Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

The Big Five personality traits, goal orientations, and

academic achievement☆
Izabela Sorić ⁎, Zvjezdan Penezić, Irena Burić
Department of Psychology, University of Zadar, Obala kralja P. Krešimira IV br. 2, 23000 Zadar, Croatia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the past twenty years, educational researchers have intensely focused their interest on numerous internal and
Received 25 October 2015 external factors that contribute to a students' academic achievement. In particular, some research has explored
Received in revised form 23 January 2017 the relationship between students' motivational beliefs (e.g. self-efficacy, control perceptions, learning goal ori-
Accepted 28 January 2017
entations) and their academic achievement, while others have investigated the role of students' personality traits
in that achievement. However, not much research has examined the relationship between the Big Five traits, ac-
Keywords:
Self-regulated learning
ademic motivation, and academic achievement within the same study (Komarraju, Karau, & Schmeck, 2009).
Personality traits Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine whether achievement goal orientations mediate the rela-
Goal orientations tionship between personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability and In-
Academic achievement tellect) and academic achievement.
Mediation analysis The participants were 501 (160 boys and 341 girls; Mage = 16.19) high school students in Croatia. They answered
questions about their final mid-term grade in chemistry (the Croatian academic grade scale ranges from 1-fail to
5-excellent) and completed two questionnaires: The IPIP Big-Five factor markers (Goldberg, 1999) and the
Achievement Goals Questionnaire (Rovan & Jelić, 2010).
The mediation analysis (a bootstrapping method) revealed that learning approach, performance-approach and
work-avoidance goal orientations fully mediate the relationship between students' personality traits and their
academic achievement, but only for Conscientiousness.
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the past twenty years, educational researchers have intensely fo-
cused their interest on numerous internal and external factors that con-
tribute to a students' academic achievement. In particular, some
research has explored the relationship between students' motivational
beliefs (e.g. self-efficacy, control perceptions, learning goal orientations)
and their academic achievement, while others have investigated the
role of students' personality traits in that achievement. As Komarraju,
Karau, and Schmeck (2009) emphasize, although previous research re-
veals associations between various personality traits and some aspects
of academic motivation and achievement, not much research has exam-
ined the relationship between the Big Five traits, academic motivation,
and academic achievement within the same study.
Prior research studies on the relationships between personality
traits and academic achievement provide some inconsistent findings
(e.g. about the contribution of different personality traits to academic
☆ A part of this study was orally presented at the 6th European Conference on
Personality (ECP16) (Trieste, Italy, July 10–14, 2012.)
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: isoric@unizd.hr (I. Sorić).
achievement) and have not explained the possible mechanism which
is responsible for these relationships. It seems that one of the new the-
oretical models could provide possible hypothesis for such explanation.
Precisely, new directions in educational psychology emphasize the role
of self-regulated learning as a crucial determinant of effective learning.
According to the social cognitive view, the process of self-regulation
represents a reciprocal interaction of personal factors, environmental
variables and behaviours. But, within this theoretical framework, re-
search that links students' personality traits with different components
of self-regulated learning is still lacking. Correspondingly, although self-
regulated learning theory assumes that goal orientations (as a motiva-
tional component) are a function of both individual differences and con-
textual factors, very few research have investigated the relationship
between personality traits and goal orientations. Moreover, on the
basis of the self-regulated learning theory, it could be presumed that
the relationship between personality and academic achievement is me-
diated by motivational components of self-regulated learning (such as
goal orientations). Given the above, the aim of this study was to inves-
tigate the relationship between students' personality traits, their goal
orientations (motivational components of self-regulated learning) and
academic achievement with emphasis on the possible mediator role of
goal orientations.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.024
1041-6080/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134
1.1. Self-regulated learning
Paris and Paris (2001) stated that self-regulated learning emerged as
a construct that comprised various aspects of academic learning and
provided more holistic views of the skills, knowledge, and motivation
that students acquire. Self-regulated learning refers to learning which
results from students' self-generated thoughts and behaviours system-
atically oriented toward the attainment of their learning goals
(Schunk, 2001). Although recent models of self-regulated learning em-
phasize the students' active metacognitive, motivational and behaviour-
al participation in their own learning process (Zimmerman, 2001),
different models emphasize somewhat different aspects of self-regulat-
ed learning.
Zimmerman's (2000, 2001) three-phase model of self-regulated
learning distinguishes forethought, performance and self-reflection
phases. In the forethought phase, task analysis, including goal setting
and strategic planning, has a crucial role. Because of the anticipatory na-
ture of this phase, task analysis depends on a number of key sources of
motivation, such as goal orientations, interest, task value, and self-effi-
cacy or outcome expectations. In the performance phase, self-control
and self-observation are the main processes. Self-control includes a
range of task-specific strategies and general strategies, while two basic
forms of self-observation are metacognitive monitoring and self-record-
ing. The self-reflection phase consists of self-judgments (self-evaluation
and causal attributions) and self-reactions (self-satisfaction and adap-
tive/defensive decisions about the learner's willingness to engage in fur-
ther cycles of learning) (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009). The effect that
the self-reflection phase has on the subsequent forethought phase is
crucial for the cyclical nature of self-regulated learning processes
(Zimmerman, 2001).
As already mentioned, under the social cognitive framework the pro-
cess of self-regulation represents a reciprocal interaction of personal fac-
tors, environmental variables and behaviours. In this framework, one of
the unanswered questions about self-regulated learning concerns the ex-
tent to which self-regulated learning could be recognised as a learnable
characteristic or as a characteristic which reflects a range of stable indi-
vidual differences, including personality (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007). Re-
search into the relationship between self-regulated learning and
individual personality traits is still rare (probably because of the social-
contextual and developmental foundations of self-regulated learning).
Bidjerano and Dai (2007) suggested that further research should investi-
gate how personality traits predispose individuals to employ self-regulat-
ed learning. Additionally, further research must take into account the
possibility that a particular personality trait could have different roles in
different phases of self-regulated learning (e.g. Conscientiousness could
be associated with learning goal orientations in the forethought phase;
with deep learning strategies in the performance phase; and with inter-
nal causal attributions in the self-reflection phase). Following these sug-
gestions, we decided to validate whether learner's personality traits are
associated with one of the motivational components of self-regulated
learning, that is, with goal orientations (dominantly linked with the fore-
thought phase). In addition, on the basis of the self-regulated theory
(Zimmerman, 2001) and previous research (McCabe, Van Yperen, Elliot,
& Verbraak, 2013) we assumed that personality is causally prior to goal
orientations and academic achievement (personality traits predispose
students to develop different goal orientations and consequently to attain
different academic achievement) and that goal orientations as motiva-
tional beliefs are causally prior to academic achievement. Therefore, we
also tried to investigate whether goal orientations such as learners' moti-
vational beliefs mediate relationships between their personality traits
and academic achievement.
