Open-Closed Mindedness and Choice of University Programs

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Social Sciences
• Educational Psychology

Background:

• Traditional group comparisons for dogmatic tendencies rely on aggregated scores from instruments like the D-Scale.
• The multidimensional nature of dogmatism suggests that summated scores may obscure nuanced group differences.
• Exploring item-level analysis offers a more granular approach to understanding psychological constructs.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the efficacy of item-level analysis for comparing dogmatic tendencies between student groups.
• To identify specific items on the D-Scale that differentiate students in Arts versus Science programs.
• To explore whether item-level differences reflect distinct facets of dogmatism.

Main Methods:

• A sample of 471 first-year university students (250 male, 221 female) participated.
• Participants completed the Dogmatism Scale (D-Scale).
• Statistical analysis focused on item-level responses for group comparisons and factor analysis of significant items.

Main Results:

• Significant differences were observed in specific items of the D-Scale between student groups.
• Particular distinctions in item responses were found between students in Arts and Science programs.
• Factor analysis suggested that these differentiating items might represent specific facets of dogmatism.

Conclusions:

• Item-level analysis provides a more sensitive method for detecting group differences in dogmatism than summated scores.
• Academic program enrollment (Arts vs. Science) is associated with variations in specific aspects of dogmatic thinking.
• Further research using item-level data can refine our understanding of the multidimensional structure of dogmatism.