Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 12251243 www.elsevier.

com/locate/paid

Individual dierences and undergraduate academic success: the roles of personality, intelligence, and application
Tom Farsidesa,*, Ruth Woodeldb
a

Social Psychology Group, School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, East Sussex BN1 9SN, UK b Sociology Group, School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex, East Sussex BN1 9SN, UK Received 21 September 2001; received in revised form 15 March 2002; accepted 15 April 2002

Abstract The roles of intelligence and motivation in predicting academic success are well established. Evidence is, however, mixed concerning the role of personality traits in predicting such success. The current study attempted to overcome various methodological limitations associated with many previous studies to examine the potency of the traits of the ve factor model of personality in predicting academic success up to 3 years later, both directly and when controlling for intelligence and application (used as a proxy for motivation). Only two traits yielded signicant zero-order correlations with eventual undergraduate success, with both Openness to experience and Agreeableness being positively associated with Final Grades. Openness to experience explained unique variance in Final Grades even when predicting in the company of intellect and application measures. The impact of Agreeableness on Final Grades was wholly mediated by the main application measure; namely, not missing seminars. Less than one fth of Final Grade variance was explained by all the individual dierence variables in combination. Several practical, theoretical, and future research implications are explored. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Personality; Intelligence; Application; Motivation; Academic success

1. Introduction Reviewing the educational research available at the time, Harris (1940) claimed that the most essential determinants of academic success were intelligence and motivation. As Busato, Prins, Elshout, and Hamaker (2000) note, few today would disagree about the continued importance of such factors. In the American Psychological Association Task Force review of what is and what is not known about intelligence, Neisser et al. (1996) are unanimous in accepting that intelligence test scores predict a wide range of indicators of academic success (cf. Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997;
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1273-678-886; fax: +44-1273-673-563. E-mail address: t.l.farsides@sussex.ac.uk (T. Farsides).
0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0191-8869(02)00111-3

1226

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

Busato et al., 2000; Hirschberg & Itkin, 1978; Mellanby, Martin, & ODoherty, 2000). Similarly, positive relationships between motivation and academic success seem almost beyond doubt (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996: cf. Busato et al., 2000; Furnham & Mitchell, 1991; Mellanby et al., 2000). However, whilst accepting the roles of intelligence and motivation in determining academic success, contemporary researchers are also interested in whether or not other individual dierences may be used to predict academic performance. Personality dispositions are one class of individual dierences currently enjoying a considerable amount of attention (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). There is growing acceptance that many of the most important personality dispositions may be considered as collectively comprising the Big Five traits of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. Currently popular labels for these traits enable the acronym OCEAN: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion-introversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism-Emotional stability. Empirical evidence is mixed concerning the role each of these traits play in determining academic success. One reason for this appears to be that the relationship between certain traits and academic success is age-specic (see De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Furnham & Mitchell, 1991). In reviewing recent investigations of these relationships, therefore, it is necessary to order ndings by both trait and age/educational level. (Relevant studies conducted before 1970 will not be reviewed as this has already been done capably elsewhere: see De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996; Entwistle, 1972; Kline & Gale, 1971. In addition, as this paper focuses on dispositional predictors of academic success, readers interested in relationships between the predictor variables used are referred to Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Collis & Messick, 2001; Go & Ackerman, 1992; Matthews, 1997; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999; Saklofske & Zeidner, 1995; Sternberg & Ruzgis, 1994; Stough et al., 1996; Zeidner & Matthews, 2000.) 1.1. Openness to experience Positive correlations between openness to experience and academic success have been found by Schuerger and Kuna (1987) among school children, De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996) among rst year undergraduates, and by Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, and King (1994) among one of two samples of Business School graduate students (using graduate GPA as the criterion variable). Ackerman and Heggestads meta-analysis (1997) also reveals a positive relationship across two studies between openness to experience and knowledge and achievement. Against this, no signicant correlation between openness to experience and academic success was found among Rothstein et al.s (1994) second sample of graduate students, nor among Wolfe and Johnsons (1995) college student sample, nor among Busato et al.s (2000) sample of rst year psychology undergraduates. 1.2. Conscientiousness De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996) suggest that there is an impressive list emphasizing the importance of conscientiousness or related factors in learning and education (p. 325), with conscientiousness and learning outcome variables showing substantial zero-order correlations (p. 327). Consistent with this suggestion, positive correlations between conscientiousness and academic success have been found at the school level by Heaven, Mak, Barry, and Ciarrochi (2002); at the college level by Wolfe and Johnson (1995); at the university level by Busato et al. (2000), De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996), and Go and Ackerman (1992); and at the graduate level

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1227

by Hirschberg and Itkin (1978), Wiggins et al. (1969) andfor one of two samples using GPA as the criterion variableRothstein et al. (1994). Against this, Go and Ackerman (1992) found no signicant correlation between conscientiousness and academic success at the high school level and Rothstein et al. (1994) failed to nd a signicant correlation for the second of their graduate student samples when using GPA as the criterion variable. Ackerman and Heggestads (1997) meta-analysis includes one study showing a signicant negative correlation between conscientiousness and knowledge and achievement (p. 231). 1.3. Extraversion De Barbenza and Montoya (1974, cited in Halamandaris & Power, 1999) found that, academically, extraverted university students slightly outperformed introverted ones. Halamandaris and Power (1999) on the other hand found no signicant correlation between extraversion and undergraduate academic success. Similarly, Heaven et al. (2002) found no signicant relationship between extraversion and academic performance at school. With a single exception (on a second year clinical practice assessment), Furnham and Mitchell (1991) similarly found no signicant correlations between extraversion and any of a wide range of measures of academic success (over four years) among their sample of occupational therapy students. Ackerman and Heggestads (1997) meta-analysis included seven relevant studies which again revealed no signicant relationship between extraversion and knowledge and achievement. Mixed evidence about the relationship between extraversion and undergraduate success has been found by other studies (cf. Kline & Gale, 1971; Roberts, 2002). In each of these, some criterion variables have revealed no signicant correlations between extraversion and academic success, while others have suggested either a positive (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996) or a negative (Busato et al., 2000) association. Similarly, Rothstein et al. (1994) found mixed evidence about the relationship between extraversion and academic success at the graduate level, with some criterion variables suggesting a positive relationship and others suggesting no such relationship. Go and Ackerman (1992) found extraversion to negatively correlate with both high school and undergraduate GPA. 1.4. Agreeableness Heaven et al. (2002) found a positive zero-order correlation between agreeableness and selfreported academic performance among school children. De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996) found no association between agreeableness and either nal grades or performance during the rst examination period of the nal year among undergraduates. Busato et al. (2000) found no signicant correlation between either agreeableness and the rst examination scores of rst year psychology undergraduates or between agreeableness and any of the study points these students earned for each undergraduate year of study. Similarly, Rothstein et al. (1994) found no association between agreeableness and the written component of GPA among either of their two samples of Business School graduates (even when considered in combination). The single relevant study included in Ackerman and Heggestads (1997) meta-analysis also found no signicant association between agreeableness and knowledge and achievement. Finally, Rothstein et al. (1994) found agreeableness to negatively correlate with both in-class performance and with overall GPA among their two samples of Business School Graduates.