1.2. Personality traits and academic achievement
The Big Five personality traits model (Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability/Neuroticism and Openness/
127
Intellect) is the most commonly used taxonomy of personality traits in
psychology, but as DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, and Gray (2013) pointed
out it was developed empirically rather than theoretically, that is, it is
based on patterns of correlations between personality traits descriptors.
Therefore, after the identification of five factors, the interpretation and
labelling of these factors sometimes caused controversy. One such con-
troversy is a debate about the label of the fifth trait: Openness to Expe-
rience vs. Intellect. As Shiner and DeYoung (2013) concluded, this
debate has been mainly resolved by the observation that Openness
and Intellect describe different but equally central aspects of a broad
factor which reflects a tendency toward cognitive exploration (Open-
ness reflects perceptual and aesthetic interests, while Intellect reflects
intellectual interests). In this study, the term Intellect will be used as
the label for this personality trait considering that we applied
Goldberg's (1999) questionnaire which labelled this trait as Intellect.
The Big Five personality traits are related to an extensive range of be-
haviours and important life outcomes including learning and academic
achievement. A meta-analysis made by O and Paunonen (2007) has re-
vealed that the overall correlation between Conscientiousness and aca-
demic achievement across the studies was 0.22. Since Conscientious
individuals are predisposed to being exacting, well-organized, diligent,
responsible, disciplined and focused it is not surprising that Conscien-
tiousness has been related to academic achievement regardless of how
this achievement is operationalized (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2003; Conrad, 2006; O & Paunonen, 2007; Wagerman & Funder, 2007;
Noftle & Robins, 2007; Hakimi, Hejazi, & Lavasani, 2011; Steinmayr,
Bipp, & Spinath, 2011). Among other personality traits, Intellect was
sometimes positively associated with academic achievement, while Ex-
traversion was also sometimes negatively related to academic achieve-
ment (O & Paunonen, 2007). A very few significant positive correlations
were found for Agreeableness (O & Paunonen, 2007) and negative for
Emotional Stability (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). According
to Bidjerano and Dai (2007) positive associations of Conscientiousness,
Intellect and Agreeableness with components of self-regulated learning
(e.g. persistence, methodical and analytical learning, deep approach to
learning, elaborative learning, etc.) have more theoretical and empirical
support, while the associations of Extraversion and Emotional Stability
with these components are more complex. Altogether, most of the pre-
vious research indicated that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness
were positively associated with different aspects of self-regulated learn-
ing and academic achievement (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Fayyaz & Kamal,
2011; Komarraju et al., 2009; Larsen & Buss, 2008; Poropat, 2009; Sorić,
Penezić, & Burić, 2013; McCabe et al., 2013).
1.3. Goal orientations and academic achievement
Achievement goal orientation has been described as integrated pat-
terns of beliefs that help learners approach, engage in and respond to
achievement-related situations (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Researchers
initially proposed a dichotomous framework that included mastery
(learning) goal orientations (where learners report an intrinsic interest
in gaining knowledge) and performance goal orientations (where
learners report a motivational focus on grades and demonstrating
their abilities to others) (Fryer & Elliot, 2008; Maehr & Zusho, 2009;
Pintrich, 2000a, 2000b; Pintrich, 2003; Wosnitza & Volet, 2012). Due
to earlier research, mastery goals have been associated with adaptive
learning outcomes, while performance goals have been associated
with maladaptive learning outcomes (Boekaerts, Smit, & Busing, 2012;
Carr, 2012; Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Mattern, 2005; Wosnitza & Volet,
2012). But some recent inconsistent findings about the consequences
of these orientations, especially of performance goal orientations, have
led theoreticians to improve on the initial dichotomous framework. Re-
cent theoretical advancements by Elliot and McGregor (2001) proposed
a four-factor model by applying the approach-avoidance distinction to
the mastery and the performance goal orientations. This model consists
of mastery-approach (focus on the development of understanding and
128 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134
skill), mastery-avoidance (focus on avoiding incapability to maximize
learning), performance-approach (focus on outperforming others) and
performance-avoidance (focus on avoiding normative failure) goal ori-
entations. Besides mastery and performance orientation, some authors
also differentiate a work-avoidance orientation (Meece & Holt, 1993;
Niemivirta, 1996), where learners try to avoid failure even without
hard work, so achievement is represented as completing a task with
as little effort as possible.
A variety of studies has shown that different goal orientations deter-
mine students' cognitive and behavioural reactions as well as their edu-
cational performance (Valle et al., 2003; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer,
Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002;
Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006; Senko, Durik, & Harackiwicz,
2008). Most studies, however, have shown mostly positive effects of
mastery-approach goal orientations and performance-approach goal
orientations, but mainly negative consequences of performance-avoid-
ance and work-avoidance goal orientations (Tuominen-Soini, Salmela-
Aro, & Niemivirta, 2008). Theoretically postulated as a tendency to
avoid incompetence relative to oneself, mastery avoidance goal orienta-
tion is mostly controversial and prior research has produced limited and
inconsistent findings about its academic consequences (McCabe et al.,
2013). In addition, it seems that goal orientation consequences are con-
siderably due to contextual characteristics. For example, in educational
contexts which accentuate grades as basic selection means and empha-
size student competition, performance goal orientations (especially ap-
proaching type) could be an adaptive and useful motivation orientation.
More recent research on the positive effects of performance-approach
goal orientations is mixed: these goals seem to be useful for certain
types of individuals, under certain types of conditions, and come at
some cost (Mattern, 2005). In spite of earlier research that indicates a
mainly maladaptive role of performance goal orientation, mentioned re-
search indicates that, in specific situations, performance goals can also
promote the development of competences. Regardless of the
established effect of context on the relationship between goal orienta-
tions and their consequences, the findings of several empirical research
projects has revealed work-avoidance orientation as the most harmful
in terms of its effects on students' learning engagement and, conse-
quently, their academic achievement (Niemivirta, 1996; Seifert & O,
2001; Seifert, 2004; Steinmayr et al., 2011).
