Personality and Academic Performance

Full text

1"
Personality and Academic Performance
Anna Vedela* and Arthur E. Poropatb
aDepartment of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
bSchool of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Mount Gravatt, QLD, Australia
Keywords
Personality; Big Five; Five Factor Model, Academic Performance, GPA, grades
Definition
Personality refers to individual differences in the way we feel, think, and behave. Personality is the
unique combination of characteristics and qualities that makes you “you” across situations and
contexts. As such, personality is both fundamental for our understanding of and engagement with
the world. Academic performance is the assessment of the extent to which an individual—typically
a student—has achieved an educational goal. Most often academic performance is operationalized
as grades (e.g. Grade Point Average (GPA)), or, alternatively, highest level of educational
attainment.
Introduction
A high educational level is desirable not only for the individual, but also their societies and
associated economies. Educational success commonly leads to enhanced occupational status and
high earnings (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), and societies with well-educated workforces tend to
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
*Email: avedel@psy.au.dk

2"
enjoy both greater economic growth (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2012) and social gains such as
greater civic engagement and reduced crime rates (Bloom, Hartley, & Rosovsky, 2007). This value
accruing to educational success places a premium upon the identification of factors predicting
academic performance. The following sections provide a brief historical overview of this research
with an emphasis on the role of personality in academic performance.
Cognitive Predictors of Academic Performance
Historically, the search for predictors of academic performance began with a strong focus on
cognitive abilities. The influential work of Binet and Simon (1916) aimed at measuring students’
differential academic potential by means of intelligence tests, while Spearman (1904) identified a
general intelligence factor, g, by applying an early version of factor analysis to academic
performance measures. These works inspired considerable educational research throughout the
twentieth century and led to findings that intelligence can reliably predict academic performance
(for an overview, see Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007).
Early Research on Personality Predictors of Academic Performance
In parallel with this research has been a long tradition of research on non-cognitive predictors of
academic performance. A notable early study was reported by Webb (1915), who examined the
importance of students’ “character” for academic performance, and provided early evidence that
intelligence was not the only individual difference associated with academic performance.
Specifically, Webb identified a will factor, which he labeled w, implying a comparison with
Spearman’s g. Like g, Webb’s w effectively summarized a range of measures of students, and had
an important association with academic performance, yet this association was independent from g.
However, Webb’s w factor received little attention in subsequent research until relatively recently.

3"
Instead, reviews during the twentieth century concluded that research on personality and academic
performance was hampered by the use of inconsistent approaches to and measurements of
personality, leading to inconsistent results that were difficult to interpret (De Raad &
Schouwenburg, 1996). De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996) particularly argued for the adoption of a
consistent personality framework, making use of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality to
organize their review. This advocacy has been reflected in subsequent research, and the widespread
use of FFM-based measures in educational research has enabled a reassessment of the relationship
between personality and academic performance, leading to the recognition of reliable and important
estimates of the role of personality in education.
The Five-Factor Model and Academic Performance
The history of the FFM is dealt with elsewhere in this encyclopedia, but it is important to note its
components here. Put simply, the FFM includes the most frequently appearing lexical personality
dimensions on which people vary (Poropat & Corr, 2015). These dimensions can be summarized as:
agreeableness (reflecting qualities of being friendly, modest, and accommodating);
conscientiousness (dutiful, diligent, and orderly); emotional stability (relaxed, balanced, patient),
though often denominated by its opposite pole, neuroticism (moody, ruminating, irritable);
extraversion (outgoing, sociable, active); and openness (curiosity about and tolerance for diverse
cultural and intellectual experiences), sometimes denoted intellect (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996).
Recent meta-analyses of educational research based on FFM measures (Poropat, 2009; Richardson,
Abraham, & Bond, 2012) have shown that there are indeed consistent associations between
personality and academic performance.

