Running head: BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 1

Big-five Personality Traits and the Academic Performance of New Taipei City’s International
High School Students

Word count: 4145

AP Research
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 2

Chapter I: Introduction
The Big-five Personality Traits, or the Five-factors model (FFM), is a model that
measures the five key dimensions of human’s personality: Openness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The five components can be referred to as
OCEAN. Donald W. Fiske, an American psychologist, first suggested that people’s personality
can be described through five dimensions. Fiske’s idea was later expanded by Ernest Tupes,
Raymond Christal, Warren Norman, Lewis Goldberg, McCrae and Costa, and other
psychologists (Sinphurmsukskul, Froer, & Ahlheim, 2005).
This research involves disseminating online surveys to international high school students
in New Taipei City, Taiwan, to collect data regarding their gender, GPA, and percentiles for each
of the five components of FFM. After responses are interpreted holistically, responses are
blocked based on gender. In each block, the relationship between students’ GPA and percentiles
of the five FFM components will be determined using statistical tools, including linear regression
models and Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The correlation coefficients in the two blocks will
be compared. This research answers the research question: How do the Big Five personality
traits relate to the academic performances of New Taipei City’s international high school
students across gender?
Academic performance is defined by GPA, or Grade Point Average. GPA summarizes an
individual’s achievement across all academic subjects not only through test scores, but also
through the individual’s performance in class. GPA is taken as the measurement of academic
performance in almost all related research, including psychology lecturer Rutger Kappe and
Henk van der Fli’s research “Predicting academic success in higher education: what’s more
important than being smart?” and psychologist Janice M. Livengood’s research “Students’
Motivational Goals and Beliefs about Effort and Ability as They Relate to College Academic
Success”. Both research aim to find connections between academic success and another variable,
resembling my research objective.
High school students, referring to 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders, is chosen as my
population because they belong to the age span where GPA affects their university application.
This implies that students in this age span are more likely to focus on their academic,
augmenting GPA’s ability to reflect students’ potentials. High school students are also targeted
because compared to university students, there is an apparent dearth of investigation on the
relationship between their personality traits and academic performance. Moreover, professor
Timothy A. Judge and his colleagues’ research over the lifespan of a group of people conclude
that personality is not more malleable for younger people than for older ones (Judge, Higgins,
Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) This means the FFM percentiles I collected from my sample would
capture their personalities during the years in which their GPA reflects. It is less likely that their
personality traits have fluctuated during the four high school years.
“International” is specified for high schools because in Taiwan, only for international
high schools do grading system GPA applies. Moreover, international high schools in Taiwan
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 3

bring an unique angle of investigation. Considering English, the language of instructions, is not
not the native tongue of those students, GPA in the selected schools measures both students’
English proficiency and performance across all subjects.

Chapter II: Literature Review

The rationale behind the Five-Factors model (FFM) is that every individual’s personality
can be dissected into a distribution of five fundamental traits: Openness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. And the degree that one inclines to each trait can
be shown through percentile scores. How can personality, a concept so abstract and diverse, be
described this way? FFM found its root in the trait theories of personality. Gordon Allport, an
American psychologist, first rejected the psychoanalytic approach and behavioral approach to
personality (the first for being too interpretive and the later for showing too little depth); he
proposed that human being’s personality can be explained through distinct traits, identifying up
to 4,000 traits. Those traits are categorized into cardinal traits, central traits, and secondary traits
(Boeree, 2006). Raymond Cattell utilized factor analysis, a common statistical technique for
describing variability, to reduce the voluminous list of traits into sixteen traits, giving birth to the
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, or 16PF (Cherry, 2018). U.S. Air Force researchers
Ernest Tupes and Raymond Christal found five recurring factors among the sixteen key traits:
Surgency, Agreeableness, Dependability, Emotional Stability, and Culture (Tupes & Christal,
1992). Warren Norman analyzed the ratings of 100 students and was able to categorize 1,566
biophysical traits into ten clusters; two clusters for each of the five categories, one at each end
(Block, 1995). Lewis Goldberg first coined the name “Big-five” in 1982 (Goldberg, 1990). Costa
& McCrae defined the five categories, which can now be remembered as OCEAN (McCrae &
Costa, 1987). The development of the FFM cannot be tersely summarized, nor can a single
inventor be identified. Instead, the model grows from the works of countless psychologists, each
reducing, adding, changing, or renaming the most fundamental traits that build up human’s
personality.
One can think of the five dimensions as buckets that hold a set of traits that tend to occur
together. Openness measures one’s level of creativity, or how willing one is to make adjustments
in accordance with new ideas or situations. Conscientiousness measures how organized one is
and how well one pushed oneself toward personal goals. Extraversion measures one’s sociability,
or tendency to display kindness, affection, and seek out social relationships. Agreeableness
measures one’s tendency to have faith in others and one’s willingness to help and compromise.
Neuroticism measures one’s tendency to experience negative feelings, such as self-doubt,
anxiety, depression, embarrassment, anger, and guilt (Erfani, Mardan, 2017).
In this research, FFM is chosen as the measuring instrument of personality over other
personality tests (specifically 16PF) for its simplicity, which does not detract from its accuracy,
and the fact that it stresses the predictabilities in behavior (Erfani, Mardan, 2017); when one is
determining the relationship between personality and academic success, one is in a way
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 4