1228

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1.5. Neuroticism De Raad and Schouwenberg (1996) conclude their review of the relationship between emotional stability (the polar opposite of neuroticism) and academic achievement by saying that particularly at the university level, highly neurotic students are probably handicapped as compared to low neurotics (p. 326). Ackerman and Heggestad (1997) consider neuroticism to be equivalent to what they call stress reaction. Consistent with De Raad and Schouwenbergs conclusion, Ackerman and Heggestads (1997) meta-analysis of 11 relevant studies revealed a signicant negative relationship between stress reaction and knowledge and achievement. Similarly, De Barbenza and Montoya (1974, cited in Halamandaris & Power, 1999) found a negative correlation between neuroticism and academic achievement specically among university students. However, Busato et al. (2000) and Halamandaris and Power (1999) nd no such association among their undergraduate samples, while Heaven et al. (2002) nd no such association among school children. De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996) and Furnham and Mitchell (1991) each found mixed evidence about the relationship between neuroticism and undergraduate academic success, nding signicant negative correlations using some criterion variables and no such relationships using others (cf. Kline & Gale, 1971). Similarly mixed results were obtained at the graduate level by Rothstein et al. (1994). 1.6. Rationale for the present study Despite carefully ordering the review above by age/educational level, as well as by trait, it is obvious that the relevant literature paints no clear picture about the relationships between the key personality dispositions and academic success. There are several possible reasons for this, at least some of which may already be apparent from the review so far. First, in addition to employing samples of dierent ages, dierent studies have drawn samples from dierent disciplines, e.g. Occupational Therapy and Business Studies in addition to the more common Psychology. Research evidence suggests that trait-performance links may dier across subjects (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996). Secondly, dierent studies have used potentially radically dierent criteria for academic success, from course-specic evaluations (Halamandaris & Power, 1999), to rst-year examination scores (e.g. Busato et al., 2000), to nal year examination scores (e.g. De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996), to in-class performance (e.g. Rothstein et al., 1994), to grade point average (e.g. Go & Ackerman, 1992), to assessment whilst on placements (e.g. Furnham & Mitchell, 1991). It seems entirely possible that certain traits predict academic success in certain domains but not in others. To give just one example, extraversion may be positively correlated to academic success in terms of contributions in seminars but zero or even negatively correlated to performance in certain types of examination (cf. Rothstein et al., 1994). Thirdly, dierent studies have permitted considerably dierent time lapses between collection of predictor and criterion data. At one extreme, nal degree results have been predicted from measures obtained up to 4 years previously (e.g. Furnham & Mitchell, 1991). At the other extreme, secondary school GPA has been postdicted from measures obtained whilst participants were at college (Blickle, 1996). For a variety of reasons, it may be that personality variables predict academic performance in the short term but not the long term (Furnham & Mitchell, 1991, p. 1068).

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1229

Relationships between individual dierences and academic performance may be aected by methodological considerations beyond temporality of measurement. At least some of the relevant papers in the eld report sample sizes smaller than their authors would have liked (e.g. Halamandaris & Power, 1999, despite having a relatively large number of individual dierence measures, had academic performance data for only 81 students). In addition, several researchers (e.g. Busato et al., 2000) have noted the restriction of range problem, whereby individual dierence scores are likely to become less variable at later stages in the academic process (but indicators of academic success within stages are not). Intelligence Quotient scores, for example, are likely to be much more variable among (unselected) primary school children than among university students (selected, among other things, because of their indicators of high intelligence). Despite the diculties of reaching clear conclusions about possible relationships between individual dierences and academic performance, the use of individual dierence measures for academic selection continues to be seriously considered by, for example, university administrators (e.g. Wolchover, 2000). For this reason, the current study was designed to investigate the role of individual dierences (and other variables) in predicting academic success specically among students at our university, the University of Sussex, England. A number of steps were taken to ensure augmentation of the existing literature. First, and most obviously, we ensured a reasonably large sample size and employment of psychometrically defensible measures. Secondly, we attempted to predict the most important measure of academic achievement (the percentage from which nal degree classication was derived) from measures including dispositional ones completed at the very start of students undergraduate careers. Nevertheless, we supplemented this by obtaining more specic measures of academic success from each year of study. Finally, rather than simply replicating one of the more clear and robust ndings in the relevant literature, namely the positive association between trait motivation (e.g. Cassidy & Lynn, 1989; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953) and academic success, we investigated the possible relationship between academic success and important practical manifestations of motivation which we term application, e.g., seminar attendance and completion of set work the marks for which did not contribute to degree classication (i.e. work not formally assessed). As the review above attempts to show, hypotheses about the relationships between personality traits and academic success must of necessity be tentative. Signicant relationships between personality variables and academic performance in previous studies have been both erratic and, where present, modest. De Fruyt and Mervielde (1996), for example, investigated correlations between each of the ve OCEAN traits and each of three separate educational outcome variables. The largest signicant correlation was 0.35 (cf. Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Busato et al., 2000; Go & Ackerman, 1992; Rothstein et al., 1994). Similarly, Paunonen and Ashton (2001) found a multiple correlation of all ve OCEAN traits and university GPA of only 0.33 (thereby leaving almost 90% of the GPA variance unexplained). Bearing such concerns in mind, our best interpretation of the relevant literature as it bears upon our undergraduate sample nevertheless lead us to hypothesise that there would be modest positive correlations between both Openness to experience (H1) and Conscientiousness (H2) and academic success. We expected no signicant correlations between academic success and either Extraversion (H3) or Agreeableness (H4). A modest negative relationship between Neuroticism and academic success was anticipated (H5). In addition, we predicted that application whilst at university (e.g. seminar attendance) would be positively correlated with academic success (H6).

