Information Type Influences Students’ Perceptions of Faculty Self-Disclosures

Abstract

Background:

Faculty might disclose personal information in order to illustrate a concept related to course material. However, the impact of self-disclosing potentially personal information (e.g., medical or mental health) is unclear.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to determine how students perceive professors who self-disclose personal information during lectures, given that some conditions may be viewed negatively.

Method:

Introductory psychology students (N = 137) completed an online survey in which they rated female professors in vignettes describing course lectures. Each lecture was one of the following topics: bipolar disorder, opioid addiction, breast cancer, brain tumor, and animal learning (control). At the end of each vignette, the professor self-disclosed personal information related to that lecture.

Results:

Overall, students perceived professors who disclosed physical (breast cancer and brain tumor) conditions more positively compared to psychological (bipolar and opioid addiction) conditions. Highest approval ratings were given to the professor with breast cancer.

Conclusion:

Students’ perceptions of self-disclosure depended on the type of personal information, providing a springboard for future studies on this topic.

Teaching Implications:

Given the different levels of approval for each professor, we cannot make a blanket recommendation as to whether personal information should be shared in the classroom.

Keywords

self-disclosure teaching instructor–student rapport engaging lectures stigma

In order to make lectures come to life, many professors disclose personal experiences related to course material. Sharing personal information can provide students with illustrative examples related to course concepts. Psychologists teach about a wide range of topics including development, learning, memory, personality, mental illness, and neurological conditions, among many others. Instructors often have relevant anecdotes to share, some of which may be personal experiences.

Self-disclosure may be a double-edged sword with both potential benefits and risks, depending upon the nature of the information shared. On the one hand, sharing personal information may make the professor more relatable and likable. Self-disclosure and liking are reciprocally related; individuals who self-disclose are liked better than those who do not self-disclose, and individuals self-disclose more to liked individuals compared to individuals less well-liked (Collins & Miller, 1994). Thus, professors who self-disclose may positively impact their relationship with students by sharing personal information. Engaging in self-disclosure may affect how students rate their professors on teaching evaluations, given that rapport is an important factor influencing how students rate instructors (Richmond et al., 2015). Moreover, if the personal information shared is relevant to medical or psychological illness, the professor may be raising awareness and helping destigmatize conditions about which the general public may hold negative attitudes (King et al., 2007). Research indicates that contact with individuals who have mental illness reduces stigma in the classroom setting (Matteo & You, 2012). Conversely, sharing stigmatized conditions may negatively impact the student–professor relationship. Professors may not want to disclose personal information out of fear that students will form negative perceptions of them.

The public seems to disapprove of persons with psychiatric disabilities significantly more than those with conditions perceived as physical (Corrigan & Watson, 2002). Ottati and colleagues (2005) provide a social psychological model to describe mental illness stigma involving stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Their review of the literature describes stereotypes of people with mental illness as “dangerous, incompetent, unable to care for themselves, and childlike” (Ottati et al., 2005, p. 100). These stereotypes may lead to prejudice and discrimination against people with mental illness. Thus, instructors who divulge mental illness to their students may be negatively evaluated by students on course evaluations and students may avoid future classes with them.

However, stigma is not limited to mental illness. Cancer survivors have also been found to experience stigma and discrimination in the workplace (Stergiou-Kita et al., 2016). This type of stigma may even influence their quality of life (Brown Johnson et al., 2014). Other cancer patients may be viewed in an unrealistically positive light. For example, individuals who lived through breast cancer treatment are referred to as “fighters” (Ho, 2019). Alternatively, individuals with brain tumors may avoid disclosing their condition due to perceptions of cognitive impairment (Fox & Lantz, 1998).