1.4. Personality traits, goal orientations and academic achievement
Irrespective of the proposed categories of goal orientations and their
expected consequences, the majority of models assume that goal orien-
tations are a function of both individual differences and contextual fac-
tors. McCabe et al. (2013) emphasized that achievement goals are
context-specific, but the context itself is not sufficient to completely ex-
plain achievement goal adoption without considering the role of indi-
vidual differences. However, Komarraju et al. (2009) noted that
studies directed at the investigation of relationships between students'
personality traits and their goal orientations are still rare. In a review
of a few meta-analyses aimed at the relationship between personality
traits and goal orientations, McCabe et al. (2013) specified that these
meta-analyses may not fully explain trait-goal relations (e.g. increase
the strength of the relations or report the inconsistent findings for per-
formance-approach goals) because most of them conceptualize both
the traits and the achievement orientations at the broad dispositional
level. In their research they explored the relationships between the
Big Five personality traits and context-specific achievement goals, in
both school and work contexts. The results revealed three patterns of
consistent and specific goal-trait relations (in both contexts): Conscien-
tiousness was strongly and positively linked to mastery-approach goals;
Agreeableness was positively linked to mastery-approach goals and
negatively related to performance-approach goals; and mastery-avoid-
ance, performance-avoidance and performance-approach goals were
positively related to Neuroticism (McCabe et al., 2013). Since their
study has not investigated possible mediational relations but only direct
relations between these variables, in our study we try to explore this
possible role of goal orientations in relationships between personality
and academic achievement.
Generally, it seems that a particular problem for the explanation of
trait-goal relations could be the neglect of a possible mediator role for
goal orientations in relationships between personality traits and other
constructs involved in a self-regulated learning process, as well as the
results of that process. The assumption shared by most models of self-
regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2001; Pintrich, 2004) is about the me-
diator role of self-regulation between personal and contextual charac-
teristics, on the one hand, and realized learning achievements, on the
other hand. Accordingly, not only do individual, cultural, demographic
or personality characteristics of the student along with contextual char-
acteristics shape his/her academic achievement, but also the student's
self-regulation of cognition, motivation and behaviour mediates this re-
lationship. In this sense, it is plausible to assume that students' goal ori-
entations (as one of the motivational components of self-regulated
learning) could have a mediator role in relationships between their per-
sonality traits and academic achievement. In their study attempt to in-
vestigate whether the relationship between personality traits and
school performance is partially mediated by goal orientations,
Steinmayr et al. (2011) found that only learning goal orientations medi-
ate the impact of Openness and Conscientiousness on school perfor-
mance. The authors warned that one of the limitations of their study
was the use of a general measure of goal orientations – that is, not taking
into account the contextual aspects. Moreover, they suggested that do-
main-specifically operationalized constructs have higher criterion va-
lidity when predicting domain-specific criteria. Therefore, a domain-
specific operationalization of goal orientations was used in our study.
1.5. Aim
Although the results from numerous research studies provide indi-
cations about complex bi-directional relations among personality traits,
motivational beliefs and academic achievement, there is still a lack of re-
search aimed at exploring the possible mediating relations between
these constructs. For that reason, the purpose of this study was to exam-
ine whether achievement goal orientations mediate the relationship be-
tween Big Five personality traits and academic achievement. Since
empirical studies have shown that different components of self-regulat-
ed learning may differ from one academic domain to another (e.g. a stu-
dent can have one type of goal orientations when learning history, but
quite a different type when learning mathematics), we decided to ex-
plore the relationships among students' personality traits, goal orienta-
tions and academic achievement with regard to the specific school
subject of chemistry. This domain-specific operationalization of goal
orientation constructs is in accordance with the suggestions of
Steinmayr et al. (2011). As they pointed out one of the limitation of
their study (which also has investigated whether the relationship be-
tween personality traits and school performance is mediated by goal
orientations) was the use of a general measure of goal orientations
without taking into account the contextual nature of goal orientations.
Therefore, a domain-specific operationalization of goal orientations
was used in our study. Also, some authors warn of the possibility that
avoidance goal orientations are more a product of theorizing than
they actually exist in the real school context (Mansfield, 2012), wherein
theoretical ambiguity of mastery-avoidance goal orientation and incon-
sistent empirical findings about its academic consequences are especial-
ly noticeable (McCabe et al., 2013). Therefore, we decided to test the
mediation role of mastery-approach, performance-approach and
work-avoidance goal orientations.
A majority of prior research on different samples (in age, education
level, culture difference, etc.) has indicated that, among the Big Five per-
sonality traits, Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of academic
achievement regardless of way of its operationalization (e.g. GAP, SAT,
 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134
scores, grades etc.) (Conrad, 2006; O & Paunonen, 2007; Wagerman &
Funder, 2007; Noftle & Robins, 2007; Hakimi et al., 2011). Consequently,
we hypothesized that students' goal orientations would have a media-
tor role in the relationship between the Conscientiousness and their ac-
ademic achievement. Because of inconsistent findings regarding the
relationship between other personality traits and academic achieve-
ment, we could not specify the hypothesized mediational role of goal
orientations in relationships among them and academic achievement.
Yet, a weak expectation could be made about the possible mediator
role of goal orientations between Agreeableness and academic achieve-
ment, since this personality trait was often shown as correlated with
different aspects of self-regulated learning and academic achievement
(Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Komarraju et al., 2009; McCabe et al., 2013).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and procedure
The participants in this study were 501 (160 boys and 341 girls;
Mage = 16.19; SD = 0.705) high-school students in Croatia1 (specifical-
ly, 2nd and 3rd grade students of grammar school). Most of the students
were of Croatian nationality and belonged to middle class families.
School principals' permission has been obtained before the study, and
all the principles of the Code of Ethics of Croatian Psychological Associ-
ation have been respected. The study was conducted during regularly
scheduled classes, students' participation in the study was voluntary
and they could leave the investigations at any moment if they wished.
Students were introduced with the purpose of the research and after
that they anonymously completed two self-report questionnaires that
measure personality traits and goal orientations (this took about half
an hour). The questionnaires were administered in random order. Final-
ly, participants answered questions about their final mid-term grade in
chemistry (the Croatian academic grade scale ranges from 1-fail to 5-ex-
cellent). Because of the anonymous nature of this study, it was impossi-
ble to obtain school records or students' grades; therefore we had to rely
on student's self-reported academic performance (final mid-term grade
in chemistry). One of the shortcomings of this data collection procedure
is the possibility that students were inaccurate in reporting their scores.