predicting the subject’s behavior, specifically academic behavior. Moreover, FFM has been
proven to be flexible and applicable across cultures (John & ​Srivastava, 1999​).
The relationship between Big-five Personality Traits and students’ academic performance
has been investigated in different ways, yet results yielded proved to be inconsistent. There is
also a lack of research on how the relationship between Big-five Personality Traits and academic
performances differ across gender. For instance, Big-five Personality Traits might be better at
capturing female students’ academic performance than male students’. William G. Smith’s
research on survey response behavior shows that males and females value actions in the online
environment differently. Being a survey respondent is more often perceived as an action
consistent with connective selves, which are characteristics, such as emotional closeness, that
females value more than males (Smith, 2008). No previous research has taken this into account
when interpreting the correlation between Big-five Personality Traits and academic
performances. My research attempt to fill in this gap.
In 2007, Sabrina Trapmann, Benedikt Hell, Jan-Oliver W. Hirn, and Heinz Schuler,
conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between FFM and academic success in university.
Using the corresponding computer program of Raju and Fleer to calculate meta-analyses under
the random-effects and fixed-effects conditions, Trapmann and her colleagues found that
Conscientiousness is the only trait that offers substantial and generalizable validity for university
grades. One of the main differences between this research and mine is that I drew my sample
from the high school student body instead of the university student body. By comparing my
result with theirs, it can be understood what traits are required for one to perform well in high
school and what traits are necessary for one to excel in universities. A difference between their
research findings and mine will suggest how individuals can adjust their mindsets and cognitive
approach toward studying when they enter university to potentially achieve better academic
results.
While Trapmann and her colleagues investigated the potential relationship between FFM
and academic success, Iranian researcher Shiva Seyed Erfani and Hoda Mardan have chosen a
narrower subject. They investigated the relationship between FFM and Iranian foreign students’
International English Language System (IELTS) scores. IELTS is a test that measures one’s
English proficiency in reading, listening, writing, and speaking. From the data of 202 Iranian
foreign students who studied at English speaking schools, Erfani and Mardan concluded that
there is a significant, direct relationship between IELTS scores and four of the Big-Five
Personality Traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness. Neuroticism,
on the other hand, demonstrates significant negative relationship with IELTS scores. In my
research, students from the randomly chosen international high schools are taught in their second
language, English. Thus GPA measures both their second language proficiency and other
cognitive skills required to learn a wide range of subjects. Cognitive skills are defined by skills
the brain use to focus, reason, and process information; an example is the ability to seek
counterexample when claims are identified (Perkins & Salomon, 1989). While language
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 5

acquisition demands complex cognitive skills (Sakai, 2005), those skills are indubitably not
identical to those demanded for one to excel in every subject, such as mathematics and physics.
Erfani and Mardan’s research presents a general image of what can be expected while serving as
a comparing group: by comparing the results of their research and mine, it can be understood
what traits relate solely to second-language acquisition and what traits relate to both
second-language acquisition and other cognitive skills. However, randomization is not included
in Erfani and Mardan’s sampling method, which introduces potential bias. Availability of Iranian
foreign students could have limited their research.