Self-disclosure by instructors in the college setting has not been studied extensively, and the results are inconsistent. One study found that an instructor self-disclosing high levels of personal information on Facebook was perceived as being more trustworthy and caring, but not more competent, compared to a limited disclosure condition (Mazer et al., 2009). In a self-report survey, a relationship was found between self-disclosure and class participation (Goldstein & Benassi, 1994); however, this study was criticized by Wambach and Brothen (1997), who conducted a naturalistic observation study that failed to find a relationship between self-disclosure and class participation. Furthermore, none of these studies examined the type of information disclosed by the professor or how students perceived self-disclosure by professors.

In order to fill the research gap, our goal was to investigate students’ perceptions of self-disclosure in professors based on the type of personal information disclosed. Given the scarcity of literature on this classroom behavior, we conducted a pilot study to assess students’ perceptions of professors who disclosed personal information during lectures. Based on the research described above, we had two predictions: (1) Our primary prediction was that students would rate professors disclosing psychological conditions, such as bipolar disorder and opioid addiction, lower than professors disclosing medical health conditions such as breast cancer and brain tumors. (2) Participants with personal experience with people who have these conditions would rate the professors who self-disclosure more positively.

Method

Participants

A total of 157 students enrolled in an introductory psychology course started the survey. The students were compensated with one of eight required course credits. Data from 20 participants were excluded from the analysis due to either not completing the survey or failing the quality control questions embedded in the survey. This yielded a final sample of 47 men, 89 women, and one participant identifying as nonbinary (N = 137). The mean age of the participants was 22.03 years (SD = 5.71, range 18–51). This study was approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Vignettes

All vignettes depicted a female faculty member giving a lecture on a specific topic in order to exclude sex as a variable that might influence participants’ attitudes toward the professors. The professors in all vignettes were given commonly used last names and were referred to with female pronouns. The vignettes included the following: (1) an abnormal psychology course in which the professor disclosed bipolar disorder, (2) an anatomy and physiology course in which the professor disclosed breast cancer, (3) a cravings and addiction course in which the professor disclosed prior opioid abuse, (4) a behavioral neuroscience course in which the professor disclosed having a brain tumor, and (5) an animal behavior course in which the professor shared that she has a puppy (control). Each vignette was approximately 150 (range 149–151) words and was matched in format to the others. An example of one of the vignettes follows. All vignettes had parallel structure and are available on request.

You are enrolled in Professor Jones’s Abnormal Psychology class. Today, the topic is bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder is a brain disorder with symptoms that include alternating episodes of low and high moods. During a low mood period, people with bipolar disorder lose pleasure and interest in their usual activities such as work, friends, food, and sex. Other common symptoms of a low mood episode include feelings of guilt, inadequacy, helplessness, and hopelessness about the future. During a high mood episode, these same people experience powerful emotions of joy and well-being or irritability and anger. They become energetic, moving and talking rapidly, and might remain active for several days without sleep. During a high mood episode, people might also exhibit poor judgment such as going on buying sprees or engaging in promiscuous sex. Dr. Jones discloses that she used to suffer from bipolar episodes but now receives treatment through medication and psychotherapy.

Survey

Participants provided implied consent via an online survey platform (Qualtrics). After reading each vignette, participants rated the professor on 13 Likert-type scale statements (nine points). One attention-check item (e.g., “select the number 6,” with the number to be selected varying) was included for each vignette. Participants also provided information about their familiarity with the mental and physical illnesses that were included in the vignettes. They were asked whether they had personally experienced the condition or had a family member or friend with the condition. The order of the vignettes and rating statements were randomly arranged. The survey took approximately 10 min for most participants to complete.

Some of the statements were adapted from the modified Attribution Questionnaire (AQ-27; Corrigan et al., 2002). While we were looking at approval rather than stigma, per se, some of the statements from the AQ-27 were relevant for our purpose. Many of the items from the AQ-27, however, were not directly applicable to self-disclosure by a professor in a classroom setting. Thus, we wrote several original statements to directly address evaluations that students might make about a professor, such as whether the student would go to the professor’s office hours, whether the professor would be trusted to grade assignments fairly, whether they would recommend the professor to other students, and whether they would consider taking additional classes with the professor in the future. The office hours statement was intended to tap into the “dangerousness” stereotype in the original survey, whereas the other three statements were intended to assess the “incompetency” stereotype associated with some mental illnesses (Corrigan et al., 2002; Ottati et al., 2005). We also included a statement about whether the professor was seen as a “hero,” relating to the positive stereotype associated with cancer patients.