Although numerous research found relatively high correlations be-
tween self-reported and actual academic performance (mostly defined
as grade point average (GPA)) in the range of 0,70 to 0,90 (Cassady,
2001; Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, 2005; Cole & Gonyea, 2010), the reli-
ability of self-reported grades is still a subject of debate. Cole, Rocconi,
and Gonyea (2012) distinguished two sources for inaccurate reporting:
motivated distortion (form of social desirability bias) which is more
likely for students with low grades who try to protect a positive self-
image and cognitive distortion (because of encoding/retrieval difficul-
ties). In the present study, motivated distortion was reduced by assuring
anonymity to the participants. In addition, cognitive distortion was re-
duced by shortness of interval between mid-term time point (when
grades are defined) and data collection time point as long as by indicat-
ing to the students that accuracy is of our primary interest. Also, re-
search results indicated that grades for particular subjects (e.g. for
chemistry in present study) tend to be more reliable than for overall ac-
ademic achievement (e.g. GPA, SAT) (Kuncel et al., 2005; Bowman &
Hill, 2011). In general, although the use of self-reported grades is less re-
liable than actual grades available from official records, Kuncel et al.
(2005) stressed that self-reported grades generally predict outcomes
to a similar extent as actual grades. Altogether, concerning the purpose
and design of this study we considered self-reported grades to have ac-
ceptable reliability; however they should be interpreted with caution.
1
In the Croatian educational system after finishing the eight-year elementary education
students continue into secondary education. One of the types of secondary education is
high school (grammar school) with duration of four years (age category from 14 to 18).
129
2.2. Applied instruments
2.2.1. Personality traits
The IPIP Big-Five factor markers is a 50 or 100-item inventory which is
freely allowed to be downloaded from the Internet for research pur-
poses (Goldberg, 1999). In the present study we used the 50-item Cro-
atian version of the inventory, with 10 items measuring each of the Big
Five personality traits: Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscien-
tiousness (C), Emotional Stability (ES) and Intellect (I). Participants
had to indicate on a five-point Likert-type scale how much each
phrase-item pertains to them. The mean rating of all 10 items was cal-
culated for each personality trait. In the present study, reliability coeffi-
cients (Cronbach alpha) of these scales were (in the above order) 0.80,
0.81, 0.75, 0.74 and 0.75 respectively.
2.2.2. Goal orientations
For the purpose of this research, three subscales from the Achieve-
ment Goals Questionnaire (Rovan & Jelić, 2010), which measures
three types of achievement goal orientations, were applied. Although
the original version of the scale comprises five goal orientation sub-
scales, in the present research only three were used: the learning-ap-
proach goal orientation subscale (sample item: It is important for me to
understand the subject matter of chemistry as thoroughly as possible), per-
formance-approach goal orientation subscale (sample item: It is impor-
tant for me to be better at chemistry than other students) and work-
avoidance goal orientation subscale (sample item: In chemistry I want
to pass by working as little as possible). Each subscale consists of three
items, which, for the purpose of this research, were adapted for
assessing goal orientations on a chemistry course. Participants
responded on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-
strongly agree. Ratings were averaged for all items on each goal orienta-
tion subscale. In order to check the assumed three-factor structure, con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus 6.0 (Muthén
& Muthén, 1998–2010), and the maximum-likelihood estimation meth-
od. The quality of model fit was assessed by chi-square (χ2) test, com-
parative fit index (CFI), root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) and standardized root-mean residual (SRMR). Values of CFI
close to or above 0.95, RMSEA below 0.08 and SRMR below 0.05 (Hu &
Bentler, 1999) are indicative of a good model fit. In general, CFA yielded
somewhat weak goodness-of-fit statistics: χ2 = 145.94, df = 24,
p b 0.01, CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.10 (90% CI 0.085–0.12), SRMR =
0.060. However, proposed modification indices suggested that the
third item of performance-approach goal orientation subscale (It is im-
portant to me to be better at chemistry than other students) has a substan-
tial negative cross-loading on the learning-approach goal orientation
factor. Since this item emphasizes a comparison with other students,
which is conceptually opposite to the learning-approach goal construct,
we decided to introduce the proposed modification. Such a modified
model resulted in general improvement of model fit: χ2 = 100.22,
df = 23, p b 0.01, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08 (90% CI 0.07–0.10),
SRMR = 0.04. Since most of the fit indices were close to those indicative
of good model fit, this modified model was accepted as more suitable. In
the present study, reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha) of these sub-
scales were: for the learning-approach goal orientation subscale 0.79,
for performance-approach goal orientation subscale 0.84 and for
work-avoidance goal orientation subscale 0.74.
3. Results
In the first step of the analyses the statistical significance and direc-
tion of the relationships between the examined variables were analysed
by Pearson's correlation coefficients (Table 1).
It is evident that most of the correlations were statistically significant
and small-to-moderate in magnitude. Students' achievement in chemis-
try was positively linked with Conscientiousness, learning-approach
(stronger relation) and performance-approach (weaker relation) goal
130 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134
orientations, but negatively correlated with work-avoidance goal orien-
tations. In other words, better achievement is accomplished by more
conscientious students, with higher levels of both learning-approach
and performance-approach goal orientations, but with lower levels of
work-avoidance goal orientations. When considering relations among
the five personality traits, it is evident that they are all significant
(with the exception of the correlation between Extraversion and Con-
scientiousness), but small-to-moderate in size. Concerning relations be-
tween personality traits and goal orientations, the data revealed that
Agreeableness is positively linked to learning-approach goal orienta-
tions and negatively to performance-approach and work-avoidance
goal orientations. Negative association with work-avoidance goal orien-
tations was also found for Conscientiousness; however, this personality
trait was positively linked to learning-approach and performance-ap-
proach goal orientations. Higher levels of Emotional Stability and Intel-
lect are also associated with higher levels of learning-approach goal
orientations, and only for Emotional Stability with lower levels of
work-avoidance goal orientations. Finally, students' learning-approach
goal orientations were positively correlated with their performance-ap-
proach orientations and negatively with their work-avoidance goal
orientations.
In their mediation analysis procedure, Baron and Kenny (1986) pro-
posed three conditions that must be complied with for a variable to
function as a mediator. First condition requires that variations in levels
of the independent variable significantly account for variations in the
suggested mediator variable. Second condition requires that variations
in the mediator variable significantly account for variations in the de-
pendent variable and third condition requires that, when both de-
scribed paths are controlled, a beforehand significant relation between
the independent and dependent variables terminates to be significant
(the most robust evidence of mediation being present if this path is
zero). In terms of statistical testing, four steps are recommended: 1) in
the first regression equation, the independent variable must be shown
to affect the mediator; 2) in the second regression equation, the inde-
pendent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable; 3)
in the third regression equation, the mediator must be shown to affect
the dependent variable; and 4) mediation is confirmed if, after control-
ling for the effects of the mediator variable on the dependent variable,
the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent
variable is significantly diminished. Baron and Kenny (1986, p. 1177)
specified “perfect mediation holds if the independent variable has no ef-
fect when the mediator is controlled.”