1230

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

Finally, we predicted that personality measures would be able to account for signicant, if modest, variation in academic success scores, even once the eects of intelligence and application were accounted for (H7). 2. Method 2.1. Context It is important to explain that at the time the data was collected for this study, most undergraduate students at Sussex University took both Major and School courses. To give an example, students studying the Major subject of Geography would do so within one of several possible Schools, e.g. Social Sciences, African and Asian Studies, Culture and Community Studies. The modal degree structure at the time was such that approximately half of students courses would have been within their Major subject, with the remainder being (typically multi- or inter-disciplinary) School courses. 2.2. Participants Participants were 432 University of Sussex students who successfully completed their 3-year undergraduate degrees in the summer of 2000. Of these, 205 were male, 226 were female, and one did not specify their gender. Mean age at time of entry was 21.30 years old (S.D.=6.29). Participants read for a wide variety (N=48) of degree subjects within nine dierent schools of study. 2.3. Procedure Self-completion questionnaire packs were administered in variety of mass testing sessions during students rst week at university. Each questionnaire pack took approximately 1 hour to complete. Permission to collect data was obtained from all appropriate university authorities and individual participation was entirely voluntary. The nature of the data to be collected was explained to participants and they were advised that their progress throughout their time at university would be tracked in terms of their seminar attendance, grades, etc. Only a handful of students declined to take part by leaving testing sessions when given an explicit opportunity to do so. No incentive for participation was oered beyond the possibility of obtaining personal results on the dispositional measures completed. 2.4. Measures 2.4.1. Personality traits The ve traits of Costa and McCraes (1992) Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality were measured using the short form of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1989). This Inventory uses 12 items to measure each of the following traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Each response scale has a range of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). 2.4.2. Intelligence Intelligence was measured using the AH5 Group Test of High Intelligence (Heim, 1968). To overcome restriction of range problems associated with the use of standard intelligence measures

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1231

with samples such as those drawn from university students, the AH5 test was designed specically for high intelligence participants. The test comprises of two sub-scales, one measuring predominantly verbal intelligence and the other predominantly spatial (geometric) intelligence. In the current sample, the correlation between verbal and spatial intelligence scores was moderate but not suciently strong to warrant collapsing into a single Intelligence scale (r=.45, P < 0.001). 2.4.3. Demographic variables With permission from both university authorities and participants, the researchers had access to participating students administrative records. It was therefore possible to obtain a considerable amount of demographic information. Much of this will not be reported here, primarily either because of suspicions about the datas quality (e.g. self-reported ethnicity on UCAS forms, a full third of which were left blank) or because information consisted of categorical data unsuited to the analytic strategy employed below. However, in addition to obtaining information about age upon entry, data was gathered on the A level points (or equivalent) students entered university with and on students socio-economic status (SES, measured using the Registrar Generals classication of descending SES from 1 to 5). 2.4.4. Tutorial report grades Each term, tutors for each undergraduate course at Sussex University write tutorial reports for each of their students. In addition to providing other information, tutors give each student a grade on a scale from 1 (equivalent to a 1st classication) to 6 (equivalent to a fail classication). These grades are intended primarily to be diagnostic and predictive of nal degree classication. Other than in very exceptional circumstances, they play no role in formal assessment. Tutorial grades for all participating students were obtained for all the Autumn and Spring courses they completed in Years 1 and 2. Data were restricted to these terms and years because of the diculty of data collection in the Summer term (largely given over to examining) and in the third year (when fewer didactic courses occur). 2.4.5. Tutorial absences Tutorial reports are also used to register student absences from seminars. This data was also obtained for all participating students in all their Year 1 and Year 2 Autumn and Spring courses. Because absolute number of absences is partly a reection on the number of seminars given on a course, absence data were converted to a ratio reecting the proportion of time-tabled seminars attended each term (across all courses), thus having a possible range of 0 (no absences) to 1 (absent from all seminars). 2.4.6. Submission of non-assessed work Records were obtained of participants submission of non-assessed work. In this context, nonassessed work is work which is set and marked for diagnostic and formative purposes, but for which the marks obtained do not contribute to formal nal assessment. This measure was derived as a ratio of work set to work submitted each term (across all courses), thus having a possible range of 0 (no non-assessed work submitted) to 1 (all non-assessed work submitted). For comparability with the previous two measures, submission data was collected in the Autumn and Spring terms of Years 1 and 2.