4"
Conscientiousness
Encompassing facets such as achievement striving and self-discipline, conscientiousness has much
in common with Webb’s w factor, and conscientiousness is indeed the FFM factor showing the
strongest correlations with academic performance (Poropat, 2009; Richardson et al., 2012).
Conscientiousness consistently predicts grades in primary, secondary, and tertiary academic
education, rivaling intelligence (r = .21: Richardson et al., 2012) in predictive validity in tertiary
education (r = .23: Richardson et al., 2012). These correlations are substantially stronger when
conscientiousness has been rated by a knowledgeable other-rater, such as students’ parents, peers
and teachers, both in primary education (r = .50: Poropat, 2014a) and in secondary and tertiary
education (r = .38: Poropat, 2014b).
The exact processes by which conscientiousness is linked with academic performance are
incompletely understood, but research has linked conscientiousness to a wide range of behaviors
and abilities conducive to academic performance, which may explain part of the association.
Importantly, conscientiousness is strongly associated with effortful control (Poropat, 2016), a
dimension of temperament reflecting self-regulatory abilities such as the ability to willfully direct
attention to and sustain focus on a task, as well as the ability to intentionally initiate or inhibit
actions (Rothbart, 2007). These self-regulatory abilities are fundamental for goal-directed behavior,
planning, impulse control, and norm following, which are all defining features of conscientiousness
(Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, & Meints, 2009).
In the educational context, more conscientious students score more highly on learning-related
factors such as persistence (Komarraju & Karau, 2005), achievement motivation (Richardson &
Abraham, 2009), class attendance (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Conard, 2006), and use
of self-regulatory learning strategies (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; McKenzie, Gow, & Schweitzer,
2004) than their non-conscientious counterparts. Each of these factors reliably predicts student

5"
achievement (Hattie, 2009), so these associations may account for much of the association between
conscientiousness and academic performance. Further, conscientious students have been shown to
be more highly task-focused and employ more problem-focused coping strategies, which facilitates
their learning and academic performance in the face of adversity (MacCann, Lipnevich, Burrus, &
Roberts, 2012; Saklofske, Austin, Mastoras, Beaton, & Osborne, 2012).
Ultimately, conscientiousness is associated with retention (e.g. Alarcon & Edwards, 2013). More
conscientious students are more likely to complete their educational programs, which is likely to be
due to the same conscientiousness-related abilities and behaviors promoting academic performance.
Openness
Apart from conscientiousness, openness is the FFM factor most strongly associated with academic
performance (Poropat, 2009, 2014a, 2014b; Richardson et al., 2012). In primary education self-
rated openness is almost equally effective as conscientiousness in statistically predicting academic
performance, though less effective in secondary and tertiary education (Poropat, 2009).
However, as with other-rated conscientiousness, other-rated openness is more closely linked with
academic performance than is intelligence, at least in secondary and tertiary education (r = .28:
Poropat, 2014b).
Among the FFM dimensions, openness is probably the most complicated and certainly the most
highly debated. The reason for this indeterminacy is that the openness factor includes both a
creative component reflecting artistic and contemplative interests, and an intellect component that
reflects curiosity and approach to learning. It is the intellect-curiosity component in particular that
drives the correlations between openness and academic performance (von Stumm, Hell, &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011), and the intellect-curiosity component also seems to account for the
correlations between openness and intelligence consistently found (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997;

6"
Goff & Ackerman, 1992). Individuals who score more highly on openness tend to seek out and
enjoy new and cognitively stimulating activities, apparently resulting in cognitive growth and
accumulation of knowledge. As such, openness, and especially the intellect aspect of openness,
belongs among the “intellectual investment traits” (von Stumm & Ackerman, 2013).
Research on motivational constructs supports the notion that openness facilitates academic
performance partly through self-imposed “intellectual investment”. Students high on openness are
more curious and investigative, more intrinsically motivated to know, think, and analyze, and more
interested in improving mental abilities and increasing competencies (Bernard, 2010; Clark &
Schroth, 2010; Komarraju & Karau, 2005; Komarraju, Karau, & Schmeck, 2009). Such students
also tend to have a deep learning approach (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2009) and reflective
learning styles and learning strategies, such as elaborative processing and critical thinking
(Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Komarraju, Karau, Schmeck, & Avdic, 2011), all of which have been
shown to mediate the relationship between openness and academic performance (Komarraju et al.,
2011; Swanberg & Martinsen, 2010). Additionally, openness is the FFM factor most strongly
associated with learning goal orientation (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007). Learning goal
orientation is itself reliably associated with academic performance (Richardson et al., 2012), and
also mediates the relationship between openness and academic performance (Steinmayr, Bipp, &
Spinath, 2011). These motivational aspects to openness appear to affect not only short-term
academic outcomes: openness also predicts overall educational attainment, so that individuals high
on openness are more likely to achieve a high educational level during their lives (e.g. Costa et al.,
1986).