Specifically, in the present study, to test possible mediator role of
goal orientations in the relationship between students' personality
traits and academic achievement, the following was tested: first,
whether personality traits significantly affect goal orientations; sec-
ond, whether personality traits significantly affect academic
achievement; third, whether goal orientations have a significant ef-
fect on academic achievement; and fourth, whether, after control-
ling the effects of goal orientations on academic achievement, the
relationship between personality traits and academic achievement
is significantly reduced.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations (Pearson coefficients) between examined variables (N = 501).
M SD 2. 3.
1. Academic achievement 3.93 0.996 −0.07 0.06
2. Extraversion 3.38 0.713 1.00 0.19**
3. Agreeableness 3.82 0.656 1.00
4.Conscientiousness 3.26 0.700
5. Emotional stability 3.06 0.678
6. Intellect 3.65 0.586
7. Learning goal orientation 3.60 0.991
8. Performance goal orientation 2.63 1.130
9. Work-avoidance goal orientation 2.82 1.044
Note: Correlations in bold are significant; marked with **are significant at p b 0.01 and marked with * are significant at p b 0.05.
The first step of analysis revealed (Table 2) that Agreeableness, Con-
scientiousness and Intellect significantly predict learning-approach goal
orientations (15% explained variance); Agreeableness (negative predic-
tor) and Conscientiousness significantly predict performance-approach
goal orientations (10% explained variance); and, finally, Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness, as negative predictors both, significantly predict
work-avoidance goal orientations (9% explained variance).
In the second step it was tested whether students' personality traits
predict their academic achievement, and results showed that Conscien-
tiousness (positive predictor) and Extraversion (negative predictor)
both significantly contribute to the academic achievement (Table 3).
As expected, among the Big Five personality traits, Consciousness is
the best predictor of students' academic achievement.
Next multiple regression analysis (Table 4) showed that all three
students' goal orientations are significant predictors of their academic
achievement (with work-avoidance goal orientations as negative pre-
dictor and learning-approach and performance-approach orientations
as positive predictors). These three predictors accounted for 17% of
the variance in academic achievement.
Based on the conducted analyses, it is evident that testing possible
mediation role of goal orientations has statistical support only for the re-
lationship between Conscientiousness and academic achievement (in
this case the first three criteria of mediation analysis are satisfied). Ac-
cording to the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure to prove mediation
after controlling the effects of goal orientations on academic achieve-
ment, the relationship between personality traits and academic
achievement should be significantly reduced. Commonly, researchers
first check whether the analysis meets the Baron and Kenny criteria
for establishing mediation and then apply the Sobel test to test the va-
lidity of the conclusions reached without it (Hayes, 2009). In this way
the Sobel test is used as a supplement to the Baron and Kenny approach.
Hayes (2009) pointed out several shortcomings of this practice, and rec-
ommended a bootstrapping method as an alternative which tends to
have higher power and better Type I error control. He stated that simu-
lation research reveals that bootstrapping is one of the more valid and
potent methods for testing intervening variable effects. For these rea-
sons, a bootstrapping method was applied in the present study.
Preacher and Hayes (2008) underlined several advantages to using a
multiple mediation model over several simple mediation models when
researchers hypothesize that multiple variables may mediate in the re-
lationship between single independent and dependent variable. There-
fore, in the present research a multiple mediation model was applied to
test whether three students' goal orientations (learning-approach goal
orientations, performance-approach goal orientations and work-avoid-
ance goal orientations) mediate the relationship between Conscien-
tiousness and academic achievement. Students' age and gender were
included in the analysis as covariates. The summary of mediation results
is shown in Table 5.
Results showed that the mean indirect effect from bootstrap analysis
was positive and significant with a 95% bias corrected and accelerated
confidence interval excluding zero (0.1350 to 0.2650). The difference
between total and direct effects is the total indirect effect through
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
0.16** 0.08 −0.01 0.38** 0.18** −0.30**
0.07 0.21** 0.34** 0.05 0.03 −0.04
0.22** 0.11* 0.26** 0.29** −0.11* −0.18**
1.00 0.29** 0.18** 0.29** 0.25** −0.24**
1.00 0.12** 0.09* 0.06 −0.14**
1.00 0.20** 0.05 −0.01
1.00 0.26** −0.52**
1.00 −0.03
1.00
 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134 131

Table 2 Table 4
Regression of learning goal orientations on personality traits. Regression of academic achievement on goal orientations.

First step: regression of learning goal orientations on personality traits Third step: regression of academic achievement on goal orientations

Criterion Predictor Beta t p r2sp Criterion Predictor Beta t p r2sp

Learning goal orientation Extraversion −0.05 −1.11 0.267 0.002 Academic Learning goal orientation 0.27 5.40 0.000 0.055
Agreeableness 0.22 4.93 0.000 0.042 achievement Performance goal 0.11 2.45 0.015 0.010
Conscientiousness 0.22 4.96 0.000 0.042 orientation
Emotional −0.01 −0.03 0.973 0.000 Work-avoidance goal −0.16 −3.21 0.01 0.017
stability orientation
Intellect 0.12 2.69 0.007 0.013 R = 0.41 R2 = 0.17 F(3,497) = 33.22 p b 0.001
R = 0.39 R2 = 0.15 F(5,495) = 17.18 p b 0.001
Performance goal orientation Extraversion 0.03 0.69 0.490 0.001
Agreeableness −0.19 −4.13 0.000 0.031
dichotomous, the trichotomous or the 2 × 2 model) (Finney &
Conscientiousness 0.29 6.27 0.000 0.072
Emotional −0.02 −0.32 0.751 0.000 Davis-Becker, 2003; Elliot, 2005; Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, &
stability Harackiewicz, 2010). Even the introduction of the approach-avoidance
Intellect 0.04 0.92 0.360 0.002 dichotomy has not entirely resolved this inconsistency in the findings.