1232

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

2.4.7. Academic success At the time data was collected for this study, University of Sussex students were formally assessed each year, separately for both Major and School courses. In all cases, assessments were recorded as percentages. Year assessments were then calculated (where appropriate) by averaging the percentages achieved in the Major and School yearly assessments, usually weighted equally or approximately equally. Final assessment was then calculated by averaging Year 2 and Year 3 assessments. Degree classication (for all subjects) was achieved by formulae approximately designating rsts to students obtaining nal assessment percentages of above 70%, 2.1s to students obtaining nal assessment percentages between 60 and 69%, 2.2s to students with nal percentages of 5059%, 3rds to students with nal percentages of 4049%, pass degrees to students with nal percentages between 30 and 39%, and fail degrees to students with nal percentages below 30%. It can be noted that some academics at British Universities are suspicious that there may be widespread violations of the assumptions of parametric data when percentages are to be awarded near degree classication borderlines. Thus, for example, it is sometimes claimed that the dierence between grades of 66% and 69% is rather more signicant than the dierence between grades of 62% and 65%, as the former is closer than the latter to boundaries used for degree classication purposes (cf. Mellanby et al., 2000, p. 382). However, because the Sussex assessment system at the time of this study was to take averages over multiple courses, procedures were in place to regularly request that markers did not make assumptions such as these but rather assigned percentage grades without adjustment. In addition to the nal percentage assessments used to designate degree classication, more specic academic success measures were obtained from percentage assessments for both Major and School for each year of study. 3. Results 3.1. Data reduction 3.1.1. Tutorial report grades Principal components analysis of the eight tutorial report grades obtained yielded a single factor solution, with the resultant scale having a Cronbachs alpha of 0.83. 3.1.2. Seminar absences Principal components analysis of the eight seminar absence measures yielded a single factor solution, with the resultant scale having a Cronbachs alpha of 0.85. 3.1.3. Submission of non-assessed work The four submission ratio measures had low intercorrelations and did not yield a stable factor structure. Thus, the submission ratio measures were retained as separate measures, i.e. relating to the Autumn and Spring courses in the rst 2 years of study. 3.2. Analytic strategy In common with other studies of this type, data analysis was conducted in two stages. First, correlations were run between all the variables of interest. Secondly, multiple regression analyses

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1233

sought to identify how well academic success could be predicted using a combination of the individual dierence measures at our disposal. 3.3. Correlational analyses 3.3.1. Correlations among key dispositional variables Table 1 shows means and standard deviations for, and the correlations between, each of the individual dierence variables potentially predicting academic success. Most of the correlations are more or less as expected, although there were a few notable exceptions. Openness to experience was positively correlated with Extraversion, Agreeableness, and verbal IQ. Conscientiousness was also positively correlated with Extraversion and Agreeableness, was not signicantly correlated with either form of intelligence, and was negatively correlated with Neuroticism. Conscientiousness was signicantly negatively related with seminar absences (but not, interestingly, with any of the indicators of submission of non-assessed work). As just noted, Extraversion was signicantly associated with both Openness to experience and Conscientiousness, and it was also signicantly positively associated with Agreeableness and negatively associated with Neuroticism. In addition to positively correlating with Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion, Agreeableness was the only trait other than Openness to experience to correlate positively with verbal intelligence. Agreeableness was also the only trait other than Conscientiousness to correlate negatively with seminar absences.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations between individual dierence variables potentially predicting academic success
Mean O C E A N Iqv Iqs Absent Ratio 1 Ratio 2 Ratio 3 Ratio 4 30.51 29.64 29.40 30.34 23.74 10.01 16.12 0.12 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.93 S.D. 6.08 6.89 5.61 6.02 8.34 4.26 5.32 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.16 O 0.07 0.18 0.22 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.04 C E A N IQv IQs Absent Ratio 1 Ratio 2 Ratio 3

0.18 0.13 0.19 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.04

0.25 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.14

0.11 0.17 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.02

0.05 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.05

0.45 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.02

0.07 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.06

0.31 0.35 0.38 0.30

0.25 0.11 0.15

0.22 0.13

0.14

Italic values are signicant at P (two-tailed) 40.01 (strict probability adopted to reduce occurrence of Type I Errors: cf. Rothstein et al. (1994). O=Openness to experience, C=Conscientiousness, E=Extraversion, A=Agreeableness, N=Neuroticism, IQv=Verbal AH5 score, IQs=Spatial AH5, Absent=Seminar absences, Ratio 1Ratio 4=Ratio of non-assessed work submitted for Year 1 Autumn term, Year 1 Spring term, Year 2 Autumn term, and Year 2 Spring term, respectively. All the correlations in this table were repeated using Spearman rho statistics. All the signicances shown in this table were replicated, with four exceptions. Three of these exceptions were minor, with signicance levels being at < 0.05 instead of at40.01 (Extraversion with Expected Degree and Neuroticism with Intellectual Motive) or at 40.01 instead of < 0.05 (Agreeableness with Neuroticism). The one remaining exception is that using Spearmans rho, there was no signicant relationship found (even at P < 0.05) between Agreeableness and Absences.

1234

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

As noted, Neuroticism was negatively associated with both Conscientiousness and Extraversion. In addition to positively correlating with Openness to experience and Agreeableness, verbal intelligence also correlated signicantly with spatial intelligence. In addition to being negatively correlated with both Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, seminar absenteeism was signicantly associated with all four measures indicating failure to submit non-assessed assignments. Perhaps the most striking of these results are those associated with Agreeableness. Of the ve traits measured, this was the only one to be positively associated with the verbal IQ measure and negatively associated with seminar absenteeism. If one had to pick a single proxy for a combination of intelligence and motivation in the current study, therefore, it would probably be Agreeableness. 3.3.2. Correlations among indications of academic success In line with previous research (Osbourne, Leopold, & Ferrie, 1997; Saunders & Woodeld, 1999), Table 2 reveals A level points (or their equivalent) to be rather strongly associated with academic success at Sussex University. In particular, the correlation between A level points and Final Grade (in percentage) at university is r=0.32 (P < 0.001). Nevertheless, the correlations between A level points and more specic indicators of academic success at university are far from constant. Thus, despite their predictive success elsewhere (and in a sense where it matters most), A level points are not signicantly associated with Tutorial Report scores or with School Course assessment in Years 1 and 2. Tutorial Report scores are consistently and rather strongly correlated with all the other indicators of undergraduate academic success.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and correlations between academic success variables
Mean A Points Tut Grad Maj Yr 1 Sch Yr 1 Maj Yr 2 Sch Yr 2 Maj Yr 3 Sch Yr 3 Final 21.00 2.29 58.70 58.33 57.98 60.14 58.04 60.69 58.49 S.D. 6.79 0.62 11.86 13.18 9.56 11.38 9.86 5.24 8.82 A Points 0.09 0.17 0.03 0.26 0.15 0.22 0.25 0.32 Tut Grad Maj Yr 1 Sch Yr 1 Maj Yr 2 Sch Yr 2 Maj Yr 3 Sch Yr 3