Results

Data were downloaded from Qualtrics and statistically analyzed with Jamovi (Version 1.1.9.1, a free graphical user interface for the statistics program R). The two negative statements (“I would feel irritated by Professor X.” and “Professor X should be encouraged to retire.”) were reversed scored.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Because we created the scale statements, rather than using an existing scale, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to determine which statements to use in calculating the composite score (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Yong & Pearce, 2013). Two factors emerged from the factor analysis with eigenvalues greater than 1 and factor loadings greater than .4 (using an oblique rotation method). The first factor consistently included six statements (feel safe, warm, visit office hours, recommend to another student, take another course, grade fairly). All of these statements were related to teaching. Based on the results of the factor analysis, the mean composite score was determined by averaging scores from these six statements based on the results of the factor analysis.

Cronbach’s α

Next, we calculated Cronbach’s α for each of the conditions based on the six statements related to teaching using the factor analysis described above. Cronbach’s α was .88 or greater for each of the five conditions (breast cancer, α = .89; brain tumor, α = .88; pet owner control, α = .90; bipolar, α = .92; opioid addiction, α = .92). These Cronbach’s α levels are considered to be in the excellent range (Taber, 2018).

Condition Comparisons

The mean composite approval scores were compared across the five different vignettes. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted on the composite score with types of condition disclosed as the independent variable. There was a significant effect of condition type on composite scores, F(4, 500) = 44.75, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .26. Overall, the professor who had the highest mean composite approval was the professor disclosing breast cancer (M = 7.13, SD = 1.47), followed by the professor who disclosed a brain tumor (M = 6.77, SD = 1.51). The professor who disclosed adopting a pet (pet owner, M = 6.24, SD = 1.56) had the middlemost composite score. The professors disclosing opioid addiction (M = 5.90, SD = 1.82) and bipolar disorder (M = 5.80, SD = 1.82) had the lowest composite ratings (Figure 1). Post hoc analyses (Tukey) indicated that all comparisons were significantly different (p _Tukey < .05), with the exception of opioid addiction compared to bipolar disorder (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Mean approval composite score (± SEM) for the six teaching-related questions identified by factor analysis. Note. All comparisons were significant (p _Tukey < .05), except for the bipolar compared to opioid addict conditions (p _Tukey = .99).

Table 1.

Post Hoc Comparisons for the Mean Composite Scores.

Post Hoc Comparisons
Composite Scores	Mean Difference	SE	df	t	p _Tukey
Bipolar
Breast	−1.25	.12	500	−10.78	< .001
Opioid	−0.04	.12	500	−0.39	.995
Brain	−0.93	.12	500	−8.02	< .001
Puppy	−0.44	.12	500	−3.77	.002
Breast
Opioid	1.21	.12	500	10.39	< .001
Brain	0.32	.12	500	2.75	.048
Puppy	0.81	.12	500	7.01	< .001
Opioid
Brain	−0.89	.12	500	−7.64	< .001
Puppy	−0.39	.12	500	−3.38	.007
Brain
Puppy	0.49	.12	500	4.26	< .001

Individual Question Averages

The mean approval ratings for all statements across conditions are shown in Table 2. It is interesting to note that the pattern of ratings differs from condition to condition. For example, the professors disclosing pet ownership and opioid addiction were rated as being responsible for their conditions, whereas students expressed concern for all professors, except for the pet owner. Because these were individual statements, we did not analyze them with inferential statistics.

Table 2.

Mean Scores for Each Condition and Statement.