R = 0.31 R2 = 0.10 F(5,495) = 10.45 p b 0.001
Furthermore, Pintrich (2003) suggested that the great diversity of find-
Work-avoidance goal Extraversion −0.01 −0.24 0.813 0.000
orientation Agreeableness −0.15 −3.27 0.001 0.020
ings on the role of performance goal orientation in shaping academic
Conscientiousness −0.20 −4.33 0.000 0.035 success may also be due partly to different operationalization of aca-
Emotional −0.07 −1.61 0.108 0.005 demic achievement. Similarly, Harackiewicz et al. (2000) warned that
stability positive correlation is most commonly found when the achievement is
Intellect 0.08 1.63 0.105 0.005
operationalized as a course grade, especially when the school environ-
R = 0.29 R2 = 0.09 F(5,495) = 9.28 p b 0.001
ment is also characterized by focus on assessment. It seems that the Cro-
atian grammar schools, because of their competitive nature, are just that
kind of environment; therefore our findings on positive correlation be-
three mediators. An examination of the specific indirect effects indicates
tween academic achievement and performance-approach goal orienta-
that all three mediators (learning-approach goal orientations, perfor-
tions are not surprising. In addition, the positive correlation obtained
mance-approach goal orientations and work-avoidance goal orienta-
between learning-approach and performance-approach goal orienta-
tions) are significant mediators in the relationship between
tions supports the recent theories of multiple goal orientations that pro-
Conscientiousness and academic achievement. In addition, pairwise
pose the possibility that the students' motivation and achievement
comparison of the magnitude of the indirect effects (contrast) between
all three mediators did not show a significant difference between the
specific indirect effects of goal orientations. Regarding covariates, gen- Table 5
der was shown as statistically significant, that is, girls attained signifi- Mediation of Conscientiousness on academic achievement through students' learning goal
orientations, performance goal orientations and work-avoidance goal orientations (1000
cantly better academic achievement than boys.
bootstrap samples) with age and gender as covariates.
Altogether, it could be concluded that the performed mediation
analyses confirmed the hypothesis that all three goal orientations fully Model summary
mediate the relationship between students' personality trait of Consci- Coeff. SE t p Bootstraping
entiousness to their academic achievement. However, regarding other BCa 95% CI
Big-five personality traits (including Agreeableness for which we have Lower Upper
postulated a weak expectation of a possible mediator role), mediations
Conscientiousness 0.2028 0.0631 3.2109 0.0014 0.0787 0.3268
of goal orientations were not found in relationship with academic Gender 0.2204 0.0948 2.3232 0.0206 0.0340 0.4067
achievement. Age 0.0705 0.0622 1.1324 0.2580 −0.0518 0.1927
Total effect of the Conscientiousness on the academic achievement
4. Discussion Effect SE t p Bootstraping
BCa 95% CI
As expected, students with higher levels of both learning-approach Lower Upper
and performance-approach goal orientations, but with lower levels of
0.2028 0.0631 3.2109 0.0014 0.0787 0.3268
work-avoidance goal orientations, accomplished better achievement
in chemistry. Although a positive association between achievement Direct effect of the Conscientiousness on the academic achievement
and learning goal orientations has been consistently proven in numer- Effect SE t p Bootstraping
ous empirical research studies, findings about the association between BCa 95% CI
achievement and performance goal orientations have been more incon- Lower Upper
sistent. Some authors have ascribed these inconsistencies partly to dif-
0.0202 0.0628 0.3210 0.7484 −0.1033 0.1436
ferences in the conceptualization of goal orientation (e.g. the
Indirect effect of the Conscientiousness on the academic achievement

Table 3 Effect SE Bootstraping

Regression of academic achievement on personality traits. BCa 95% CI

Lower Upper
Second step: regression of academic achievement on personality traits
Total 0.1826 0.0313 0.1262 0.2497
Criterion Predictor Beta t p r2sp
Learning goal orientations (LGO) 0.0995 0.0246 0.0540 0.1498
Academic achievement Extraversion −0.10 −1.99 0.048 0.008 Performance goal orientations (PGO) 0.0380 0.177 0.0053 0.0752
Agreeableness 0.05 1.05 0.294 0.002 Work-avoidance goal orientations 0.0451 0.0170 0.0173 0.0878
Conscientiousness 0.14 3.01 0.003 0.018 (WAGO)
Emotional stability 0.05 1.11 0.269 0.002 LGO vs. PGO 0.0615 0.0324 −0.0004 0.1287
Intellect −0.02 −0.47 0.642 0.000 LGO vs. WAGO 0.0543 0.0329 −0.0136 0.1147
R = 0.19 R2 = 0.04 F(5,495) = 3.79 p b 0.005 PGO vs. WAGO −0.0071 0.0226 −0.0535 0.0359
132 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134
could simultaneously be affected by different levels of different goal ori-
entations (Mattern, 2005; Harackiewicz & Linnenbrink, 2005; Wosnitza
& Volet, 2012). For achieving the most positive learning outcomes, Fryer
and Elliot (2008) recommended the creation of such an environment
that would emphasize learning goal orientation (e.g. by encouraging
student interest in the subject matter), at the same time allowing a
low-to-medium level of performance goal orientation. Since in the pres-
ent study learning and performance goal orientations are operational-
ized in approaching manner, not as avoidance goal orientations, our
results in some way emphasize the importance of including the ap-
proach dimension into the multiple goal orientations perspective. Ad-
vantage of approaching goal orientations (learning and performance)
is indirectly confirmed by a negative correlation between work-avoid-
ance orientation and learning-approach orientation and, probably con-
sequently, academic achievement. Considering positive correlations
between learning-approach and performance-approach goal orienta-
tions in some recent researches, Vrugt and Oort (2008) suggest that
the adoption of different approach-learning orientations allows stu-
dents to manage their learning and make it flexible. In this way they
are able to adapt their behaviours to the requirements of a specific
learning task and it is not surprising for them to have better academic
achievement.
In a number of studies, work-avoidance goal orientation proved to
be the most harmful (Niemivirta, 1996; Seifert & O, 2001; Seifert,
2004; Tuominen-Soini et al., 2008; Steinmayr et al., 2011). Students
with such orientation want to avoid failure with the least possible in-
vestment effort in learning. Therefore, even when they achieve success,
they attribute it to external factors and do not believe that this success
can be repeated in the future. Repeated failures and low achievement
will result in an increase in anxiety and, further, in avoidance of threat-
ening situations which will then interfere with active management of
such situations (Niemivirta, 1996; Tuominen-Soini et al., 2008). In this
study, the negative correlation established between work-avoidance
goal orientation and students' achievement in chemistry is in accor-
dance with this proposed dynamic.