0.48 0.28 0.47 0.46 0.37 0.36 0.46

0.30 0.58 0.28 0.48 0.42 0.54

0.28 0.24 0.25 0.17 0.33

0.41 0.72 0.49 0.80

0.34 0.65 0.45

0.62 0.96

0.81

Italic values are signicant at P (two-tailed)40.01 (strict probability adopted to reduce occurrence of Type I Errors). A Points=A level Points (or equivalent); Tut Grad=Tutorial Grades; Maj Yr 1Maj Yr 3=Academic success on Major component, Years 13, respectively; Sch 1Sch 3=Academic success on School component, Years 13, respectively; Final= Academic success as determined by nal formal assessment percentage grade. Although the magnitude of the correlation coecients shown in this Table tended to be higher when calculated using Spearmans rho, all but one of the signicances and non-signicances shown in this table were replicated. The exception was that using Spearmans rho, the correlation between S10 and S30 was signicant at P40.01.

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1235

Strong correlations between the remaining measures of academic success are in large part to be expected, especially between specic Year 2 and Year 3 grades and Final Grade, as the latter measure is derived from a combination of the former measures. Nevertheless, the pattern of correlations remains interesting. First, specic Major grades tend to correlate more strongly with Final Grade than do specic School grades, particularly in the rst two years. Secondly, the Year 1 Major grade is more strongly associated with subsequent Major grades than it is with subsequent School grades, while the Year 1 School grade correlates relatively moderately with all subsequent grades, Major and School. Similarly, the Year 2 Major grade correlates quite strongly with the subsequent Major and Final grades but not the Year 3 School grade, while the Year 2 School grade correlates much more strongly with the Year 3 School grade than with any of the other subsequent grades. In summary, these patterns of results suggest that Year 1 and Year 2 School grades may be rather distinct from both Major grades and/or Year 3 grades (and indeed, A level points). However, factor analysis of the six specic Year 1 to Year 3 grades resulted in a single factor solution (accounting for nearly 53% of the original variance), albeit with the Year 1 School course loading onto the resultant factor to a lesser extent than the other input variables (0.45 versus a minimum of 0.65). Thus, it would appear that our criterion variables are in fact all indicating academic success, although the Year 2 and especially Year 1 School grades may be measuring relatively specic facets of this overall construct. 3.3.3. Correlations between individual dierence and academic success variables Table 3 shows correlations between each of the individual dierence measures and each of the academic success variables. Straightaway, it can be seen that, supporting hypothesis H3 but
Table 3 Correlations between individual dierence variables and academic success variables
A Points Openness Conscien Extravert Agreeable Neurotic IQVerbal IQSpatial Absences Ratio 1 Ratio 2 Ratio 3 Ratio 4 0.24 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.01 Tutor Grade 0.07 0.22 0.00 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.59 0.33 0.32 0.29 0.23 Major Yr 1 0.11 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.29 0.13 0.20 0.09 0.01 School Yr 1 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.14 0.06 0.23 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.11 Major Yr 2 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.31 0.04 0.11 0.08 0.18 School Yr 2 0.24 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.35 0.14 0.14 0.08 0.23 Major Yr 3 0.24 0.08 0.04 0.15 0.02 0.24 0.05 0.34 0.09 0.20 0.26 0.06 School Yr 3 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.15 0.07 0.23 0.10 0.24 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.10 Final % age 0.26 0.09 0.00 0.14 0.03 0.20 0.11 0.36 0.09 0.21 0.17 0.12

Italic values are signicant at P (two-tailed)40.01 (strict probability adopted to reduce occurrence of Type I Errors). Although most of the signicances shown in this Table were replicated when correlation coecients were obtained using Spearmans rho, there were several exceptions. The majority of these exceptions were minor, with signicance levels being at < 0.05 instead of at40.01 (Ra2 and S1, Ra2 and Final, Ra3 and M3, Ra4 and Final) or at 40.01 instead of < 0.05 (Openness and S1, IQv and S1, Intellectual Motivation and S3, Ra1 and M1). The two remaining exceptions occurred when Spearmans rho indicated no signicant relationship found (even at P < 0.05) between Ra2 and M3, and also between Ra3 and Final. See Table 2 for legend.

1236

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

against hypothesis H5, neither Extraversion nor Neuroticism are signicantly correlated with any of the indicators of academic success. Conscientiousness is signicantly associated only with success in obtaining good Tutorial Grades and good results in the assessment of Year 1 Major courses (which do not contribute to degree classication). Against hypothesis H2, then, there is little evidence of a signicant positive association between Conscientiousness and undergraduate academic success. Hypothesis H4 predicted no signicant relationship between Agreeableness and academic success. Against this, a positive association between these two variables seems to strengthen as time at university goes on, most importantly to the point where it correlates signicantly with Final Grade. Of all the trait measures, and in support of hypothesis H1, Openness to experience bears the most prominent association with academic success. Most notably, Openness to experience correlates to approximately the same moderate extent with both A level points and the Final Grade achieved at university. Although existing evidence seemed strong enough to justify not formulating specic hypotheses, it should be reported that verbal intelligence correlated positively with a broad range of academic success measures. Most importantly, and like Openness to experience, verbal intelligence was signicantly associated with both Final Grade and A level points. Spatial IQ was not signicantly associated with any of the indicators of academic achievement. Seminar absences were not signicantly associated with A level points, but they were far and away the best predictor of academic success of any of the criterion examined. With the sole exception with respect to the Year 3 School course, a lack of seminar absences provided the strongest, and sometimes the only, signicant predictor of academic success, whether indicated via Seminar Report or Final Grade. Hypothesis H6 therefore receives strong support when application is operationalised as seminar attendance. Although varying in consistency, the four measures of submitting non-assessed work proved to be rather good predictors of academic success, each predicting Tutorial Grade at least as well as Conscientiousness, as well as (in three out of four cases) predicting Final Grade about as well as Agreeableness. Hypothesis H6 therefore receives further support: application in the form of submitting non-assessed work tends to predict undergraduate academic success. A nal point to be noted about the data in Table 3 relates to the nding that Tutorial report grades were very strongly associated with seminar attendance and fairly strongly with all four measures of submission of non-assessed work, as well as with Conscientiousness. It appears, then, that these tutorial grades are primarily indicators of application and eort rather than dispositional intellectual ability. 3.4. Regression analysis A hierarchical multiple regression analysis attempted to predict Final Grade (as a percentage).1 In accordance with hypothesis H7, variables were entered in the following order: the two intelligence
For reasons of space, nal grade (as a percentage) will be used as the sole indicator of academic success during the regression analysis. It may be remembered that Year 1 assessments do not contribute towards degree classication and that the Final Grade percentage is derived from (and therefore highly correlated with) the more specic indicators of academic success available in Years 2 and 3.
1