Chapter III: Methodology

This is quantitative survey-based research. An online survey is sent to 9th, 10th, 11th, and
12th graders from three randomly selected international high school in New Taipei City.
Students from those schools represent the population of all international high-school students in
New Taipei City. The online survey contains questions requesting the respondent’s gender, GPA,
and score percentiles for the five components of FFM (see Appendix). A link within the online
survey allows respondents to take the Big-Five Personality test and obtain their score percentiles
over the five components of FFM. This is the link to the test that is included in the online survey
form: https://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
This link leads to a Big-Five Personality test developed by Oliver P. John and
Christopher Soto. Oliver P. John is an American personality psychologist and psychology
professor at the University of California, Berkeley. This test platform is chosen not only because
its developers are professionals from the field, but also because the platform itself is created for
the usage of scientific research, as indicated in the introduction of the platform.
213 responses from the three New Taipei City’s international high school is gathered.
With an estimated population size of 1000 and a margin of error of 5%, to be 95% confident that
my sample represents my population, a sample size of 213 is required.
Hypotheses are made before any survey is sent. Five hypotheses are made to help answer
the research question “How do the Big Five personality traits relate to the academic
performances of New Taipei City’s international high school students across gender?”
1. Hypothesis I: GPA and Openness have a weak, positive correlation.
2. Hypothesis II: GPA has the strongest, positive correlation with Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness.
3. Hypothesis III: GPA and Extraversion have a weak, positive correlation.
4. Hypothesis IV: GPA and Neuroticism have a strong, negative correlation.
5. Hypothesis V: The degree of correlation between the five components of FFM and GPA
is stronger for female students than male.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 6

Table 1
Absolute Values of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient and their Corresponding Strength
Absolute value of Pearson’s correlation Strength of correlation
coefficient

0.10-0.29 Weak

0.30-0.49 Moderate

0.5-1.0 Strong

After accumulating 213 responses, data that does not have research value is identified and
eliminated. Data that does not have research value is defined by responses that meet one or more
of the two criteria listed below:
1. Entered a GPA lower than 1.5 or greater than 4.8
2. Entered score percentiles lower than 10 for more than three components of FFM, or
entered score percentiles higher than 90 for more than three components of FFM, or
entered the same score percentiles for all Big-Five personality traits.
The criteria is set based on the fact that the described situations are extremely unlikely to
happen given the respondent answers truthfully. By including responses that are not generated
seriously by the respondent, extreme outliers would emerge and affect the research outcome. It is
important to eliminate data with no research value to ensure that one’s finding captures the true
relationship.
Pearson’s, Spearman’s, and Kendall’s correlation coefficient between each respondent’s
GPA and scores for the five components of FFM are calculated and interpreted. Hypothesis I, II,
III, IV is tested. Next, responses are blocked into two blocks based on gender. The same step of
calculating correlation coefficients is repeated in each of the blocks. Pearson’s correlation
coefficients calculated from all responses, from all female’s responses, and from all male’s
responses are compared. To test Hypothesis V, a two samples t-test is performed to determine
the relationship between gender and the degree of correlation (between GPA and the five
components of FFM).

Chapter IV: Results

Pearson’s correlation coefficient is the main statistical measurement used to describe my
result. Pearson’s correlation coefficient, represented as “r”, is used to measure the linear
correlation between two variables; the formula from which “r” is calculated is displayed in
Figure 1.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 7

​ earson’s Correlation Coefficient Formula​ ​(n refers to the number of observations)