Regarding the relationships between personality traits and goal ori-
entations, performed analyses mostly confirmed previous findings
showing that Conscientiousness, Intellect and Agreeableness have pos-
itive associations with different components of self-regulated learning
(Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Steinmayr et al., 2011). As students with a
high level of Conscientiousness have a tendency to show self-discipline,
set achievable learning goals, dutifully plan and organize their learning
activities and work consistently to achieve these goals, it is not surpris-
ing that they have high levels of mastery-approach and performance-
approach goal orientations, and a low level of work-avoidance goal ori-
entation. Further, students with a high level of Intellect have a tendency
to express intellectual curiosity and creativity; they are open-minded
and prefer novelty and diversity. Therefore, the obtained positive corre-
lation of this trait with mastery-approach goal orientations seems logi-
cal. However, our findings on the relationship of Agreeableness and goal
orientations are somewhat unexpected. Agreeable students are unself-
ish, well-mannered, caring, helpful, supportive, tolerant, kind and em-
pathetic. Due to their tendency to compliance authority and
malleability, it seems unexpected that agreeable students show a low
level of performance-approach goal orientation. Possible explanation
could be found in specific characteristics of the Croatian high-school ed-
ucational system which gone through a significant reform ten years ago.
School grades are still the crucial criterion for entrance in high-school
education, but since year 2010 state matura (final exam) results have
been the basis for entering to higher education institutions. In some
way, this produced an underestimation of school grade value in high
schools. Accordingly, it is possible that agreeable students try to compli-
ance authority (parents, teachers etc.) with learning-approach goal ori-
entation whereas acquiring knowledge is an essential prerequisite for
good matura state results. Also, in accordance with this possible expla-
nation a positive correlation between Agreeableness and learning-
approach goal orientation, and negative with work-avoidance goal
orientation was obtained. In some way, the lack of predictive value
of Agreeableness for academic achievement also supports this
explanation.
As noted above, the relationship between personality traits and goal
orientations has, until now, generally been investigated regardless of
the possible mediating relationships. Therefore, in this research we
tried to check whether goal orientations mediate the relationship be-
tween personality traits and academic achievement. The results obtain-
ed from the analyses have shown that all three examined goal
orientations fully mediate this relationship, but only for the personality
trait of Conscientiousness. However, the results have not shown a pos-
sible mediation role of goal orientations between other four personality
traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability and Intellect)
and academic achievement.
Gender, which has been included in the mediation analysis as a co-
variate along with age, revealed to be a significant factor. It is not sur-
prising since many research findings indicate that girls attain better
academic achievement than boys. Niemivirta (2004) suggested that
these differences between boys and girls are a consequence of their dif-
ferent socialization processes (at home and at school). For example,
girls are more sensitive to social approval than boys. Other authors
have also offered similar explanations for these differences (e.g. better
communication between teachers and girls, teachers' and parents'
modelling of typical gender behaviours and expression of different ex-
pectations for boys and girls, etc.) (Meece, Bower Glienke, & Burg,
2006; Finney & Davis-Becker, 2003).
In a number of research studies, Conscientiousness alone has shown
the strongest association with school achievement (Conrad, 2006; O &
Paunonen, 2007; Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Wagerman & Funder, 2007;
Noftle & Robins, 2007; Hakimi et al., 2011), but the question of the na-
ture of this relationship has remained unanswered. According to our re-
sults, students' goal orientations mediate this relationship. That is, a
potential positive effect of Conscientiousness on academic achievement
could be mediated by students' goal orientations. Conscientiousness is
defined as individual differences in the tendency to follow socially ar-
ranged norms for impulse control, to be goal-directed and to be able
to delay gratification, and standing out most often as components of
conscientiousness are industriousness, orderliness, impulse control, re-
liability, and conventionality (Jackson et al., 2010). Conscientious stu-
dents are good at setting clear learning goals, organizing their learning
activities, managing their time and learning hard despite obstacles and
setbacks. Therefore, it is possible that student personality characteristics
of this kind promote the development of approach goal orientation,
both learning and performance (which are directed at improving stu-
dents' competences and demonstrating their abilities). In addition, as
students with less pronounced Conscientiousness tend to be less care-
ful, less focused and more likely to be diverted from learning activities,
they would probably have a propensity to develop work-avoidance
goal orientation which will finally result in lower academic achieve-
ment. In their study, Steinmayr et al. (2011) found that only learning
goal orientations partially mediate the impact of Openness and Consci-
entiousness on school performance, but in their research goal orienta-
tions were conceptualized at a more general level, while in the
present research they have been domain-specifically operationalized.
Perhaps because of this conceptual difference, we found stronger medi-
ation effects of all three goal orientations on the relationship between
Conscientiousness and academic achievement.
4.1. Study limitations
However, it is necessary to warn that this study has certain limita-
tions. Above all, the cross-sectional nature of this study should be
noted. Kenny (2007) warned that it is necessary to have some caution
about the application of mediation analysis to cross-sectional data. Con-
sequently, we recognise that the results of these analyses are only an
 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134
indicator for possible causal relationships that, in future research,
should be tested with other methodology approach (e.g. longitudinal
study design), and with more powerful statistical analysis, such as struc-
tural equation modelling.
Additionally, one limitation regards the typical problems linked with
using self-report methods (e.g. socially desirable answers) and the
problem of occurrence of method variance, which may produce artifi-
cially enlarged correlations between self-report measures (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Also, already described problems
with reliability of students' self-reported grades are present. Moreover,
the generalization of the findings of this study are partially limited be-
cause of a convenient sample of high-school students and the academic
domain of chemistry. In future research it should be interesting and im-
portant to test the observed relations in other academic domains and
with different research methodology.
4.2. Conclusions and implications for future research
Altogether, based on the results obtained, it could be concluded (but
with caution because of the cross-sectional nature of the present re-
search) that the students' goal orientations fully mediate the relation-
ship between Conscientiousness and academic achievement in
chemistry. Since the present research sought to clarify the roles of,
and interrelations among, three important constructs in the social-cog-
nitive framework of self-regulated learning – personality traits, goal ori-
entations and academic achievement – these findings could contribute
to the understanding of the complex dynamic of the self-regulated
learning process. The problem that accompanies most research focused
on the relationship between personality and academic achievement is
the fact that these studies usually show certain connections, but do
not explain the processes through which personality traits affect ac-
ademic achievement. According to Boekaerts (1996) personality the-
ories have to be focused on research and explanation relationships
between intercorrelated personality traits and achievement in spe-
cific contexts. Some recent research into this problem revealed dif-
ferent cognitive processes such as learning strategy, self-esteem
and self-efficacy (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007; Caprara, Vecchione,
Alessandri, Gerbino, & Barbaranelli, 2011; Conrad & Patry, 2012)
which mediate the relationship between different personality traits
and academic achievement. Present research represents a contribu-
tion in this respect because it indicates that goal orientations could
be such a mediating cognitive process, at least in the relation be-
tween Conscientiousness and academic achievement in chemistry
(and probably not only in this relation).
