You are on page 1of 13

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 105–116

and Management Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 105–116 Personality Predicts Academic Performance: Exploring the

Personality Predicts Academic Performance: Exploring the moderating role of gender

N. T. Nguyen*, Larry C. Allen and K. Fraccastoro

Lamar University, Texas, USA

In this study, students’ personality traits were investigated in relation to course grade in an undergraduate management course taught by the same professor and overall college grade point average (GPA). Conscientiousness positively and significantly predicted overall GPA over and beyond other personality traits of agreeableness, extroversion, emotional stability and intellect, accounting for unique variance in final course grade and overall GPA. Gender was consistently found to moderate the personality–academic performance relationship (as measured by GPA). Specifically, emotional stability positively and significantly predicted academic performance among male students, but not so among females. Intellect positively and significantly predicted academic performance among male students, but the same relationship was nonexistent among female students. Discussion was offered relative to the importance of personality traits in predicting academic performance.

Introduction

The relationship between students’ personality and their academic performance among college students has been well established in previous research. For example, the personality trait of conscientiousness has been consistently shown to have moderate predictive validity of academic performance over and beyond cognitive measures of general intelligence, standardised test scores such as SAT and high school coursework performance both in the USA and the UK (e.g., Wolfe & Johnson, 1995; Tross, Harper, Osher & Kneidinger, 2000; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Lounsbury, Sundstrom, Loveland & Gibson, 2003). Although past research has shown personality as a valid predictor of academic performance, the nature of this relationship as well as the mechanism that operates in affecting the performance of male and female college students remains unexplored. Given

*Corresponding author. Department of Management and Marketing, PO Box 10025, Lamar Universiuty, Beaumont, TX 77710, USA. Email: nhung.nguyen@lamar.edu

ISSN 1360-080X (print)/ISSN 1469-9508 (online)/05/010105-12 2005 Association for Tertiary Education Management DOI: 10.1080/13600800500046313

106 N. T. Nguyen et al.

the well-documented gender differences in personality (e.g., Costa, Terracciano & McCrae, 2001), we argue that the predictive validity of personality traits on academic performance may be different across male and female students. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to replicate previous research findings concerning the predictive validity of student personality in college performance and to explore the role of gender as a potential moderator of this relationship. The Five Factor Model (FFM) consisting of agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism (reverse scoring of emotional stability) and openness to experience (intellect) has received considerable support in terms of its robust- ness and generalisation across theoretical frameworks, assessment methods (self versus peer rating) and cultures (see Hogan & Ones, 1997; Saucier & Goldberg, 2003). The first personality factor, labelled agreeableness, has also been called likeability, friendliness, social conformity and love. Traits associated with this factor include being good-natured,flexible,cooperative,trusting,soft-heartedandtolerant(Saucier&Goldberg, 2003). Other researchers (e.g., Johnson, 2003) interpreted this factor as consisting of four sub-facets of warmth/affection, gentleness, generosity and modesty/humility. The second personality factor, labelled conscientiousness, has typically been called conscience, conformity and dependability. It has also been called Will to Achieve or Will (e.g., Digman, 1989) due to its consistent positive association with a variety of educational success measures. Traits associated with conscientiousness are being careful, thorough, responsible, organised, achievement-oriented, diligent and persevering. Other researchers (e.g., Johnson, 2003) interpreted this dimension as consisting of three sub-facets of orderliness, decisiveness/consistency and reliability/ industriousness. The third factor, labelled extraversion, has also been called surgency (e.g., Goldberg, 1999). Traits associated with this factor include being sociable, assertive, dominant, talkative, active and gregarious. Other researchers (e.g., Johnson, 2003) interpreted this factor as consisting of four sub-facets of sociability, unrestraint, assertiveness and activity/adventurousness. The fourth factor, labelled neuroticism or emotional stability reversed scored, has also been called emotionality or stability. Traits associated with this factor include being depressed, angry, emotional, anxious, insecure and worried. Other researchers (e.g., Johnson, 2003) interpreted this dimension as consisting of three sub-facets of irritability, security and emotionality. The fifth factor, labelled intellect or openness to experience, has also been called intellectence (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1985) or culture (e.g., Norman, 1963). Traits associated with this factor include being curious, imaginative, intelligent, open-minded, original and artistically sensitive.