Figure 1. P

The range of “r” is from −1 to +1. The strength of the relationship can be determined by
finding the absolute value of the coefficient; the larger the absolute value, the stronger the linear
relationship between the two variables. A positive value indicates direct, or positive, relationship
while a negative value indicates inverse, or negative, relationship (Interpret the key results for
Correlation). Most researchers who researched the relationship between Big-five and other
variables utilized Pearson’s correlation coefficient as the main statistical tool for data analysis,
including Erfani and Mardan, Sabrina Trapmann and her colleagues,
However, to ensure that “r” is the appropriate way to describe the relationship within my
data, preliminary analyses must be conducted to identify violations to assumptions. Assumptions
for “r” includes:
1. Related pairs
2. Both variables are normally distributed
3. Absence of outliers
4. Linearity
5. Homoscedasticity
“Related pairs” refers to the property of data that each observation contains a pair of
values. For my 213 observations, each contains pairs of values: GPA and Openness, GPA and
Conscientiousness, or GPA and Extraversion… For each pair, “r” is calculated.
To observe the distributions of the two variables and check for the presence of outliers,
box and whisker plots are plotted. Graph 1 shows that the distribution of GPA is slightly skewed
right. This might affect the accuracy of Pearson’s correlation coefficient in describing the
relationship within my data. However, the inclusion of other correlation coefficients (Kendall’s
Tau and Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient) in my analysis atone for this shortcoming.
Graph 1 also displays three visible outliers; each holding the value of 2.8, 2.9, and 3.1. The three
corresponding observations are taken out of the research. Graph 2 shows that the distributions for
the five components of the FFM are all approximately normal. There are no outliers for all
percentiles of the Big-five traits, so no more observations are taken out.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 8

​ ox and Whisker Plot for GPA

Figure 2. B

Figure 3.​ ​Box and Whisker Plot for the Components of FFM
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 9

To test for linearity, least-squares regression lines are drawn and Normal Q-Q plots
(quantile-quantile plot) are plot to check if data is normally distributed about the least-squares
regression line. If residual points form a linear line on a normal Q-Q plot, it means residuals are
normally distributed and linear relationship is a suitable way to describe the data.

Figure 4.​ Normal Q-Q Plots for GPA and the Five Components of FFM

In all graph, most values fit into a linear line, though not perfectly. There are some
outliers in all graphs as well. Yet the fact that values do not show other trends, such as
exponential, suggests it is not necessary to be greatly concerned.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 10

Homoscedasticity assumes equal variance. A scale-location plot shows if residuals are

spread equally along the ranges of predictors. If points spread randomly and equally up and
below a horizontal line, homoscedasticity is achieved.

Figure 5.​ Scale-location Plots for GPA and OCEAN

While none of the plots feature a perfectly horizontal line, all lines are close enough to
horizontal. None of the lines display a slope close to 1 or -1. This mean variance is
approximately normal and assumption of Homoscedasticity can be made.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 11

Table 2
Summary of GPA and the Components of FFM
​ GPA Openness Conscientious Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

Minimum 2.89 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 11.00

Minimum 3.70 22.00 31.00 27.00 21.50 30.00

Median 4.00 40.00 56.00 50.00 45.00 50.00

Mean 3.89 45.85 56.04 50.66 47.15 53.47

3rd Quartile 4.10 68.00 82.00 79.00 66.00 82.00

Maximum 4.50 100.00 99.00 96.00 94.00 100.00

SD 0.33 29.56 29.37 28,86 26.26 28.44

Note.​ “Conscientiousness” is shortened as “Conscientious” from Table 2 through 7.

Table 3
Pearson’s Correlations (r) Amongst the Components of FFM for All Students
​GPA Openness Conscientious Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

GPA 1.00000000 0.22790101 0.63589652 0.11344036 -0.05042093 -0.49814759

Openness 0.22790101 1.00000000 0.44136225 0.01265059 0.34965736 -0.18895787

Conscientious 0.63589652 0.44136225 1.00000000 -0.01265627 0.29866755 -0.48583854

Extroversion 0.11344036 0.01265059 -0.01265627 1.00000000 0.18687108 -0.09140643

Agreeableness -0.05042093 0.34965736 0.29866755 0.18687108 1.00000000 -0.34459208

Neuroticism -0.49814759 -0.18895787 -0.48583854 -0.09140643 -0.34459208 1.00000000

“r²” indicates the proportion of the variability of the data that can be explained through
the linear regression model. A “r²” value of 0 indicates that none of the variability of the data can
be explained through the model. A “r²” value of 1, on the other hand, indicates that the model
describes all the variability of the data.

Table 4
r²​ ​Amongst the Components of FFM for All Students
​GPA Openness Conscientious Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

GPA 1.00000000 0.05193887 0.40436438 0.01286872 0.00254227 0.24815102

BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 12

Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlations, represented as “ρ” (rho), is used to measure the

monotonic relationship between two variables; the formula from which “ρ” is calculated is
displayed below.