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1237

measures on Step 1; the single seminar attendance and the four non-assessed work submission indicators of application on Step 2; and, the ve trait personality measures on Step 3. As may be seen from Table 4, Model 1 explained only 4% of the variance in Final Grade, with verbal intelligence being the only signicant predictor. Adding the application variables in Step 2 increased the explained variance to 11%. The additional explained variance came exclusively from the seminar absence measure, without aecting the contribution of the verbal intelligence measure. Adding the personality variables in Step 3 increased the explained variance to 16%. The additional explained variance came exclusively from the Openness to experience measure, with the seminar absence application measure and the verbal intelligence measure still making signicant independent contributions. As predicted by hypothesis H7, then, adding personality measures (in this case, particularly Openness to experience) enabled us to explain signicant variation in our key academic success score (i.e. Final Grade), even once the eects of (verbal) intelligence and (seminar attendance) application were accounted for. Indeed, inspection of the respective Betas reveals that Openness to experience and seminar attendance each account for approximately twice as much explained variance in Final Grade than does verbal intelligence. 3.5. Additional analysis It is noteworthy that Agreeableness did not make a signicant contribution to explained variance in the hierarchical regression equation predicting Final Grade (see Table 4). In part, this may be due to shared explained variance with verbal IQ (see Table 1). In addition, it is possible that
Table 4 Regression analysis on undergraduate academic success (Final Grade, as a percentage) Step 1 IQv IQs Beta 0.19 0.03 t 3.54*** 0.49 Absences Ratio 1 Ratio 2 Ratio 3 Ratio 4 Step 2 Beta 0.18 0.05 0.25 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.01 t 3.44** 0.93 4.75*** 0.51 1.60 0.74 0.11 Openness Conscien Extravert Agreeable Neurotic F change (2, 428)=8.91*** Multiple R=0.20 Adjusted Multiple R square=0.04 * P < 0.05. ** P < 0.01. *** P < 0.001. F (5, 423)=7.84*** Multiple R=0.35 Adjusted Multiple R square=0.11 Step 3 Beta 0.13 0.08 0.22 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.25 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.00 t 2.50* 1.50 4.32*** 0.55 1.50 1.15 0.10 5.19*** 1.91 1.07 0.64 0.06

F (5, 418)=6.43*** Multiple R=0.43 Adjusted Multiple R square=0.16

1238

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

the relationship between Agreeableness and academic success (see Table 3) is at least partially mediated by the application variable of seminar absences (see Table 1). Mediation analysis was carried out in accordance with recommendations made by Baron and Kenny (1986). Each mediation analysis requires three regression analyses: (i) of the potential mediator on the predictor, (ii) of the criterion on the predictor, and (iii) of the criterion on both the predictor and the potential mediator. To establish mediation: 1. the predictor must aect the potential mediator in (i); 2. the predictor must aect the criterion in (ii); and, 3. the potential mediator must aect the criterion in (iii). Mediation is established if these three conditions hold in the predicted direction and the eect of the (trait) predictor on the (academic success) criterion is less when accompanied by the potential mediator (application) [i.e. in (iii)] than when not so accompanied [i.e. in (ii)]. A rst regression conrmed that Agreeableness signicantly predicts seminar absences (see Table 1); b=0.14, t=2.47, P < 0.05. The second regression conrmed that Agreeableness signicantly predicts Final Grade (see Table 3); b=0.14, t=2.82, P < 0.005. The third regression conrmed that the contribution of Agreeableness to explaining Final Grade reduced to insignificance when accompanied by the seminar absence measure; b=0.08, t=1.63, P > 0.1. Thus, it appears that the reason that Agreeableness did not make a signicant independent contribution to explaining the variance of Final Grade in Step 3 of the earlier hierarchical regression analysisdespite earlier indications that Agreeableness is signicantly associated with Final Grade was because the eects of Agreeableness on Final Grade are wholly mediated by seminar attendance (which is why inclusion of the latter variable in the regression analysis meant that no independent contribution to explained variance in Final Grade was made by Agreeableness).