Vignette	Statement	N	Mean	Median	Standard Deviation	Standard Error
Bipolar	Safe	137	6.11	6.0	2.13	.18
	Warm	137	5.91	6.0	2.14	.18
	Office hours	137	6.04	6.0	2.16	.18
	Pity	137	4.55	5.0	2.35	.20
	Recommend	137	5.61	5.0	1.88	.16
	Responsible	137	3.06	2.0	2.61	.22
	Irritated ^a	135	7.70	9.0	1.87	.16
	Retire ^a	136	7.45	9.0	2.06	.18
	Take another course	137	5.23	5.0	2.28	.19
	Concern	137	5.19	6.0	2.42	.21
	Hero	136	3.61	3.0	2.11	.18
	Grade fairly	137	5.88	6.0	2.35	.20
Breast cancer	Safe	137	7.62	8.0	1.78	.15
	Warm	136	7.21	7.0	1.75	.15
	Office hours	136	7.31	8.0	1.82	.16
	Pity	137	5.37	6.0	2.57	.22
	Recommend	136	6.78	7.0	1.78	.15
	Responsible	137	2.15	1.0	2.18	.19
	Irritated ^a	136	8.42	9.0	1.21	.10
	Retire ^a	136	7.97	9.0	1.63	.14
	Take another course	135	6.49	7.0	2.08	.18
	Concern	137	5.30	5.0	2.50	.21
	Hero	137	5.46	6.0	2.47	.21
	Grade fairly	137	7.20	8.0	1.91	.16
Opioid addict	Safe	137	6.01	6.0	2.11	.18
	Warm	137	5.66	6.0	2.11	.18
	Office hours	137	6.15	7.0	2.27	.19
	Pity	137	4.23	4.0	2.45	.21
	Recommend	136	5.63	5.0	2.03	.17
	Responsible	137	6.49	7.0	2.31	.20
	Irritated ^a	137	7.42	8.0	1.85	.16
	Retire ^a	137	7.50	8.0	1.97	.17
	Take another course	136	5.24	5.0	2.31	.20
	Concern	136	5.16	5.0	2.42	.21
	Hero	136	3.42	3.0	2.19	.19
	Grade fairly	137	6.64	7.0	2.03	.17
Brain tumor	Safe	137	7.15	7.0	1.80	.15
	Warm	136	7.15	7.0	1.80	.15
	Office hours	137	7.09	8.0	1.93	.17
	Pity	137	5.53	6.0	2.55	.22
	Recommend	136	6.53	6.0	1.76	.15
	Responsible	137	2.34	1.0	2.31	.20
	Irritated ^a	136	8.23	9.0	1.42	.12
	Retire ^a	136	7.42	9.0	2.06	.18
	Take another course	136	6.04	5.5	2.14	.18
	Concern	137	5.66	6.0	2.47	.21
	Hero	137	5.07	5.0	2.32	.20
	Grade fairly	137	6.84	7.0	1.91	.16
Pet (control)	Safe	137	7.68	8.0	1.67	.14
	Warm	135	7.04	7.0	1.86	.16
	Office hours	137	7.36	8.0	1.70	.15
	Pity	137	2.12	1.0	1.88	.16
	Recommend	137	6.93	7.0	1.68	.14
	Responsible	137	6.74	7.0	2.59	.22
	Irritated ^a	137	7.98	9.0	1.60	.14
	Retire ^a	137	8.39	9.0	1.24	.11
	Take another course	137	6.74	7.0	2.00	.17
	Concern	137	2.04	1.0	1.71	.15
	Hero	136	3.63	3.0	2.50	.21
	Grade fairly	135	7.37	8.0	1.77	.15

^a Indicates reverse scored.