Figure 6.​ Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient Formula​ ​(n refers to the number of observations; ​D
is the difference between ranks​)

Same as “r”, the range of “ρ” is from −1 to +1. The strength of the relationship can be
determined by finding the absolute value of the coefficient; the larger the absolute value, the
stronger the monotonic relationship between the two variables (Interpret the key results for
Correlation). For instance, when ρ=1, the highest value for GPA is associated with the highest
value for Openness while the second highest value for GPA is associated with the second highest
value for Openness.
As stated, the reason why Spearman’s ρ is included is to atone for the slight inaccuracy of
Pearson’s r in describing my data due to a violation of one of its assumptions: normal
distribution of the two variables. Spearman’s ρ does not require any variables to be normally
distributed (Correlation (Pearson, Kendall, Spearman)).

Table 5
Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlations (ρ) Amongst the Components of FFM
​GPA Openness Conscientious Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

GPA 1.00000000 0.24922708 0.62812801 0.04031473 0.01369662 -0.57002832

Openness 0.24922708 1.00000000 0.44947929 0.04719787 0.37951765 -0.22435141

Conscientious 0.62812801 0.44947929 1.00000000 0.00496718 0.30390684 -0.43612051

Extroversion 0.04031473 0.04719787 0.00496718 1.00000000 0.18433537 -0.08947703

Agreeableness 0.01369662 0.37951765 0.30390684 0.18433537 1.00000000 -0.35220159

Neuroticism -0.57002832 -0.22435141 -0.43612051 -0.08947703 -0.35220159 1.00000000

Unlike Spearman’s ρ, which is based on deviations, Kendall’s τ is based on concordant

and discordant pairs. A concordant pair is a pair of observations where both variables have the
same “sgn”; a discordant pair is a pair with opposite “sgn”. “Sgn” of a variable refers to whether
the variable is positive, negative, or zero. As it is not based on deviation, Kendall’s τ is less
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 13

sensitive to error (Kendall’s Tau and Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient). It is included in
my data analysis for this reason.

Table 6
Kendall’s Correlations (τ) Amongst the Components of FFM
​GPA Openness Conscientious Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

GPA 1.00000000 0.18315301 0.463525334 0.028341589 0.006236889 -0.42433140

Openness 0.183153009 1.00000000 0.325597461 0.050174448 0.284478025 -0.15748687

Conscientious 0.463525334 0.32559746 1.000000000 0.009285381 0.205454353 -0.30510224

Extroversion 0.028341589 0.05017445 0.009285381 1.00000000 0.136931962 -0.06287285

Agreeableness 0.006236889 0.28447803 0.205454353 0.136931962 1.00000000 -0.24050979

Neuroticism -0.424331396 -0.15748687 -0.305102238 -0.062872852 -0.240509791 1.00000000

Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis I: GPA and Openness have a weak, positive correlation.
The correlation between GPA and Openness is approximately 0.2279. When Pearson’s
correlation is between 0.1 and 0.3, the two variables have a weak, positive correlation.
Hypothesis I is supported. Only 5.19% of the variation in GPA can be explained by Openness.
Both Spearman’s (0.24922708) and Kendall’s (0.18315301) correlation coefficient suggest
insignificant relationships as well. GPA and Openness do not have a significant relationship.

Hypothesis II: GPA has the strongest, positive correlation with Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness.
The correlation between GPA and Conscientiousness is approximately 0.6359. When
Pearson’s correlation is greater than 0.49, the two variables have a strong, positive correlation.
Hypothesis II is proven correct. Up to 40.44% of the variation in GPA can be explained by
Conscientiousness. Moreover, a Spearman’s coefficient of 0.62812801 indicates a strong
monotonic relationship between the two variables. However, Kendall’s coefficient, which
approximately equals to 0.4635, suggests less correlation. It is possible that some errors have
raised Pearson’s and Spearman’s coefficient.
The absolute value of the correlation between GPA and Agreeableness is less than 0.1,
indicating a very weak correlation. The part claimed about Agreeableness in Hypothesis II is
rejected. Instead of having a strong and positive correlation with GPA, Agreeableness’
relationship with GPA is insignificant and even slightly negative (≈-0.05). Both Spearman’s and
Kendall’s correlation coefficient, holding the value of 0.01369662 and 0.006236889
respectively, suggest insignificant relationships as well.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 14

Hypothesis III: GPA and Extraversion have a weak, positive correlation.