4. Discussion Intelligence and motivation are generally accepted as determinants of academic success. It has been proposed recently that personality traits might also predict such success, although to date empirical support for this proposition has been at best mixed. Having identied various possible reasons for previous ndings in this area, the current study attempted to investigate the extent to which personality variables predicted undergraduate academic success, even once the eects of intelligence and application (as an indicator of motivation-in-action) were taken into account. In line with predictions based on previous ndings, Extraversion bore no signicant linear relationship with academic success. Also in line with such predictions, Openness to experience was positively correlated with undergraduate academic success. Contrary to expectations, neither Conscientiousness nor Neuroticism bore positive relationships with academic success, but Agreeableness did. As expected, both verbal intelligence and application whilst at university were signicantly associated with academic success. This was true both for zero order correlations and in terms of making independent contributions to explaining the variance of undergraduate Final Grades when entered into regression equations. When trait measures were added to such regression equations, Openness to

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1239

experience explained additional unique variance but Agreeableness did not. Further analysis revealed that the relationship between Agreeableness and undergraduate academic success was wholly mediated by the application variable of seminar attendance. That is, Agreeableness seemed to be associated with academic success because Agreeable students went to seminars more often than did less Agreeable students and such application was rewarded in terms of improved Final Grades. Trait theory has often been criticised for being relatively atheoretical, at best providing parsimonious descriptions of phenomena but providing little in the way of explanations of why such phenomena occur (e.g. Cooper, 1998; Pervin & John, 1997). The main signicance of the ndings above relating Openness to experience and Agreeableness to academic success is therefore not simply identication of these relationships. In itself, such identication merely adds to the mixed data already reviewed. Rather, the main importance of the ndings presented here is that they give some indication of the processes by which personality traits may inuence undergraduate academic success. For example, while it is interesting that Openness to experience was positively associated with Final Grade, it is more signicant that this relationship remained even when controlling for intelligence and application variables. Apparently, being Open to experience provides academic benets beyond those provided by being clever and being motivated to turn up to classes. Previous research (e.g. Blickle, 1996; cf. Staudinger, Lopez, & Baltes, 1997; Staudinger, Maciel, Smith, & Baltes, 1998) suggests that this may be because Openness to experience facilitates the use of learning strategies (e.g. critical evaluation, in-depth analysis, independent research to aid elusive comprehension) that in turn aect academic success (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). By way of contrast, Agreeableness in the present study aided academic success solely by fostering application (rather than providing academic benet independent of both intelligence and application). Application, specically seminar attendance, was far and away the strongest and most consistent predictor of academic success in the present study. Here, then, we see a potential interaction between a personality disposition and a social context variable in determining academic success. It seems possible that relatively low-Agreeableness students would be less comfortable than relatively high-Agreeableness students with the social interaction intrinsic to seminars. This would presumably contribute to a relative tolerance to missing seminars, with the subsequent ill-eects on eventual academic performance. Future research might protably investigate whether the Agreeableness-academic success relationship varies as a function of learning environments, e.g., where there are no seminars or where seminar attendance is compulsory.2 De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996, p. 321) note that there has been little or no research on whether and how the eects of personality on academic success might be regulated or adjusted, complemented or compensated. The present study sheds light on how such research might be attempted. Specically, it seems likely that learning environments and assessment methods could be eectively tailored to students Openness to experience and Agreeableness levels. Students relatively high in Openness to experience should thrive in educational settings promoting
2 Observant readers might object that Conscientiousness in the present study was associated with seminar attendance but not (generally) academic success. It can be noted, however, that zero-order correlation between Conscientiousness and Final Grade approached signicance (r=0.10, P=0.08) and that additional mediational analysis suggested that this relationship between Conscientiousness and Final Grade was mediated by seminar attendance. We would argue that restriction of range problems may have had a more detrimental eect on measurement of Conscientiousness than on Agreeableness among our sample.

1240

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

and rewarding critical and original thought, while students relatively low in Openness to experience (but matched in intelligence and motivation/application) should fare better in educational settings promoting and rewarding acquisition of received wisdom. Similarly, students relatively high in Agreeableness should thrive when instruction and assessment occurs via collaborative social interaction, while those lower in Agreeableness should fare better in educational settings where students are less socially interdependent (or are even negatively interdependent, see Rothstein et al., 1994). On-going analysis using the current data set is employing similar reasoning to ground investigation of possible moderating eects of both subjects studied and assessment modes on trait-academic success relationships (cf. De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996). To the extent that its ndings are valid, the present study has considerable practical implications. First, it suggests that eorts to identify potentially successful students via personality proling will be most eective when adequate account is taken both of what actually constitutes success and of how such success is ascertained. For example, Conscientiousness was the best trait predictor of Tutorial Grade in the present study, while Openness to experience was the best trait predictor of Final Grade (with Agreeableness being the best trait predictor of both application and formal assessment success). Secondly, educators and students alike need to be aware of the implications of such potential mismatches between various indicators of academic success. Many university tutors are aware of how common it is for students to complain that they have received very favourable feedback about how academically successful they are until they learn that they have suddenly fared relatively poorly when it mattered most to them (e.g. during their rst major formal assessment). Again, the relatively distinct determinants of Tutorial Grade and Final Grade illustrate how easily such an event could occur.3 Despite the possibilities outlined in the previous paragraph, perhaps the most important practical implication of the current study is to recognise the limitations of employing a reied individual dierences approach to predicting academic success. In combination, all our trait, intelligence, and application measures explained only about 16% of the variance in Final Grades among our sample (cf. Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). This is roughly comparable to results obtained in earlier studies, even though every eort was made to overcome potential methodological limitations associated with much previous research. Using the best available measures of the currently most popular individual dierence constructs, our study was unable to account for 84% of the variance of our main measure of academic success, i.e. Final Grades. Thus, it seems that individual dierences in success within the current undergraduate system may be relatively independent of intelligence, application, and personality.4 This suggests that any attempt to use individual dierence measures to discriminate between the probable academic success of students currently oered university places may itself be doomed to failure. Against this, personality
3 It has already been noted that Tutorial Grades seem to be primarily indicative of eort. Further regression analysis conrmed that verbal intelligence and Openness to experience (each indicative of Final Grade success) made no additional contribution to explained Tutorial Grade variance beyond that made by Conscientiousness and seminar absences. Thus, it is entirely possible that a motivated but not especially intelligent (or Open) student might obtain a disappointing Final Grade if they had been unfortunate enough to infer their likely success from very positive Tutorial Grades. 4 This of course entails neither that intelligence, application, and personality are irrelevant to academic success, nor that indicators of such constructs (e.g. A level results) should not be used to select university undergraduates. It simply means that relative dierences in levels of such constructs among the undergraduates in our sample played a relatively minor role in explaining dierences in the Final Grades obtained.