Hypotheses Development

In this study, we expect to replicate previous research findings concerning the relationships between personality and academic performance among college students. Specifically, two personality factors of conscientiousness and emotional stability were

Personality Predicts Academic Performance

107

consistently found to positively predict academic performance (e.g., Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). Conscientiousness is related to academic success because students who are responsible, hardworking and achievement orientated are more self-motivated than those who are not so. Motivation is an important characteristic for not only coursework accomplishment, but general task accomplishment as well. Emotional stability is related to academic success because students who display neurotic characteristics such as worry, nervousness and self-pity tend to overreact to situational cues (e.g., coursework feedback), and thus inhibit rather than facilitate coursework accomplishment. Thus, we expect that the validity of these two factors will generalise across student groups and criterion categories. Previous research has shown that there are well-documented gender differences in personality traits. Specifically, many meta-analytical studies showed that women consistently scored lower than men on emotional stability (d50.5) (e.g., Costa et al., 2001). Given this gender difference in emotional stability, we expect that the influence of this personality factor on academic success might be weaker among women than men. Speaking differently, the emotional stability — academic performance relationship might vary as a function of students’ gender. In contrast, Feingold’s (1994) meta-analysis showed male/female difference in conscientiousness to be negligible (women scoring 0.07 standard deviation higher than men). Based on the above discussion, the following hypotheses emerge:

H

1: The personality trait of conscientiousness will be positively and significantly correlated with course grade and overall GPA.

H

2a: The personality trait of emotional stability will be positively and significantly correlated with both course grade and overall GPA.

H

2b: The emotional stability–academic performance relationship will be moderated by gender of students such that the above relationship will be stronger among male than female students for both course grade and overall GPA.

We expect that the remaining three personality factors may be related to course performance, but the relationship might be more pronounced for some courses than others. Thus, these personality factors might be valid predictors for an individual criterion such as course grade, but not for an aggregated criterion such as overall GPA. For example, we expect that Extraversion and Agreeableness will be valid predictors of course performance in which teamwork is required because frequent interaction and/or cooperation with others are a sine qua non in such courses. However, in courses where independent work and thinking is emphasised, extraversion and agreeableness might distract students from focusing on finishing their own work. In this study, we expect extraversion to be negatively related to course grade performance given the independent work emphasis of the management course taught by the first author. There are virtually no reported gender differences in the personality traits of extraversion. We therefore proposed the following hypothesis:

108 N. T. Nguyen et al.

Regarding the personality trait of intellect or openness to experience, previous research showed differential patterns of findings between its sub-facets in gender. Specifically, women were found to describe themselves higher in Openness to Feelings, whereas men higher in Openness to Ideas (Costa et al., 2001). Given these findings, we expect Openness to Experience to have a stronger influence on academic performance among male students than female students. Thus, we hypothesize:

H

4s: The personality trait of Intellect will be positively and significantly correlated with course grade and overall GPA.

H

4b: The intellect–academic performance relationship will be moderated by gender of students such that the above relationship will be stronger among male than female students.

Method

Sample

A total 368 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in business courses at a Southern university participated in this study in exchange for partial course credit. Of these students, 179 (48.6%) were males, and 189 (51.4%) were females. The majority of participants identified themselves as Whites (72%) or 285 with 17.4% or 64 as Blacks, 3.8% or 14 as Asians, 5.7% or 21 as Hispanics, and 1.1% or 4 reported as ‘‘other’’. Eight participants were transfer students at the time the study was conducted and, thus, their overall grade-point average information was not readily available to be included in the analysis. Transfer students are those students who began their studies at another university, moved to the current university system and received university credit for similar courses taken. Grades for transferred classes are not included in the GPA calculation. By eliminating transfer students, the final sample for subsequent analysis was 360.