The correlation between GPA and Extraversion is less than 0.3 as well, indicating weak
Pearson’s correlation. Only 1.20% of the variation in GPA can be explained by Extraversion.
Hypothesis III is supported. GPA and Extraversion do not have a significant relationship, which
is also confirmed by their low Spearman’s (0.04031473) and Kendall’s (0.028341589)
coefficients.

Hypothesis IV: GPA and Neuroticism have a strong, negative correlation.

The correlation between GPA and Neuroticism is approximately -0.4981. When
Pearson’s correlation is between -0.3 and -0.5, the two variables have a moderate, negative
correlation. Hypothesis IV is supported. Up to 24.8% of the variation in GPA can be explained
by Neuroticism. While the degree of correlation differs, Spearman’s (-0.57002832) and
Kendall’s (-0.42433140) coefficient also suggest negative relationships that are at least
moderate.

Hypothesis V: The degree of correlation between the five components of FFM and GPA is
stronger for female students than male.

Table 7
Pearson’s Correlations Among the Components of FFM Across Gender and their mean and SD
Openness Conscientious Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Mean SD

Female 0.16990145 0.62428701 0.24800208 0.16144811 0.4574654 0.3322 0.1827

Male 0.2712754 0.6299881 0.07346352 0.09627688 0.5498761 0.3242 0.2289

Note. ​Absolute values are taken for the correlation coefficients because my interest lies in the strength of the
correlations, and signs do not matter. SD means standard deviation.

A two samples t-test is performed to determine whether there is a statistically significant

difference between the mean of female students’ and male students’ GPA & FFM correlation.
The null hypothesis states that there is no difference; the alternative hypothesis states that there is
a difference. A two samples t-test for difference in mean is conducted below:
H​0​: μ​female =
​ μ​male
H​a​: μ​female ≠​ μ​male
α = 0.05
Confidence level = 95%

SD of statistic =
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 15

The standard deviation of the correlations between female students’ GPA and each of the
five components of FFM is designated as σ​1​; male students’ is designated as σ​2​. The female
sample size is 121, and is designated as n​1​; the male ​sample size is 92 and is designated as n​2​.
The test statistic is t for this hypothesis test because the population standard deviation is
unknown.

t = 1.6617 ​×
t = 1.6617 ​× 0.27515
t ≈ 0.457217
degree of freedom = ​n​2​ - 1 = 91
p-value ​≈ 0.3243
As the p-value is greater than ​α (​0.3243>​0.05), the null hypothesis is not rejected. There
is statistical evidence on a 95% confidence level that μ​female =
​ μ​male​.
Hypothesis V, which states that the degree of correlation between the five components of
FFM and GPA is stronger for female students than male, is rejected. The mean of the degree of
correlation is only slightly different across gender. And the difference is not statistically
significant as concluded by the two samples t-test for difference in mean.​ ​From Table 7, it can be
observed that only for Extraversion (0.24800208 > -0.07346352) and Agreeableness
(-0.16144811 > 0.09627688) is the Pearson’s correlations coefficient for female greater than
males’ as well.

Chapter V: Limitations, Conclusion, and Future Directions

Limitations
The major limitations of this research are response bias and the lack of comparing group.
Since once online surveys are distributed, there is no way for one to ensure everyone
receiving the survey chose to complete it, there is response bias. For instance, individuals who
chose to complete the surveys could be the ones who are more interested in academic and
psychology. Then this sample fails to capture the population: all students from New Taipei
City’s international high schools; students interested in academic and psychology are be
overrepresented.
As there is no similar research done in Taiwan, findings from this research cannot be
compared with other research done under similar backgrounds. I attempted to overcome this
limitation by finding research that connects to mine in unexpected ways. For instance, though
Erfani and Mordan conducted their research in Iran, the fact that they investigated second
language proficiency connects to my research as my one of my variables, GPA, is associated
with second language proficiency.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 16