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1241

measures seem to have a potentially promising role in matching education environments and processes to students relative strengths. Although successfully avoiding many of the methodological problems associated with past studies in the same domain, weaknesses of the current study should be assessed. First, whilst the time-sequence of measures used limits some of the problems associated with correlational studies (e.g. direction of causation), it does not avoid them entirely. It is therefore hoped that all interpretations of ndings reported will be both replicated and further investigated by experimental and/or intervention studies, e.g. ones crossing individual dierences with teaching and assessment modes. Secondly, whilst we are condent that our intelligence measure overcame restriction of range problems, we are not so sure that the same is true for all our measures. It would aid educational research of the sort reported here if motivation and personality measures could be developed specically for populations of undergraduates. Thirdly, we are acutely aware that we have only investigated a relatively small sub-set of available individual dierence measures. Future research should attempt to compare the relative merits of measures we have used against others that show promise in predicting academic success, e.g., social support/loneliness and stress/coping (e.g. Halamandaris & Power, 1999; Mellanby et al., 2000); learning styles (Busato et al., 2000; Mellanby et al., 2000); causality orientations and academic experience (Wong, 2000); self-esteem, self-ecacy, and locus of control (Mellanby et al., 2000; Mwamwenda, 1996; Sherer et al., 1982).

Acknowledgements This paper results fron research nancially supported by the British Academy and the University of Sussex Teaching and Learning Development Fund.

References
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219245. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182. Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European Journal of Personality, 10, 337352. Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Dierences, 29, 10571068. Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: the development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 301312. Collis, J. M., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (2001). Intelligence and personality: bridging the gap in theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cooper, C. (1998). Individual dierences. London: Arnold. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO-PI/NEO-FFI Manual supplement. Odessa, FL, US: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways ve factors are basic. Personality and Individual Dierences, 13, 653665.

1242

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10, 405425. De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303336. Entwistle, N. J. (1972). Personality and academic attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 137151. Furnham, A., & Mitchell, J. (1991). Personality, needs, social skills and academic performance: a longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Dierences, 12, 10671873. Go, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537552. Halamandaris, K. F., & Power, K. G. (1999). Individual dierences, social support and coping with examination stress: a study of the psychosocial and academic adjustment of rst year home students. Personality and Individual Dierences, 26, 665685. Harris, D. (1940). Factors aecting college grades: a review of the literature, 19301937. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 125166. Heaven, P. C. L., Mak, A., Barry, J., & Ciarrochi, J. (2002). Personality and family inuences on adolescent attitudes to school and self-rated academic performance. Personality and Individual Dierences, 32, 453462. Heim, A. W. (1968). AH5 Group Test of high-grade intelligence: Manual. Windsor: NFER Publishing. Hirschberg, N., & Itkin, S. (1978). Graduate student success in psychology. American Psychologist, 33, 10831093. Kline, P., & Gale, A. (1971). Extroversion, neuroticism and performance in a psychology examination. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 9093. Matthews, G. (1997). Intelligence, personality and information-processing: An adaptive perspective. In J. Kingma, & W. Tomic (Eds.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: reections on the concept of intelligence (pp. 175 200). Stamford, CT, US: JAI Press. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, F. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Mellanby, J., Martin, M., & ODoherty, J. (2000). The gender gap in nal examination results at Oxford University. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 377390. Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: integration, application and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 2743. Mwamwenda, T. S. (1996). South African graduate students locus of control, gender dierences, and academic performance. Psychological Reports, 77, 629631. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perlo, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77101. Osbourne, M., Leopold, J., & Ferrie, A. (1997). Does Access work? The relative performance of Access Students at a Scottish University. Higher Education, 33, 155176. Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five Factors and Facets and the prediction of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524539. Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: theory & research (7th ed.). New York: Wiley. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: theory, research and applications. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall. Roberts, M. J. (2002). The relationship between extraversion and ability. Personality and Individual Dierences, 32, 517522. Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Assessing individual dierences in knowledge: Knowledge, intelligence, and related traits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 511526. Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, A. (1994). Personality and cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate Business School. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 516530. Saklofske, D. H., Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (1995). International handbook of personality and intelligence: perspectives on individual dierences. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press. Saunders, P., & Woodeld, R. (1999). Explaining gender dierences in achievement in Higher Education: Preliminary results from a British panel survey. In P. Fogelberg, J. Hearn, L. Husu, & T. Mankkinen (Eds.), Hard work in the academy: research and interventions on gender inequalities (pp. 93101). Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

T. Farsides, R. Woodeld / Personality and Individual Dierences 34 (2003) 12251243

1243

Schuerger, J. M., & Kuna, D. L. (1987). Adolescent personality and school performance: a follow-up study. Psychology in the Schools, 24, 281285. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Ecacy Scale: construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663671. Staudinger, U. M., Lopez, D. F., & Baltes, P. B. (1997). The psychometric location of wisdom-related performance: intelligence, personality, and more?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 12001214. Staudinger, U. M., Maciel, A. G., Smith, J., & Baltes, P. B. (1998). What predicts wisdom-related performance? A rst look at personality, intelligence, and facilitative experiential contexts. European Journal of Personality, 12, 117. Sternberg, R. J., Ruzgis, P. (Eds.). (1994). Personality and intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stough, C., Brebner, J., Nettlebeck, T., Cooper, C. J., Bates, T., & Mangan, G. L. (1996). The relationship between intelligence, personality, and inspection time. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 255268. Wiggins, N., Blackburn, M., & Hackman, J. R. (1969). Prediction of rst-year graduate success in psychology: peer ratings. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 8285. Wolchover, J. (2000). New tests aim to dig out hidden university talent. Evening Standard, 12 April. Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Education and Psychological Measurement, 55, 177185. Wong, M. M. (2000). The relations among causality orientations, academic experience, academic performance, and academic commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 315326. Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581610). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.