: To be an IT Expert

Motto: “Death is like the wind, always by my side.”

 74

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Jessica M. Saludes

Nickname: Essa

Gender: Female

Birthday: December 14, 1999

Hobbies: None

Address: Lot 11 Blk 2 Silangan

Village, Geronimo, Rodriguez,

Rizal

Age: 18

Contact Number: 09952085701

E-mail Address: jessicasaludes14@yahoo.com

Preferred School: New Era University, Far Eastern

University

Preferred Course: Information Technology

Ambition: To have my own business

Motto: “Walang pandak ang hindi nakakasindak.”

 75

CURRICULUM VITAE

Name: Mellennie G. Umali

Nickname: Mell

Gender: Female

Birthday: January 2, 2000

Hobbies: Watching movies, playing

badminton and online games

Address: Block 1 Lot 4 Catherine

Subdivision, Geronimo, Rodriguez,

Rizal

Age: 18

Contact Number: 09097728382

E-mail Address: mguillermoumali@yahoo.com

Preferred School: Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Preferred Course: Electronics and Communication

Engineering, Information technology

Ambition: To be a well-known businesswoman

Motto: “The best revenge is the massive success”