Conclusion and Future Directions

GPA and Conscientiousness have a strong, positive correlation. Such correlation is also
evident between Conscientiousness and IELTS scores as well as between Conscientiousness and
university students’ academic success. This means how organized an individual is can be a
strong predictor of how well that individual will perform academically in a wide range of
context, either in high schools’ test rooms, universities’ study halls, or in a second language
environment.
GPA does not have a significant relationship with three of the five components of FFM:
Openness, Extraversion, Agreeableness. Those three traits, however, have significant positive
relationship with IELTS scores (Erfani, Mardan, 2017). This indicates that Openness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness is associated with better performance in second language
acquisition, but such association cannot be generalized to better performance in learning other
subjects in a second language. Further research should be done investigating whether
multilingual people are associated with higher Openness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness.
GPA and Neuroticism have a strong, negative correlation. Interestingly, Neuroticism
does not have any relationship with GPA among university students. This suggests that
emotional control is even more crucial for high school students than university students. It is
possible that the high school grading system relies more on exams that demand full concentration
in short amounts of time while the university grading system relies slightly more on long term
papers or projects that emphasizes constant efforts over undivided, full attention, which is more
likely to be hindered by negative emotions. The difference between the cognitive skills required
for individuals to tackle short term tasks and long term projects can be further researched. Those
skills can be categorized and the relationship between each category and the components of FFM
can be investigated.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 17

References
Block, J., 1995. A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Psychological bulletin​, 117(2).
Boeree, C. G. (2006). Gordon Allport. ​Personality theories.​
Cherry, K. (2018, October 15). 16 Factors That Make Up Your Personality. Retrieved from
https://www.verywellmind.com/cattells-16-personality-factors-2795977
Correlation (Pearson, Kendall, Spearman). (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2019, from
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/correlation-pearson-kendall-spearma.
Erfani, S. S., & Mardan, H. (2017). The Relationship between Big-Five Personality Traits,
English Language Proficiency Scores on IELTS, and Academic Success of Iranian
Foreign Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11), 1046.
doi:10.17507/tpls.0711.13
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure.
Journal of personality and social psychology,​ ​59(​ 6), 1216.
Interpret the key results for Correlation. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2019, from
https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab-express/1/help-and-how-to/modeling-
statistics/regression/how-to/correlation/interpret-the-results/.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. ​Handbook of personality: Theory and research​, ​2​(1999),
102-138.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five Personality
Traits, General Mental Ability, And Career Success Across The Life Span. ​Personnel
Psychology,52​(3), 621-652. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00174.x
http://www.sitesbysarah.com/mbwp/Pubs/1999_Judge_Higgins_Thoresen_Barrick.pdf
Kendall’s Tau and Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2019,
from
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/kendalls-tau-and-spearmans-rank-correlation-
coefficient/.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. ​Journal of personality and social psychology,​ ​52(​ 1), 81.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound? Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 16. doi:10.2307/1176006
Sinphurmsukskul, N., Froer, O., & Ahlheim, M. (2005). The Big Five Factor Model in the
Context of Resource Valuation: A Case Study in Mae Rim, Chiang Mai, Northern
Thailand.
Smith, W. G. (2008). Does Gender Influence Online Survey Participation?: A Record-linkage
Analysis of University Faculty Online Survey Response Behavior.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.
Journal of personality​, ​60​(2), 225-251.
BIG-FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 18

Appendix
Online Survey Full Content
Informed Consent
This is a research about the relationship between the Big-Five Personality Traits and academic
performance. I am inviting you to voluntarily participate in my research by completing this
survey. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to answer questions regarding your
gender, current GPA, and score percentiles for the Big-Five personality traits. A link in the
survey will allow you to take the test and know your score percentiles. This survey is
anonymous, meaning I cannot identify who you are in any way. Personal information will not be
collected. You only have to complete this survey once, and it takes approximately 15 minutes to
complete. Data will be used solely for research purpose, and after this research ends, data will be
destroyed. By proceeding, you agree to become a participant of this research.

Survey Questions
1. Are you a male or a female?
2. What is your current GPA?
3. After completing the Big-Five Personality Traits test using this link (Link:
https://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/), please answer following questions:
a. What is your Extroversion’s score percentile?
b. What is your Neuroticism’s (emotional stability) score percentile?
c. What is your Agreeableness's score percentile?
d. What is your Conscientiousness's score percentile?
e. What is your Openness’s (Intellect/Imagination) score percentile?