Procedure

The personality inventory was administered during class time. Participants signed a consent form and were asked to respond honestly to the inventory. The following instruction was used:

On the following pages, there are phrases describing people’s behaviors. Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your responses will be kept

in absolute confidence.

Personality Predicts Academic Performance

109

Measures

Personality

The Big 5 personality inventory, developed by Goldberg (http://ipip.ori.org/ipip) was used in this study. The inventory we used consists of 50 items taken from a large pool of personality items available for public use on the International personality item pool website. The inventory measures personality dimensions of the Big 5 model — i.e., agreeableness, extraversion, emotional stability, conscientiousness and openness to experience. Each dimension was indicated by 10 Likert-type items. Respondents were asked to indicate the accuracy of each item as a descriptor of themselves with a number ranging from 1, ‘‘very inaccurate’’, to 5, ‘‘very accurate’’. The scales have been validated against other established scales (e.g., NEO-PI) and shown to have good reliabilities (Goldberg, 1999, and in press). The internal consistency reliability estimates of the five dimensions in this study were 0.89 for extraversion, 0.83 for agreeableness, 0.82 for conscientiousness, 0.86 for emotional stability and 0.77 for intellect.

Academic Performance

We use a final course grade in an undergraduate management course and overall grade point average (GPA) as two indicators of academic performance. Similar to the Australian college grading system, the US grading policy varies from college to college. Specifically, coursework assessment is typically determined by grading various assign- ments such as exams, case studies, team projects, quizzes and Internet exercises. The summed score of all of the assignments is used to determine the overall course grade. The letter grade is finally assigned to students’ coursework performance as follows:

A590% or above; B580% to 89.9%; C570% to 79.9%; D560% to 69.9%; and F5less than 60%. Compared to the Australian grading system, these letters grade have similar meanings to A5high distinction; B5distinction; C5credit; D5Pass; F5Fail. Course grade is counted toward students’ grade point average (GPA) such that an A54 points, B53 points, C52 points, D51 point and F50 points. All courses contribute equally to the overall college grade point average. For example, a GPA of 4.0 indicates that the student received all A grades in his/her entire college education. Students need to maintain a GPA of at least 2.0 in order to graduate with a Bachelor’s degree. Due to the fact that students included in this study came from different majors, to maintain comparability (success in different courses may be associated with differential personality traits), only final course grade of management courses taught by the first author was included. Students’ grade point average data were retrieved from the university’s records.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix among variables of the study for the combined sample of both male and female students (N 5 360). Table 2

110

N. T. Nguyen et al.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables in the study (whole sample, N5 360, except for grade, N5 200)

 

Mean

Std.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. Gender

.51

.50

2. Race

1.28

.45

.068

3. Grade

2.96

.98

.190

2.141

4. GPA

2.76

.63

.137

2.089

.747

5. Extraversion

2.54

8.20

2.036 2.013 2.185

2.083

.89

6. Agreeableness

15.76

6.21

.266

2.042

.166

.052

.309

.83

7. Conscientiousness

13.97

6.36

.112

2.011

.212

.180

.121

.239

.82

8. Emotional stability

216.08

7.99

2.280 2.076 2.167

.000

.176

.042

.113

.86

9. Intellect

18.11

5.54

2.257 2.075

.115

.074

.283

.195

.181

.304

.77

are significant at

p ,.01 (two-tailed). Internal consistency reliability estimates are along the diagonal. Gender is coded as ‘‘1’’ 5Female, ‘‘0’’ 5Male; Race is coded as ‘‘1’’ 5White, ‘‘2’’ 5Non-White; grade5final course grade is coded as ‘‘4’’ 5A, ‘‘3’’ 5B, ‘‘2’’ 5C, ‘‘1’’ 5D, ‘‘0’’ 5F; and GPA5grade point average.