7"
Agreeableness
Self-rated agreeableness has positive correlations with academic performance (Poropat, 2009;
Richardson et al., 2012), but these correlations are modest except in primary education (r = .30:
Poropat, 2009). When other-rated, correlations between agreeableness and academic performance
are unaffected by level of education, but remain relatively modest (r = .09: Poropat 2014a; r = .10:
Poropat, 2014b). Agreeableness is associated with accommodating and cooperative attitudes
towards the social environment and a compliant response to social demands. As such, the agreeable
student’s desire to “get along” with others (e.g. teachers and parents) manifests itself in academic
motivation and in behaviors aimed at improving academic performance, predominantly through
surface learning (Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 2001). Likewise, agreeableness is associated
with extrinsic types of academic motivation, meaning that more agreeable individuals tend to
choose to identify with and integrate socially accepted values they meet in academia, leading more
agreeable students to value academic performance because it is the socially accepted value in
educational settings (Clark & Schroth, 2010; Komarraju et al., 2009). Consistent with this,
agreeableness has been associated with academic persistence motivation, interest in self-
improvement, and grades orientation (Komarraju & Karau, 2005).
This social compliance is reflected behaviorally, with more agreeable students spending more time
on homework and procrastinating less (Lubbers, Van Der Werf, Kuyper, & Hendriks, 2010),
employing more self-regulatory learning strategies and learning styles, such as time management,
effort regulation, elaborative processing, and fact retention (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Komarraju et
al., 2011). These motivational and behavioral factors help to explain why agreeableness has a
positive, though limited, association with academic performance.

8"
Emotional Stability
In primary education, there is a noteworthy association between self-rated emotional stability and
academic performance (r = .20: Poropat, 2009), but in secondary and tertiary education this
correlation is negligible (r = .01 and -.01, respectively: Poropat, 2009). However, as with
agreeableness, correlations between academic performance and other-rated emotional stability
remain stable across educational levels (r = .18 at all levels: Poropat, 2014a, 2014b). This
difference in correlations appears to be due to the fact that emotional stability is the FFM dimension
that is most subject to rater biases (Poropat & Corr, 2015).
Emotional stability encompasses a relaxed and calm mode of feeling, thinking, and behaving, and it
is a robust predictor of subjective well-being (Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). Emotionally stable
individuals have lower levels of negative affect and higher quality of life, and they are less prone to
suffer from psychological disorders (Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010; Steel et al., 2008).
Emotional stability is also associated with performance self-efficacy (Judge & Ilies, 2002), which in
turn is strongly predictive of academic performance (r = .59: Richardson et al., 2012).
In light of this, one might expect that emotional stability would translate into purely positive
motivations and outcomes in academia. However, the relationship between emotional stability and
academic performance has proven to be more complex. Demonstrating this complexity, more
emotionally stable individuals are more likely to willfully focus on and learn from errors (Zhao,
2011) and employ learning styles and strategies conducive to academic performance in general,
such as analyzing, organizing, and integrating new material with previous knowledge (Komarraju et
al., 2011; Lubbers et al., 2010). However, emotional stability is also associated with being less
likely to rehearse material, and more emotionally stable students allocate less time to homework
(Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Lubbers et al., 2010). Adding to this complexity, low levels of emotional
stability are associated with academic amotivation, debilitating anxiety, withdrawing, and feeling

9"
discouraged about school (Clark & Schroth, 2010; Komarraju & Karau, 2005; Komarraju et al.,
2009), but also with an orientation towards achieving good grades (Komarraju & Karau, 2005). The
latter possibly reflects fear of failure, since low emotional stability is associated with goals of
avoiding negative evaluations and the perception of incompetence relative to others (Payne et al.,
2007).
So, it appears that because individuals who are higher on emotional stability are less motivated by
such avoidance goals, they are less inclined to spend time on homework and rehearsal.
Extraversion
Extraversion has only modest correlations with academic performance overall (Poropat, 2009;
Richardson et al., 2012) with the strongest relationship being between self-rated extraversion and
academic performance in primary education (r = .18: Poropat, 2009). Correlations of other-rated
extraversion with academic performance in primary (r = .11: Poropat, 2014a) and secondary and
tertiary education (r = .05: Poropat, 2014b) are also relatively modest when compared with the
other FFM dimensions. So, extraversion has some relevance to academic performance, but care
should be taken to avoid over-interpreting these modest associations.
However, extraversion has been reliably linked with a range of learning-relevant variables.
More extraverted individuals generally have higher subjective well-being such as positive affect
and quality of life, most likely due to the creation of positive life experiences facilitated by the
sociability component of extraversion (Steel et al., 2008). This sociability, assertiveness, and active
engagement with the social environment characterizing extraverted individuals may be beneficial
for learning that involves frequent interactions with teachers or peers. Consistent with this, more
extraverted students are better at seeking help from peers and instructors, when they encounter
learning difficulties (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007). This enables better understanding, but it also makes

10"
the student more visible to the teacher (Poropat, 2014a). Being visible can have a positive effect on
the student’s academic standing, because teachers in primary education, where interaction between
students and teachers is most frequent, have the tendency to perceive shy children as less intelligent
and less academically gifted than their more talkative counterparts (Coplan, Hughes, Bosacki, &
Rose-Krasnor, 2011). This may explain the positive association between extraversion and academic
performance found at this educational level. However, these same characteristics of sociability and
orientation towards the social environment may also pose a challenge to the extraverted student.
Students high on extraversion are generally more academically motivated and have higher learning
goal orientation (Clark & Schroth, 2010; Payne et al., 2007), but they are also motivated to spend
time with friends, participate in societies and events, explore the social environment, etc. (Bernard,
2010). This sociability-induced distractibility may partly explain why the association between
extraversion and academic performance is reduced at higher academic levels, where students have
more responsibility for their own learning.
Alternative Personality Models and Academic Performance
The past few decades have seen the domination of research on personality and academic
performance by the FFM, but other trait constructs and personality models have been employed as
well. The biologically based Eysenckian personality model (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) has been an
influential alternative to the FFM, in educational research as in psychology in general. Two of the
personality factors in the Eysenckian personality model, extraversion and neuroticism, are very
similar to extraversion and emotional stability (reversed) in the FFM and show similar associations
with academic performance. Furthermore, the psychoticism factor in the Eysenckian model partly
overlaps with conscientiousness (reversed), but unlike conscientiousness, psychoticism shows only
limited predictive validity for academic performance (Poropat, 2011). Taken together, the

11"
Eysenckian personality model does not offer incremental validity for academic performance when
compared to the FFM.
Various isolated personality constructs have also been associated with academic performance,
though much less frequently studied. Notably, need for cognition and emotional intelligence have
shown positive correlations with GPA, whereas procrastination is negatively associated with GPA
(Richardson et al., 2012), which is consistent with the strong negative association between
procrastination and conscientiousness (Steel, 2007).
One of the limitations of the FFM is that it was developed on the basis of factor-analyzing common-
language descriptors of personality (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996), rendering it largely atheoretical,
even if it has been shown to be highly useful. It is for this reason that so much attention has been
paid to efforts at explaining why these empirically-derived personality factors should be associated
with academic performance. By contrast, reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) provides a model
of personality that is rooted in behavioral learning theory (Corr, 2004), which makes RST appealing
as a model that potentially could explain the associations between personality and academic
performance. However, research on RST in academic settings is scarce (Poropat, 2016), and it
remains uncertain what utility RST has in educational research in relation to individual differences
in learning and performance (Matthews, 2008).
Moderators
As indicated earlier, academic level moderates the relationship between the FFM and academic
performance. Only conscientiousness is consistently associated with academic performance across
primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Openness, agreeableness, emotional stability, and
extraversion all have lower correlations with academic performance in secondary and tertiary
education (Poropat, 2009, 2016).

12"
However, the moderating effect of educational level interacts with the way personality is measured.
For the past half-century, personality has typically been assessed using self-ratings, and most
research on relationships between personality and academic performance therefore reports results
based on self-rated personality. But as summarized previously, use of other-rated measures of the
FFM produce markedly different correlations of FFM traits with academic performance.
Some of the explanation for the discrepancies in predictive validity between self-rated and other-
rated personality may originate in self-raters’ desirability biases. A recent study has found that more
educated individuals perceive openness as more desirable and are also more prone to overstate their
level of openness in self-reports (Ludeke, 2014), while self-raters tend to assess emotional stability
in ways that make it less useful for predicting academic performance (Poropat, 2014b). In research
on academic performance, this bias would not only make self-reported levels of openness
unreliable, it would also result in an underestimation of the true correlation between openness and
academic performance. Other-ratings are less influenced by desirability bias, and they have the
additional strength that they are based on observed behavior, not on intentional behavior.
Finally, academic major has been shown to moderate the associations between the FFM traits and
academic performance in tertiary education (Vedel, 2014; Vedel, Thomsen, & Larsen, 2015).
Conscientiousness, for example, appears to be a comparatively stronger predictor of GPA for
psychology and law students than for economics students. And whereas openness seems to benefit
political science students academically, the opposite seems to be the case for law students (Vedel et
al., 2015). Research has consistently shown that students in different majors differ from each other
at the group level on the FFM traits (Vedel, 2016), and it seems likely that different personality
traits are beneficial in different academic disciplines. This would parallel findings from job
performance research showing differential predictive validity of the FFM traits in different
occupations (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). However, academic major is

13"
a little studied moderator, and our current knowledge about its effect on the associations between
the FFM traits and academic performance is limited.
Conclusion
A century has passed since Webb (1915) highlighted the need to look beyond cognitive abilities in
the search for predictors of academic performance, but it is only in recent reviews that it has
become clear that personality is at least as, if not more, important than intelligence in educational
settings. Conscientiousness has emerged as the personality factor most strongly correlated with
academic performance, but both openness and emotional stability have important associations with
educational success. It is now clear that Webb was right to look past intelligence to “character”
when attempting to understand academic performance. Personality matters in important life
outcomes from health to occupational attainment and romantic relationships (Roberts, Kuncel,
Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007)—it is clear that academic performance is no exception.
Cross-References
• Big Five Model
• Intelligence-Personality Associations
• Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
• Lexical Approach
• Observer-Report Assessment of Personality and Individual Differences
• Performance goals
• Persistence
• Personality and Occupational Success
• Personality, Personnel Selection and Job Performance

14"
References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for
overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 219-245.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
Alarcon, G. M., & Edwards, J. M. (2013). Ability and motivation: Assessing individual factors that
contribute to university retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 129-137.
doi: 10.1037/a0028496
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning
of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 9-30.
doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00160
Bernard, L. C. (2010). Motivation and personality: Relationships between putative motive
dimensions and the five factor model of personality. Psychological Reports, 106(2), 613-631.
doi: 10.2466/pr0.106.2.613-631
Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and
self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 69-81.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001

15"
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (the binet-simon scale).
Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Co. doi: 10.1037/11069-000
Bloom, D. E., Hartley, M., & Rosovsky, H. (2007). Beyond private gain: The public benefits of
higher education. In J. J. Forest, & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher
education (vol. 18) (pp. 293-308). Netherlands: Springer.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4012-2_15
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4),
319-338. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Mainly openness: The relationship between the big
five personality traits and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4),
524-529. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.06.004
Clark, M. H., & Schroth, C. A. (2010). Examining relationships between academic motivation and
personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 19-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.002
Conard, M. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict academic
performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(3), 339-346.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.10.003

16"
Coplan, R. J., Hughes, K., Bosacki, S., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2011). Is silence golden? elementary
school teachers' strategies and beliefs regarding hypothetical shy/quiet and exuberant/talkative
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 939-951. doi: 10.1037/a0024551
Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3), 317-332. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01.005
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Barbano, H. E., Lebowitz, B., & Larson, D. M.
(1986). Cross-sectional studies of personality in a national sample: II. stability in neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness. Psychology and Aging, 1(2), 144-149.
doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.1.2.144
De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review.
European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 303-336.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:5
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. (1975). Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire. London,
UK: Hodder and Stoughton.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical
intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 537-552.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.537
Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2012). Do better schools lead to more growth? cognitive skills,
economic outcomes, and causation. Journal of Economic Growth, 17(4), 267-321.
doi: 10.1007/s10887-012-9081-x