Prior Exposure With Disclosed Information

Finally, we examined how prior experience with the condition altered the response to the composite score for each vignette. The individuals who had either experienced the condition themselves, had a family member experience the condition, or had a friend who experienced the condition were compared to the individuals who had no personal experience with the condition. The percentage of participants with exposure to each condition was as follows: bipolar (46%) breast cancer (37%), brain tumor (22%), opioid addiction (30%), and pet ownership (90%). With the exception of bipolar, M _exposure = 6.51, SD = 1.61, n = 61; M _{no_exposure} = 5.95, SD = 1.59, n = 70; t(132) = 2.00, p = .048, d = .35, composite scores did not differ between those who had experience with the condition and those who did not.

Discussion

Summary of Results

Our findings suggest that faculty might want to be selective about specific information they disclose to students within the context of a classroom setting. Based on the statements we posed, the professors disclosing physical illnesses (breast cancer and brain tumor) had the highest approval ratings, followed by the pet owner (control) and finally, mental illnesses (opioid addiction and bipolar disorder). These findings suggest that disclosure about psychological disorders may negatively affect how students view the professor, relative to disclosure about other information, and are consistent with our primary hypothesis. Overall, these findings fit with Corrigan and Watson’s (2002) observation that people with psychological conditions are more likely to be stigmatized compared to those with physical conditions. The breast cancer findings seem consistent with the stereotype of cancer survivors as fighters (Ho, 2019), yet the brain tumor results are inconsistent with the notion that those with brain tumors may be cognitively impaired (Fox & Lantz, 1998). Perhaps because our vignette stated that the professor had her brain tumor removed, the professor was seen in a similar sort of light as a cancer-surviving hero.

Prior exposure to conditions was not a significant factor in our analysis; this is inconsistent with our second prediction. The scores for the professor disclosing bipolar disorder were only moderately higher for individuals who either personally experienced bipolar or had a friend or family member who experienced the disorder relative to individuals who did not. It is not likely that these results stem from lack of exposure because nearly half of the participant pool reported prior exposure to each of the conditions (with the exception of pet ownership—the majority of participants either owned a pet or knew someone who owned a pet). This is a surprising finding, given that prior research (Matteo & You, 2012; Melchiori & Mallett, 2015) led us to predict that this would be an important factor. It is possible that our measure was not sensitive enough to detect differences across conditions. Furthermore, with regard to the relationship between stigma and familiarity, Corrigan and Nieweglowski (2019) argue that this is a complex relationship that may actually be a U-shaped curve. A more sensitive measure of familiarity is needed to determine whether approval ratings of the professors are related to participants’ familiarity with conditions described in the vignettes.

Limitations

This pilot study used a novel questionnaire that combined items from an existing stigma scale with additional statements pertaining specifically to academia. Although we had initially used seven items inspired by the AQ-27 (Corrigan et al., 2002), only one of these statements (“I would feel safe around Professor X.”) emerged from the factor analysis. Future research is required to establish the validity of this new measure.

There were a number of interesting observations based on the means of the individual items. We did not conduct inferential statistics on them, but we will further explore statements related to being a hero, concern for the professor’s well-being, whether the professor is responsible for her condition, and so on.

The control in our study was a professor who shares that she has a puppy who goes to behavior training. We chose this control because it was sharing something that was not a psychological or medical condition. However, it is not a true control. In this study, we lacked a vignette in which the professor did not share any personal information. In a future study, we will include additional vignettes in which the professors describe ways in which the material could be applied to student lives but is not personal in nature.

This pilot study raises more questions than it answers. First, this study examined perceptions of female professors. We do not know whether responses to male or gender-ambiguous/nonbinary professors would follow the same pattern as those for female professors. It may also be important to examine gender differences in participants and whether participant gender interacts with professor gender. Second, this study only examined physical and mental health conditions. There is a plethora of other types of personal information that could be shared, such as religious affiliation, political ideology, sexual orientation, or charity work. Third, this study does not address the question of whether or not self-disclosure in professors can change the perception of stigmatized personal characteristics. Surprisingly, in our study, personal experience with a condition had little influence on perceptions of others with the condition, whereas other studies have shown that exposure decreased stigma (Matteo & You, 2012; Melchiori & Mallett, 2015). We hope to address this inconsistency along with our other questions in future studies.