Notes: Correlations 5or

11

are significant at p ,.05 (two-tailed); correlations5or

13

Table 2. Intercorrelations among variables in the study, by gender of participants

Variable

1

2

3456

78

1. Race

2.202

2.129

2.015

2.165

2.004

.120

2.080

2. Grade

2.081

.781

2.202

.145

.224

2.185

.058

3. GPA

2.067

.697

2.144

2.061

.151

2.087

.048

4. Extraversion

.049

2.144

2.006

.355

.118

.027

.286

5. Agreeableness

.041

.085

.097

.306

.230

.024

.271

6. Conscientiousness

2.035

.149

.186

.134

.208

.102

.194

7. Emotional stability

.078

2.009

.170

.324

.223

.200

.125

8. Intellect

2.037

.296

.186

.281

.294

.244

.376

Note: The correlation matrix for male participants is shown in the lower triangle, for female participants it is shown in the upper triangle; N for males5175, except for grade, N589; N for females5185, except for grade,

are significant at

N5111; correlations5or p ,.01 (two-tailed).

15

are significant at p ,.05 (two-tailed); correlations5or

20

shows the same broken down by gender with the lower triangle portion reflecting the relationships among variables of the study for male students (N5 175) and the upper triangle portion reflecting the same for female students (N 5185). Table 3 shows the hierarchical moderated regression analysis results for personality traits and gender as predictors of academic performance. Hypothesis 1 states that the personality trait of conscientiousness will be positively and significantly correlated with academic performance. Table 1 confirms this expectation. The correlation between conscientiousness and course grade was positive and significant (r5 0.212, p ,0.01). The correlation between conscientious- ness and GPA was also positive and significant (r 50.180, p,0.01). Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported. Conscientious students were more likely to perform well in class than less conscientious students. Further, as shown in Table 4, conscientiousness

Personality Predicts Academic Performance

111

Table 3. Gender differences on Goldberg’s Big 5 personality factor scale scores

Levene’s test for equality of variances

t-test for equality of means

Significance

Big 5 scale

d

F

Significance

t

(2-tailed)

Direction

Female/male difference

Extraversion

2.075

.114

.735

2.720

.472

F , M F . M F . M F , M F , M

Agreeableness

.557

.017

.897

5.336**

.000

Conscientiousness

.227

.133

.716

2.183*

.030

Emotional stability

2.591

1.119

.291

25.646**

.000

Intellect

2.512

.006

.936

4.897**

.000

Note: *p,.05 (two-tailed); **p ,.01 (two-tailed).

alone added an incremental variance of 2.3% in predicting final course grade and 2% in predicting overall GPA above and beyond what was already accounted for by other personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability and intellect, controlling for demographic factors of race and gender. This finding was consistent with previous research (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003) and showed that motivation in the form of diligence and responsibility (sub-facets of conscientiousness) did matter. Hypothesis 2a states that the personality trait of emotional stability will be positively and significantly correlated with academic performance. Contrary to our expectation, the correlation between emotional stability and course grade was negative and significant (r520.167, p, 0.01). The correlation between emotional stability and GPA was zero. However, Table 2 reveals an interesting finding. Specifically, emotional stability was positively and significantly related to GPA (r5 0.170, p, 0.01) among male students, but not so among females. Thus, hypothesis 2a received mixed support. Hypothesis 2b states that gender will moderate the relationship between emotional stability and academic performance such that the relationship will be stronger among males than female students. To test this hypothesis, we performed two hierarchical moderated regression analyses (one for course grade and one for overall GPA) in which variables were entered in steps. In step 1, we entered demographic variables of gender and race because we wanted to partial out any variance in academic performance (i.e., course grade and overall GPA) that might have been attributable to these demographic factors. In step 2, we entered the four personality traits of agreeableness, extraversion, emotional stability and intellect as a set. In step 3, we entered the personality trait of conscientiousness. Steps 2 and 3 were done to specifically gauge how much of an impact personality traits as a whole, as well as conscientiousness particularly, had on academic performance. In step 4, we entered two interaction terms of emotional stability and gender and intellect and gender to test the moderating effect of gender on the personality trait–academic performance relationship. As shown in Table 4,