17"
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797-807.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.797
Komarraju, M., & Karau, S. J. (2005). The relationship between the big five personality traits and
academic motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 557-567.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.013
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the big five personality traits in
predicting college students' academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual
Differences, 19(1), 47-52. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The big five personality traits,
learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4), 472-
477. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to
anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
136(5), 768-821. doi: 10.1037/a0020327
Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P., Kuyper, H., & Hendriks, A. A. (2010). Does homework
behavior mediate the relation between personality and academic performance? Learning and
Individual Differences, 20(3), 203-208. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.005

18"
Ludeke, S. G. (2014). Truth and fiction in the association between openness and education: The role
of biased responding. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 137-141.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.07.008
MacCann, C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). The best years of our lives?
coping with stress predicts school grades, life satisfaction, and feelings about high school.
Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 235-241. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.08.004
Matthews, G. (2008). Reinforcement sensitivity theory: A critique from cognitive science. In P. J.
Corr (Ed.), The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality (pp. 482-507). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511819384.018
McKenzie, K., Gow, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2004). Exploring first-year academic achievement
through structural equation modelling. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 95-
112. doi: 10.1080/0729436032000168513
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal
orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128-150.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338. doi: 10.1037/a0014996

19"
Poropat, A. E. (2011). The eysenckian personality factors and their correlations with academic
performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 41-58.
doi: 10.1348/000709910X497671
Poropat, A. E. (2014a). A meta‐analysis of adult‐rated child personality and academic performance
in primary education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 239-252.
doi: 10.1111/bjep.12019
Poropat, A. E. (2014b). Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and
implications. Learning and Individual Differences, 34, 24-32. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.013
Poropat, A. E. (2016). Beyond the shadow: The role of personality and temperament in learning. In
L. Corno, & E. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp.172-185).
Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, Division 15 – Educational
Psychology.
Poropat, A. E., & Corr, P. J. (2015). Thinking bigger: The Cronbachian paradigm & personality
theory integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 56(1), 59-69.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.10.006
Richardson, M., & Abraham, C. (2009). Conscientiousness and achievement motivation predict
performance. European Journal of Personality, 23(7), 589-605. doi: 10.1002/per.732
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students'
academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2),
353-387. doi: 10.1037/a0026838

20"
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of
personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive
ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4),
313-345. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
Roberts, B. W., Jackson, J. J., Fayard, J. V., Edmonds, G., & Meints, J. (2009). Conscientiousness.
In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior
(pp. 369-381). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16(4), 207-212. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00505.x
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., Mastoras, S. M., Beaton, L., & Osborne, S. E. (2012). Relationships
of personality, affect, emotional intelligence and coping with student stress and academic
success: Different patterns of association for stress and success. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22(2), 251-257. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.010
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). Evidence for the big five in analyses of familiar english
personality adjectives. European Journal of Personality, 10(1), 61-77.
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199603)10:1
Spearman, C. (1904). "General intelligence," objectively determined and measured. American
Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-292. doi: 10.2307/1412107
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65-94.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65

21"
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138-161.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138
Steinmayr, R., Bipp, T., & Spinath, B. (2011). Goal orientations predict academic performance
beyond intelligence and personality. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 196-200.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.026
Swanberg, A. B., & Martinsen, O. L. (2010). Personality, approaches to learning and achievement.
Educational Psychology, 30(1), 75-88. doi: 10.1080/01443410903410474
Vedel, A. (2014). The big five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 66-76. doi: 10.1016.j.paid.2014.07.011
Vedel, A. (2016). Big five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic
review. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011
Vedel, A., Thomsen, D. K., & Larsen, L. (2015). Personality, academic majors and performance:
Revealing complex patterns. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 69-76.
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.030
Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal
orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(2), 149-170.
doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1042
von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity
is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 574-
588. doi: 10.1177/1745691611421204

22"
von Stumm, S., & Ackerman, P. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 841-869. doi: 10.1037/a0030746
Webb, E. (1915). Character and intelligence: An attempt at an exact study of character.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zhao, N. B. (2011). Learning from errors: The role of context, emotion, and personality. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 435-463. doi: 10.1002/job.696
"