Finally, professors’ self-disclosure could affect how students perceive them in ways unrelated to stigma. For instance, admitting that one has a physical or psychological condition in a lecture could be deemed inappropriate and/or unprofessional. Future studies should address these perceptions, given that they could affect how students rate professors on teaching evaluations and may influence professor–student rapport. In the future, we would like to gain a better understanding of how self-disclosure contributes to understanding course material and whether self-disclosure can contribute to a reduction in stigma associated with mental illness.

Teaching Implications

Given the different levels of approval for each of the different types of shared information, we cannot make a blanket recommendation on what types of information should be shared in the classroom. In general, based on these results, professors sharing that they have a physical disorder such as breast cancer or a brain tumor are viewed more positively than professors who disclose a mental illness such as bipolar and opioid addiction.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, TOP-20-0039_R3_Appendix - Information Type Influences Students’ Perceptions of Faculty Self-Disclosures

Supplemental Material, TOP-20-0039_R3_Appendix for Information Type Influences Students’ Perceptions of Faculty Self-Disclosures by Katherine Grace Hill, Macy Jayne Martischewsky and Cynthia Ann Erickson in Teaching of Psychology

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material for this article is available on request.

References

Brown Johnson

C. G.

Brodsky

J. L.

Cataldo

J. K.

(2014). Lung cancer stigma, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 31(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2013.855963

Collins

N. L.

Miller

L. C.

(1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457

Corrigan

P. W.

Nieweglowski

(2019). How does familiarity impact the stigma of mental illness? Clinical Psychology Review, 70, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.02.001

Corrigan

P. W.

Rowan

Green

Lundin

River

Uphoff-Wasowski

White

Kubiak

M. A.

(2002). Attribution Questionnaire (AQ, AQ-27). APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t12425-000

Corrigan

P. W.

Watson

A. C.

(2002). Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness. World Psychiatry, 1(1), 16–20.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868

Fox

Lantz

(1998). The brain tumor experience and quality of life: A qualitative study. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 30(4), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1097/01376517-199808000-00005

Goldstein

G. S.

Benassi

V. A.

(1994). The relation between teacher self-disclosure and student classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 21(4), 212–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2104_2

(2019). Heroes or criminals: Discursive representation of cancer patients in health awareness advertisements. Visual Communication, 18(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357219887521

10.

King

Dinos

Shaw

Watson

Stevens

Passetti

Weich

Serfaty

(2007). The Stigma Scale: Development of a standardised measure of the stigma of mental illness. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(3), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.106.024638

11.

Matteo

E. K.

You

(2012). Reducing mental illness stigma in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437720

12.

Mazer

J. P.

Murphy

R. I.

Simonds

C. J.

(2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 175–183. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923655

13.

Melchiori

K. J.

Mallett

R. K.

(2015). Using Shrek to teach about stigma. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315589502

14.

Ottati

Bodenhausen

G. V

Newman

L. S

. (2005). Social psychological models of mental illness stigma. In Corrigan

P. W.

(Ed.), On the stigma of mental illness: Practical strategies for research and social change (pp. 99–128). American Psychological Association.

15.

Richmond

A. S.

Berglund

M. B.

Epelbaum

V. B.

Klein

E. M.

(2015). a + (b₁) Professor–student rapport + (b₂) humor + (b₃) student engagement = (Ŷ) student ratings of instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315569924

16.

Stergiou-Kita

Pritlove

Kirsh

(2016). The “Big C”—Stigma, cancer, and workplace discrimination. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 10(6), 1035–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-016-0547-2

17.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

18.

Wambach

Brothen

(1997). Teacher self-disclosure and student classroom participation revisited. Teaching of Psychology, 24(4), 262–263. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2404_7

19.

Yong

A. G.

Pearce

(2013). A beginner's guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB