Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 2017, 4 (3), 12–21
© 2017 International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies (IJPES) is supported by Educational Researches and Publications Association (ERPA)
www.ijpes.com
International Journal of Psychology and Educational
Studies
The Personality of a “Good Test Taker”: Self-Control and Mindfulness
Predict Good Time-Management When Taking Exams
Jeffrey M. Osgood1, Olivia McNally2, Grace Talerico3
1,2,3Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida, USA
ARTICLE INF O
ABSTRACT
Article History:
Received 18.09.2017
Received in revised form
25.09.2017
Accepted 26.09.2017
Available online
30.09.2017
Much prior research has linked trait self-control and trait mindfulness with improved performance
on overall academic metrics such as GPA. The present research expands on this literature by linking
self-control, mindfulness, and closely related personality constructs to differences in the way
students manage their time while taking exams. Students at two large public universities (total n =
362) completed scale measures of self-control, mindfulness, and their use of time when taking timed
examinations. The results suggest that trait self-control (r = .174) and trait mindfulness (r = .311) are
statistically significant predictors of effective time management while taking timed exams.
© 2017 IJPES. All rights reserved
Keywords:1
Self-Control, Mindfulness, Time-Management, Student Performance, Personality
1.Introduction
What makes some students “good test takers” whereas other seemingly equally intelligent students fail to
perform? Researchers have identified many factors other than intelligence that affect students performance on
exams, such as stereotype threat (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003), anxiety (Cassady & Johnson, 2002), and
study habits (Culler & Holahan, 1980). Evidently, many variables can affect how well a student actually
performs on test day. The difficulty of succeeding on exams is compounded by the fact that many academic
exams are timed. Timed examinations present additional and unique challenges to the student. Performing
well on such assessments requires regulating attention to the test while ignoring distractions, pacing oneself
on questions, being self-aware of one's own knowledge, and monitoring one's progress on individual
problems against the time being used so to decide when to skip to the next question, among other things. In
sum, effective test taking, particularly on timed exams, requires effective self-regulation and strong awareness
of one's situation, not only intelligence. Therefore, students with personality traits that predispose them to
effective self-regulation and attention to their current situation, should predict effective time management
with taking exams. Two such personality traits are self-control and mindfulness.
1.1. Self-Control and Academic Performance
Self-control is commonly understood to mean intentionally modifying one's automatic behaviors or responses
so to act in a way consistent with long-term goals, values, or acceptable standards (e.g., Baumeister, &
Heatherton, 1996). Stable individual differences in self-control exist such that the self-control exhibited by
someone as a child is a reliable predictor of self-control decades later (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1990).
Furthermore, the amount of self-control a person displays in one area of life can predict self-control displayed
in other areas of life. For example, people who show weak self-control when choosing between smaller but
immediate monetary rewards rather than larger/later ones, also tend to show weaker self-control when trying
1
Corresponding author’s address: Department of Psychology Florida Gulf Coast University 10501 FGCU Blvd S, Fort Myers, FL 33965
e-mail: osgood.jeffrey@gmail.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2017.03.002
Jeffrey M. Osgood, Olivia McNally, Grace Talerico
13
to limit their alcohol consumption (Osgood & Muraven, in press). For this reason, psychologists often measure
self-control as a personality trait using self-report scales (e.g., Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) and/or
ratings of observed behaviors by other people such as parents and teachers (e.g., Duckworth & Seligman,
2005). Although the myth persists among members of the western public that academic achievement is
primarily the result of innate ability, social science research often finds that trait self-control predicts academic
success better than IQ (see Duckworth, Quinn, & Seligmann, 2012).