112 N. T. Nguyen et al.

emotional stability and gender was found to add significant unique variance in overall GPA (t 522.202, p ,0.05), but not course grade. Figure 1 shows the graphical effect of this interaction term, which was stronger among male than female students. Thus, hypothesis 2b was partially supported. Hypothesis 3 states that the personality trait of extraversion will be negatively and significantly correlated with academic performance. Table 1 shows the correlation between extraversion and course grade to be significant and negative (r 520.185, p, 0.01). However, the correlation between extraversion and overall GPA failed to reach statistical significance although it was in the predicted direction. Table 2 shows the same pattern of finding for both males and females. A more conclusive finding is revealed in Table 4. Extraversion was found to consistently and negatively predict both final course grade (t 523.399, p ,0.01) and overall GPA (t 522.465, p, 0.01) after controlling for race and gender of students (see Table 4). Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. Students who were talkative and sociable were less likely to do well in class. Hypothesis 4a states that the personality trait of intellect will be positively and significantly correlated with academic performance. Table 4 shows that intellect positively and significantly predicted course grade (t 52.911, p,0.01), but failed to reach statistical significance in predicting overall GPA (t5 1.627, p. 0.05). Thus, hypothesis 4a was partially supported. Hypothesis 4b states that gender of students will moderate the relationship between intellect and academic performance such that the relationship will be stronger among male than female students. Table 4 shows that the interaction term of intellect and gender significantly predicted final course grade in management (t52 2.083, p, 0.05), but failed to reach statistical significance

p , 0.05), but failed to reach statistical significance Figure 1. Interaction effect of gender and

Figure 1. Interaction effect of gender and emotional stability on grade point average

Personality Predicts Academic Performance

113

in predicting overall GPA (t 520.594, p. 0.05). Figure 2 shows the effect to be stronger among male than female students. Our results shown in Table 3 concerning male/female differences in personality were concordant with previous research (e.g., Costa et al., 2001; Feingold, 1994; Ones & Anderson, 2002). Specifically, male students reported themselves higher on Emotional Stability (a difference of .59 standard deviation) and Intellect (a difference of 0.51 standard deviation), and females higher on agreeableness (a difference of 0.56 standard deviation) and conscientiousness (a difference of 0.23 standard deviation). We also found no significant gender differences in extraversion. This, too, was consistent with previous research.

Discussion

In this study, we sought to investigate: (a) the extent to which personality traits predict academic performance among college students, and (b) the moderating role of gender in the personality — academic performance relationship. Concerning the

Table 4. Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results for Personality Predictors of Academic Performance

Dependent variables

Final Course Grade

 

GPA

Predictors

b

t

b

t

Step 1

Gender

.433

.1.341

.019

.080

Race

2.079

21.188

2.089

21.720

F

5.075**

5.209**

(2,195)

(2,357)

Adjusted R 2

.040**

.023**

Step 2

Extraversion

2.240

23.39**

2.138

22.465*

Agreeableness

.164

2.173**

2.022

2.373

Emotional stability

2.126

21.047

.142

1.748

Intellect

.336

2.911**

.136

1.627

F

5.359**

2.357*

(4,191)

(4,353)

Adjusted R 2

.119**

.038*

Step 3

Conscientiousness

.177

2.603**

.156

2.916**

F

6.192**

8.591**

(1,190)

(1,352)

Adjusted R 2

Step 4 Emotional stability6gender Intellect6 gender

.142*

.058**

2.155

2.723

2.325

22.202*

2.514

22.083*

2.109

2.594

F

3.132*

3.163*

(2,188)

(2,350)