The connection between individual differences in self-regulation and overall academic performance is well
established in nearly every student age group and longitudinally (see de Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders,
Finkenauer, & Baumeister, 2012). In a classic study on the delay of gratification, social psychologist Walter
Mischel asked young children to choose between receiving a single marshmallow immediately, or waiting an
undefined amount of time for two marshmallows (Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970). When the same children were
assessed a decade later, those who had waited longer in the original study grew up to be more academically
successful adolescents than those who gave in to temptation more quickly: they earned higher grades (Mischel,
Shoda, & Peake, 1988) and achieved higher SAT scores (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). More recently,
Duckworth and Seligman (2005) reported the results of a longitudinal study where self-control assessed at the
start of the school year via questionnaires completed by parents, teachers, and students themselves predicted
end of year academic achievement better than IQ in a two groups of eighth graders.
Indeed, individual differences in self-control consistently predict academic success. For example, several
studies report strong correlations between trait level measures of self-control and college grade point average
(GPA) (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2012; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone,
2004; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). Relatedly, Hogan and Weiss (1974) found that students elected to the academic
honor society Phi Beta Kappa scored higher on the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) measure of trait
self-control than a sample of equally intelligent students who were not elected to the honor society.
Although the relationship between self-control and major metrics of academic success such as GPA are well
represented in the literature, fewer studies have researched links between trait self-control and specific
academic behaviors. Some exceptions to this include research by Duckworth and colleagues (2005; 2012),
which found that students with higher self-control tended to complete homework more regularly,
procrastinate less, spend more time on schoolwork, and less time on non-academic related distractions such
as television watching. Still, no published research has assessed how trait self-control might predict effective
testing behaviors when taking exams. Nevertheless, there is strong theoretical grounding to predict that
students who are higher in trait self-control would manage their time better when taking tests. Pacing oneself
well on an exam requires maintaining focus and resisting the tendency to daydream or attend to distractions.
It also requires the self-regulatory skills and willpower to make decisive choices about how to use one's limited
time (e.g., choosing to skip a question when too much time is being used, answering easy questions first, etc)
in a stressful situation. Unfortunately, the stress of examinations impairs effective self-control in many
students (Oaten & Cheng, 2005) Furthermore, weak self-control can cause inattention and susceptibility to
boredom and distractions (Osgood, 2015). Thus, possessing high trait self-control would be a great advantage
and should predict more effective time management with taking exams.
1.2. Mindfulness and Academic Performance
In addition to resisting distractions and having the willpower to take decisive action, effective time
management requires awareness of how much time is passing, how much time is left, and how much is being
spent on each question. In other words, managing time when taking exams necessitates that one is mindful of
their present situation, thoughts, and behaviors. This tendency to be “present” in the moment is called
mindfulness (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Specifically, mindfulness refers to one’s level of awareness regarding their
present situation and take a nonjudgmental posture towards one's thoughts and feelings (Schraer et al., 2017).
Like, self-control, relatively stable individual differences in mindfulness are thought to exist (Davis, Lau, &
Cairns, 2009). Correspondingly, trait mindfulness can be assessed via self-report questionnaires (Lau et al.,
2006).
Although mindfulnesses role in academic success does not have the longstanding pedigree that self-control
enjoys, new research over the past decade is slowly building a case for mindfulness as an instrument for
learning (See Meiklejohn et al., 2012; see also Zenner, Herrnleben-kurz, Walach, 2014). In one experiment, 61
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies 2017, 4 (3), 12-21
14
spanish high-school students were randomly assigned to either 10 weeks of mindfulness training or received
no such training (Franco, Manas, Cangas, & Gallego, 2010). The academic performance of the students who
received the mindfulness training improved significantly more than the performance of those who did not
receive the training over the course of the study. Similar results have been found in studies using elementary
school students (Bakosh, 2013) and undergraduate college students (Napora, 2013).
However, this nascent literature has some shortcomings. First, not all results have been so supportive. For
instance, Brausch (2011) did not uncover a significant correlation between trait mindfulness and first semester
college GPA. Second, like self-control, the role of mindfulness in specific academic behaviors is somewhat
limited. Rather, most of the literature focuses on effect of mindfulness in reducing student stress/anxiety,
cognitive performance, and emotional resiliency (Zenner, Herrnleben-kurz, Walach, 2014). Of particular
interest to the current investigation, the relationship (if any) between mindfulness and time management on
exams has yet to be investigated. Indeed, in general, the literature is lacking any examination of trait
personality factors that predict specific behaviors on timed exams.
1.3. Present Research
The purpose of the present research is to investigate the role of self-control and mindfulness on time
management when students take exams. Performance on timed exams often constitute a large percentage of a
student's grade in a course and timed achievement tests such as the SAT and GRE are used in admissions
decisions for post-secondary and post-graduate degree programs. Clearly, the stakes are very high for
students to perform well on timed exams. Thus, better understanding what personality factors relate to
students behaviors when taking such exams is important. In the present investigation, students completed
personality scales that measured trait self-control (and closely related constructs) and mindfulness along with
questions that measured their use of time while taking exams. Effectively managing one's time on exams
requires self-monitoring, situational awareness, regulating attention, and effective decision making. These
behaviors are associated with strong self-control and mindfulness (See Osgood & Salamone, 2017). Thus, trait
self-control and mindfulness were both predicted to be positively associated with effective time management.
2.1. Study One
2.1.1. Methods
2.1.1.2. Participants
230 undergraduate students from a large public university in the northeastern United States arrived to
complete the study. Students completed this study in exchange for partial course credit. Data from five
participants either failed to record properly, the participants did not complete the study, or their responses
were otherwise lost. Thus, data from 225 (125 Female; Age: M = 18.8, SD = 1.2) were used in analysis. Data
collection began upon approval by the institutional review board and continued until the conclusion of the
academic semester. Data was not analyzed until data collection was complete. All participants involved in the
study are accounted for in the summary above.
2.1.1.3. Materials and Procedures
Upon arriving in the laboratory, participants were administered informed consent and taken to a computer
station to complete the study which consisted of a series of surveys meant to measure self-control (and closely
related constructs) as well as a questionnaire that asked them about their time management when taking timed
exams. This data collection was done as part of a large-scale self-report study on the role of self-control in
different aspects of college-life (e.g., academics, romantic relationships, student employment, etc). However,
only those questionnaires related to self-control and time management on exams are reported here as that is
the focus of the present paper. The order of the questionnaires was fully counterbalanced between
participants. Specifically, participants completed the Self-Control Scale (SCS; Tangney et al., 2004); Values in
Action Regulation of Self Subscale (VIA.SC; Petersen & Seligman, 2004); Values in Action Industriousness
Subscale (VIA.IND; Petersen & Seligman, 2004); California Personality Inventory Self-Control Subscale (CPI;
Gough, 1987); Emotion Based Decision Making Scale (EBDM; Barchard, 2001); and Grit Scale (GRIT;
Duckworth, 2007). The VIA and CPI scales were accessed via the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP;
Jeffrey M. Osgood, Olivia McNally, Grace Talerico
15
Goldberg et al., 2006). Finally, all participants completed a ten item experimenter created survey to assess
various aspects of time management when taking exams (TTQ). All questions were answered on a Likert-Type
scale with options ranging from 1 = “Not at all true” to 7 = “Very True”. This included the following items
(* indicates reverse coded in analysis). All questions on the survey are reported here:
“When taking a timed test...
1. “...it is easy for me to spend too much time on a single question.”*
2. “...if I do not know the answer to a question, I always quickly skip it and proceed to the next one.”
3. “...I will persist on a question or problem until I am satisfied with my answer, even if this takes a lot
of time.”*
4. “...I sometimes spend a lot of time thinking about a single question.”*
5. “...if there are questions I still don’t know after having finished the rest of the test, I will often run out
the clock trying to figure out these questions.”*
6. “...I tend to use all of the available time because I keep trying to figure out the answer to questions I
do not know.”*
7. “...I pace myself well.”
8. “...I keep an eye on the clock.”
9. “...I make sure that I have time to view every question.”
10. “...I lose track of time easily.” *
2.1.3. Results
The initial reliability of the experimenter created test taking scale was α = .73, items two and eight were
dropped to maximize reliability at α = .79. Data from all questionnaires used in this study were normally
distributed. Descriptive data is displayed on Table 1 and correlations between measures and outcomes are
displayed on Table 2.
Table 1. Descriptive Data For Study One Surveys
Survey
Mean (SD)
n
α
SCS
82.8 (14.6)
225
.79
VIA.SC
49.1 (9.1)
225
.70
VIA.IND
41.0 (7.7)
225
.82
CPI
42.7 (10.0)
225
.77
EBDM
34.7 (9.1)
225
.84
GRIT
52.9 (8.2)
225
.67
TTQ
34.1 (8.6)
224
.73
Note: SCS: Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004); VIA.SC: Values in Action Regulation of Self Subscale
(Petersen & Seligman, 2004); VIA.IND: Values in Action Industriousness Subscale (Petersen & Seligman, 2004);
CPI: California Personality Inventory Self-Control Subscale (Gough, 1987); EBDM: Emotion Based Decision
Making Scale (Barchard, 2001); GRIT: Grit Scale (Duckworth, 2007); TTQ (Overall Test Taking Questions,
experimenter created).
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies 2017, 4 (3), 12-21
16
Table 2. Pearson's Correlations for Study One
SCS
VIA.SC
VIA.IND
EBDM
GRIT
TTQ
SCS
-
.427**
.511**
-.186**
.581**
.280**
VIA.SC
-
-
.386**
-.121~
.402**
.091
VIA.IND
-
-
-
-.022
.691**
.149*
EBDM
-
-
-
-
-.045
-.152*
GRIT
-
-
-
-
-
.181**
TTQ
-
-
-
-
-
-
Note: ~ p < .1, * p < .05, **p < .01. SCS: Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al., 2004); VIA.SC: Values in Action
Regulation of Self Subscale (Petersen & Seligman, 2004); VIA.IND: Values in Action Industriousness Subscale
(Petersen & Seligman, 2004); CPI: California Personality Inventory Self-Control Subscale (Gough, 1987);
EBDM: Emotion Based Decision Making Scale (Barchard, 2001); GRIT: Grit Scale (Duckworth, 2007); TTQ
(Overall Test Taking Questions, experimenter created).
2.2. Study Two
Study two was designed to serve two purposes. First, study two was intended to conceptually replicate the
overall finding in study one that trait self-control is positively associated with effective test taking habits in a
second independent sample of students at a different university. Second, study two sought to extend the
finding of study one by testing the research hypothesis that trait mindfulness is positively correlated with
effective test taking time management habits.
2.2.1. Methods
2.2.1.2. Participants
137 undergraduate students (84 Female; Age: M = 19.2, SD = 1.4) from a large public university in the
southeastern United States participated in the study in exchange for partial course credit. Data collection began
upon approval by the institutional review board and continued until the conclusion of the academic semester.
Data was not analyzed until data collection was complete. All participants involved in the study are accounted
for in the summary above.
2.2.1.3. Materials and Procedures
Upon arriving at the laboratory, participants were administered informed consent by the experimenter. Data
collection was typically conducted with two participants at a time sharing a room, but at different desks not
directly facing each other. Following the informed consent, participants completed the questionnaires (paper
versions) one at a time. Participants were asked to notify the experimenter when they had completed a
questionnaire so the experimenter could provide the next one. Participants were given a short (one minute)
break between each questionnaire to reduce cognitive fatigue and attention loss. All personality questionnaires
completed by participants are reported here. All participants completed the Toronto Mindfulness
Scale/Questionnaire (TMQ; Davis et al., 2009), the same VIA.SC from study one, and an experimenter-
produced questionnaire about exam time management, updated from and based on the questionnaire used in
study one. Participants also completed a brief demographics survey. The experimenter created test taking
survey for study two (TTQ_2) used in this study included the following items that were each answered on a
four point Likert-Type scale where one = “Very Infrequently” and four = “Very Frequently” (* indicates items
that were reverse coded in analyses). All questions on the survey are reported here.
“When taking a timed test…”
Jeffrey M. Osgood, Olivia McNally, Grace Talerico
17
1. ...I spend too much time on a single question*
2. ... if I do not know the answer to a question, I always quickly skip it and proceed to the next one.
3. ...I will persist on a question or problem until I am satisfied with my answer, even if this takes a lot of
time.*
4. ... if there are questions I still do not know after having finished the rest of the test, I will use all the
remaining time trying to figure out these questions.
5. ...I pace myself well
6. ...I keep an eye on the clock
7. ...I make sure that I have time to view every question
8. ...I lose track of time easily*
9. ...I need to read test questions more than once before I understand them well enough to answer.*
10. ...I continue to study right up to the moment before the test starts.*
2.2.3. Results
Initially, the experimenter created test taking survey had an inter-item reliability of α = .51. This was
maximized by dropping items six and ten to α = .64. Data from all questionnaires used in this study were
normally distributed. Descriptive data is displayed on Table 3 and correlations between measures and
outcomes are displayed on Table 4.
Table 3. Descriptive Data For Study Two Surveys
Survey
Mean (SD)
n
α
TMQ
56.2 (9.7)
137
.81
VIA.SC
30.5 (5.3)
137
.76
TTQ_2
22.7 (3.6)
137
.64
Note: TMQ: Toronto Mindfulness Questionnaire (Davis et al., 2009); VIA.SC: Values in Action Regulation of
Self Subscale (Petersen & Seligman, 2004); TTQ_2 (experimenter created survey of test time management
revised for study two).
Table 4. Pearson's Correlations for Study Two
TMQ
VIA.SC
TTQ_2
TMQ
-
.272**
.311**
VIA.SC
-
-
.188*
TTQ_2
-
-
-
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01. TMQ: Toronto Mindfulness Questionnaire (Davis et al., 2009); VIA.SC: Values in
Action Regulation of Self Subscale (Petersen & Seligman, 2004); TTQ_2 (experimenter created survey of test
time management revised for study two).
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies 2017, 4 (3), 12-21
18
3.Discussion
The purpose of the present investigation was to test the hypothesis that high trait self-control and mindfulness
predict more effective use of time when taking timed tests. These hypotheses were broadly supported across
both studies. In study one, four out of the five scales used to assess trait self-control and closely related
constructs were significantly correlated with students overall score on a questionnaire designed to assess how
effectively students use their time when taking exams. In study two, the relationship of trait self-control and
effective time management on exams was replicated in a different sample at another university. Furthermore,
study two demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between trait mindfulness and test taking time
management.
The present research represents an useful addition to the literature on trait self-control/mindfulness and
academic performance. To date, most research measuring these personality traits have limited their
investigations to linking them with general measures of academic success (e.g., GPA). To the authors
knowledge, no other study has investigated the relationship between either trait self-control or trait
mindfulness on specific student testing behaviors. This is unfortunate for several reasons. First, robust
evidence now exists that self-control is a major predictor of academic success, even greater than IQ
(Duckworth & Seligman, 2005), yet only a small number of studies have researched how specific academic
behaviors relate to self-control; none of which look at test taking behaviors. Second, test scores often constitute
a large component of a student's course grade and are used as major factors in academic admissions decisions,
yet little is known about the personality factors that predict effective vs. ineffective test taking. Indeed, most
research on test taking and personality has focused only on test anxiety. Finally, trait self-control and
mindfulness can be stably changed with training (See Osgood & Salamone, 2017). Thus, reliable links between
these traits and effective test-taking open the door to the possibility that training self-control/mindfulness may
improve student testing performance. In sum, identifying the specific beneficial academic behaviors that are
related to self-control is perhaps more useful than documenting links between traits and overall academic
success. Doing so allows theorists to better understand the relationship between individual differences and
academic success and empowers educators to identify and assist students at risk for counterproductive school
behaviors more effectively.