Adjusted R 2

.161

.069

114 N. T. Nguyen et al.

114 N. T. Nguyen et al. Figure 2. Interaction effect of gender and intellect on final

Figure 2. Interaction effect of gender and intellect on final course grade

first research question, our results generally replicated previous research findings using a different measure of personality, i.e., Goldberg’s (1999) Big 5 personality factor (Digman, 1990). Specifically, our study corroborates previous research (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003) in pinpointing conscientiousness as a prime factor aiding overall academic performance among college students. Our results coupled with previous research showing the same pattern of finding in under- graduate psychology course grade (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003) as well as graduate business course grade (e.g., Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush & King, 1994), provided evidence that conscientiousness might be the valid predictor of academic performance across settings. Our findings concerning gender differences in personality also replicated previous research using a different measure of personality. We therefore suspect that that there might not be as much measure-specific variance as previous researchers might have claimed (e.g., Feingold, 1994). However, this question is certainly noteworthy of future research. Given the reportedly consider- able gender differences in personality, our results raised concern over the adverse impact of the potential use of personality tests for college admission purposes. The standardised male/female differences were small to moderate by commonly accepted standards (Cohen, 1988).

Limitations of the present study

There are several limitations to the study that should be noted. First, we realise that we were unable to test for the incremental predictive validity of personality

Personality Predicts Academic Performance

115

constructs over and above general intelligence or cognitive ability such as standardised test scores. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the data in this study limits the causality of the findings reported herein. Future research should replicate this study using longitudinal data with a more diverse set of criteria (e.g., course grade in different courses).

Conclusion

An ultimate goal in college admission has been the quest for a set of predictors with high level of criterion-related validity and low adverse impact. Traditionally, college admission is based on ability measures (e.g., general intelligence), rather than non- ability measures (e.g., personality). This study shows that personality explains a significant portion of variance in course grade (16%) and overall GPA (7%). It signals to college officials that the time has come to consider personality as an admission factor. Indeed, one may need to be cautious about the potential adverse impact in personality due to gender differences. However, the differences are small to moderate and definitely smaller than what have been found in ability measures. We hope that this study will stimulate further research to provide support for the use of personality measures in college admission.

References

Grading scale policy. Retrieved May 2004 from http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/academic- policies/policy/gradingscale.html. The education system. Retrieved May 2004 from http://www.studyaustralia.com.au/system.htm. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:

Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,

319–338.

Cohen, J. (1988). Standard power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum. Costa, P., Jr, Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,

322–331.

Digman, J. M. (1989). Long-term stability and change in personality. Journal of Personality, 57,

195–214.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. In M. R. Rosenzweig, & L. W. Porter (Eds) Annual review of psychology, 41. Palo Alto, CA:

Annual Reviews, 417–440. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116,

429–456.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds) Personality psychology in Europe, Volume 7. Tilburg, The Netherlands:

Tilburg University Press, 7–28. Goldberg, L. R. (in press). The comparative validity of adult personality inventories: Applications of a consumer-testing framework. In S. R. Briggs, J. M. Cheek, & E. M. Donahue (Eds) Handbook of Adult Personality Inventories.

116 N. T. Nguyen et al.

Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, &

J. A. Johnson (Eds) Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,

849–870.

Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and individual job performance. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan (Eds) Personality and work:

Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 83–120. Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2003). Intelligence, ‘‘Big 5’’ personality traits, and work drive as predictors of course grade. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1231–1239. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 587–597. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66,

574–583.

Ones, D. S., & Anderson, N. (2002). Gender and ethic group differences on personality scales in

selection: Some British data. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75,

255–276.

Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive

ability predictors of performance in graduate business school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 516–530. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In M. R. Barrick, &

A. M. Ryan (Eds) Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1–29. Tross, S. A., Harper, J. P., Osher, L. W., & Kneidinger, L. M. (2000). Not just the usual cast of characteristics: Using personality to predict college performance and retention. Journal of

College Student Development, 41, 323–334. Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 177–185.