The findings of these studies can help educators better understand and identify students who struggle when
taking timed exams. In time, this may lead to more effective interventions to improve students testing
performance and increase academic achievement. These findings have particular relevance for standardized
achievement tests such as the GRE, MCAT, SAT, etc. Such tests are designed to make time usage a performance
variable. In other words, these tests are written with more questions than most students are reasonably
expected to be able to answer in the time they are given and reward effective time use. For example, on the
SAT, each question is weighted the same, despite varying in difficulty. This rewards students who are able to
move through the test efficiently and answer as many questions correctly as possible without squandering too
much time on any given question when progress is not being made. Thus, those students who manage their
time better would hold a distinct advantage over equally intelligent peers with poorer time management on
such exams. Indeed, high self-control has already been linked to improved achievement test scores (Shoda et
al., 1990). It is likely that high trait-mindfulness would be positively associated as well.
The applicability of these findings are not limited to achievement tests such as the SAT. Students with learning
disabilities are particularly and negatively affected by exam time limits on regular academic tests relative to
their normally achieving peers (e.g., Alster, 1997). Although not considered here, it is possible that self-control
and mindfulness may be particularly important for students with learning disabilities. More concretely,
mindfulness based training may improve test taking in some students who ordinarily require extended time.
This is a future research direction that will need and should receive attention.
Although this research contributes positively to the literature overall, there are some shortcomings that should
be addressed. Mainly, use of time on exams was assessed via self-report questions. A good follow-up for this
research would be to observe students taking actual exams while coding their behaviors for
effective/ineffective time management. The second shortcoming of the present research is that neither study
collected measures of test performance such SAT or ACT scores. Future studies should consider testing
Jeffrey M. Osgood, Olivia McNally, Grace Talerico
19
mediation models where mindfulness improves time management, which in turn improves scores on
standardized exams where time is an important factor.
In addition to what was previously mentioned, the results of the present research suggest several promising
avenues for future research. First and foremost, researchers should test whether programs that train self-
control and/or mindfulness can improve students time management on exams. New research in social
psychology suggests that both trait self-control and trait mindfulness can improve substantially and stably
with training (See Osgood & Salamone, 2017). Combining those recent findings with the present research, it is
likely that similar training could improve time management (and test scores) on standardized exams such as
the GRE, MCAT, SAT, AP, and ACT. A reliable link between training mindfulness and improving testing
habits would be a boon to college educators as many universities have begun implementing mindfulness
training on campus, thus the infrastructure would already be in place to offer mindfulness training as a way
to improve testing performance. Second, researchers should seek to investigate what other personality traits
influence students time management when taking exams. For example, one might reasonably expect that
certain Big Five “OCEAN” (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1990) factors such as conscientiousness and neuroticism
to be positively and negatively related to time management on tests, respectively. Third, the regulation of time
on exams deserves more attention in general. Although time management tactics are basic curriculum for
many achievement test preparatory course, relatively little scientific research has investigated how students
naturally regulate their time while taking tests. Fourth, researchers should investigate the interaction between
the stressfulness of a testing situation and personality factors like trait self-control or mindfulness on texting
behaviors. For instance, perhaps in low stress testing situations (such as when there is ample time or the stakes
of the test are low) the effect of personality of testing behaviors is weaker than in highly stressful testing
situations. Finally, beyond self-control and mindfulness and even beyond test taking, the personality and
learning literature would benefit from more research that links personality to more specific academic
behaviors with defined contexts (such as regulating time while taking exams) rather than focusing mainly on
broad measures like GPA or graduation rates.
In conclusion, academic researchers have come a long way in identifying individual differences that contribute
to academic success. Perhaps chief among these individual differences is self-control, while the role of the
related attribute of mindfulness has only more recently received attention. The present research builds off of
this tradition by also affirming the positive relationship between strong self-control, strong mindfulness, and
academic success. Importantly, the present research adds to the literature by implicating self-control and
mindfulness as important predictors of how students regulate their use of time when taking exams. Although
additional research will be needed, the future holds the promise of better understanding test-taking and
building a world where fewer students think of themselves as “bad test takers”.
Aknowledgements:
The author declares there is no conflict of interest.
The author would like to thank Jacqueline Dawood, and Michael Matthews who assisted with collecting the
data for this study. The author would also like to recognize the Florida Gulf Coast University Office of
Undergraduate Scholarship and the Office of Research and Graduate Studies who helped fund the
presentation of this research.
References
Alster, E. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(2), 222-227.
Bakosh, L. S. (2013). Investigating the effects of a daily audio-guided mindfulness intervention for elementary school
students and teachers(Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Transpersonal Psychology).
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–
15.
International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies 2017, 4 (3), 12-21
20
Brausch, B. D. (2011). The role of mindfulness in academic stress, self-efficacy, and achievement in college
students. (Masters Thesis, Eastern Illinois, University).
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary
educational psychology, 27(2), 270-295. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
Davis, K. M., Lau, M. A., & Cairns, D. R. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of a trait version of
the Toronto Mindfulness Scale. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 185-197. doi:10.1891/0889-
8391.23.3.185
de Ridder, D. T., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of
self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76-99. doi: 10.1177/1088868311418749.
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., & Tsukayama, E. (2012). What No Child Left Behind leaves behind: The roles
of IQ and self-control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades.
Journal of educational psychology, 104(2), 439-451. doi: 10.1037/a0026280
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of
adolescents. Psychological science, 16(12), 939-944. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x
Franco, C., Mañas, I., Cangas, A. J., & Gallego, J. (2010). The applications of mindfulness with students of
secondary school: Results on the academic performance, self-concept and anxiety. Knowledge
management, information systems, e-learning, and sustainability research, 83-97.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test performance: An
intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6),
645-662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory- Administrator’s Guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hogan, R., & Weiss, D. S. (1974). Personality correlates of superior academic achievement. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 21(2), 144-149.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. (1990). ‘The ‘‘Big Five. Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in
the Natural Language and in Questionnaires.’’In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, ed. Lawrence
A. Pervin and Oliver P. John, 66-100.
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., & Devins, G. et al. (2006). The
Toronto mindfulness scale: Development and validation. Journal of clinical psychology, 62(12), 1445-
1467. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20326
Meiklejohn, J., Phillips, C., Freedman, M. L., Griffin, M. L., Biegel, G., Roach, A., ... & Isberg, R. (2012).
Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: Fostering the resilience of teachers and students.
Mindfulness, 3(4), 291-307. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0094-5
Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16(2), 329-337.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool
delay of gratification. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(4), 687-696.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933-938.
Napora, L. (2013). The impact of classroom-based meditation practice on cognitive engagement, mindfulness and
academic performance of undergraduate college students. State University of New York at Buffalo.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Seaman, M. A. (1995). The effect of time constraints and statistics test anxiety on test
performance in a statistics course. The Journal of experimental education, 63(2), 115-124.
Osgood, J. M., Muraven, M. (in press). Self-Control and alcohol consumption. To appear in Fujita, K, de Ridder,
D., & Adriaanse, M (Eds). Handbook of Self-Control in Health and Wellbeing. London: Routledge.
Jeffrey M. Osgood, Olivia McNally, Grace Talerico
21
Osgood, J. M. (2015). Acute cardiovascular exercise counteracts the effect of ego-depletion on attention: How
ego-depletion increases boredom and compromises directed attention. International Journal of
Psychological Studies, 7(3), 85-96.
Osgood, J.M., Salamone, A. (2017). Can trait self-control improve with training? A review of the evidence and
possible underlying mechanisms. Advances in Psychology Research, 116, 1-30.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New
York: Oxford University Press and Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
www.viacharacter.org
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies
from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental psychology,
26(6), 978-986.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self‐control predicts good adjustment, less
pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of personality, 72(2), 271-324.
Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educational and
psychological measurement, 55(2), 177-185.
Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S., & Walach, H. (2014). Mindfulness-based interventions in schools—a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 603. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00603