Based on the described results of the present study, some practical
implications could be drawn: it seems that, by fostering the develop-
ment of students' approach goal orientations, both learning and perfor-
mance, we could facilitate realization of the potentially positive effect of
Conscientiousness on academic achievement. As personality traits are
usually considered as hardly changeable, it seems plausible to direct
our education intervention to students' goal orientations, which could
be considered to be relatively more changeable. Numerous studies re-
vealed the significant positive effect which intervention programs de-
signed to enhance students' motivation (i.e. to develop their approach
goal orientations) could have on their academic achievement
(Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). In some way, results
of the present study indicate that one benefit of such interventions may
be the facilitation of the potentially positive effect of Conscientiousness
on academic achievement. As Fryer and Elliot (2008) warned, there are
two levels of educational intervention: personal and contextual. Re-
garding the obtained positive mediator role of approach goal orienta-
tions between Conscientiousness and academic achievement it seems
useful to focus these interventions on fostering students' personal ap-
proach goal orientations as well as contextual approach goal orienta-
tions (school, class or parental).
133
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173.
Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of person-
ality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17,
69–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Personality and the psychology of learning. European Journal of
Personality, 10, 377–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199612)10:
5b377::AID-PER261N3.0.CO;2-N.
Boekaerts, M., Smit, K., & Busing, F. (2012). Salient goals direct and energise students' ac-
tions in the classroom. Applied Psychology, 62(4), 520–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1464-0597.2012.00504.x.
Bowman, N. A., & Hill, P. L. (2011). Measuring how college affects students: Social desir-
ability and other potential biases in college student self-reported gains. In S. Herzog,
& N. A. Bowman (Eds.), Validity and limitations of college student self-report data (New
Directions for Institutional Research, no. 150, pp. 73–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2011). The
contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement:
A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 78–96. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1348/2044-8279.002004.
Carr, S. (2012). High task/high ego oriented students' reasons for endorsing task and ego
goals in the context of physical education. Applied Psychology, 61(4), 540–563. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00505.x.
Cassady, J. C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: A methodological note. Practical assess-
ment, research, & evaluation, 7 Retrieved April 5, 2016, from http://PAREonline.net/
getvn.asp?v=7&n=12
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic perfor-
mance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 319–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0.
Cole, J. S., & Gonyea, R. M. (2010). Accuracy of self-reported SAT and ACT test scores: Im-
plications for research. Research in Higher Education, 51, 305–319. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s11162-009-9160-9.
Cole, J. S., Rocconi, L., & Gonyea, R. M. (2012). Accuracy of self-reported grades: Implica-
tions for research. Presented at 52nd annual forum association for institutional research
(June 5, 2012), New Orleans, LA.
Conrad, M. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict ac-
ademic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(3), 339–346. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.10.003.
Conrad, N., & Patry, M. C. (2012). Conscientiousness and academic performance: A medi-
ational analysis. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1),
1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060108.
Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of
achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666–679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.90.4.666.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R. (2013). Openness to experience,
intellect and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 46–52. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.806327.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot, &
C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.80.3.501.
Fayyaz, W., & Kamal, A. (2011). Personality traits and the metacognitive listening skills of
English as a foreign language in Pakistan. Journal of Behavioural Science, 21, 59–76.
Finney, S., & Davis-Becker, S. L. (2003, April). Examining the invariance of the Achievement
Goal Questionnaire across gender. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Edu-
cational Research Association.
Fryer, J. W., & Elliot, A. J. (2008). Self-regulation of achievement goal pursuit. In D. H.
Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, re-
search, and applications (pp. 53–77). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measur-
ing the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De
Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe. Vol. 7. (pp. 7–28). Til-
burg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Hakimi, S., Hejazi, E., & Lavasani, M. G. (2011). The relationships between personality
traits and students' academic achievement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
29, 836–845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.312.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). Multiple achievement goals and multiple
pathways for learning: The agenda and impact of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational
Psychologist, 40(2), 75–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_2.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term
and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and perfor-
mance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316–330. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in col-
lege: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of
interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/03637750903310360.
134 I. Sorić et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 54 (2017) 126–134
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure anal-
ysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1),
1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-an-
alytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs
or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422–449.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018947.
Jackson, J. J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K. E., Harms, P. D., & Roberts, B. W. (2010). What
do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators
of Conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 501–511. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.005.
Kenny, D. A. (2007). Reflections on mediation. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2),
353–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308978.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R. (2009). Role of the Big Five personality traits
in predicting college students' academic motivation and achievement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001.
Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point
averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 63–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543075001063.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Psihologija ličnosti. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of mul-
tiple goal contexts to promote students' motivation and learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(2), 197–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.
197.
Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future.
In K. R. Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 77–105).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Mansfield, C. F. (2012). Rethinking motivation goals for adolescents: Beyond achievement
goals. Applied Psychology, 61(4), 564–584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.
2012.00506.x.
Mattern, R. A. (2005). College students' goal orientations and achievement. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 27–32.
McCabe, K. O., Van Yperen, N. W., Elliot, A. J., & Verbraak, M. (2013). Big Five personality
profiles of context-specific achievement goals. Journal of Research in Personality, 47,
698–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.06.003.
Meece, J. H., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students' achievement goals. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85(4), 582–590http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.85.4.
582
Meece, J. L., Bower Glienke, B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School
Psychology, 44(5), 351–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.004.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Niemivirta, M. (1996). Motivational-cognitive components in self-regulated learning.
Paper presented at the “5th International Conference on Motivation”. Germany: Landau.
Niemivirta, M. (2004). Habits of mind and academic endeavors: The correlates and conse-
quences of achievement goal orientations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioural Science, Department of Education, Research Report
196. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big Five
correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1),
116–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116.
O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-second-
ary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971–990.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
S15326985EP3602_4.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). The role of goal-orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, re-
search, and applications (pp. 451–502). Burlington, MA: Academic Press. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50043-3.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation
terminology, theory and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1017.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology – Educational Psychology. 7. (pp. 103–122). Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0706.
Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated
learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the Five-factor model of personality and academ-
ic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0014996.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
Rovan, D., & Jelić, A. (2010). Motivacijska uvjerenja u učenju materinskoga jezika i stranih
jezika (Motivational Beliefs in Mother Tongue and Foreign Language Learning).
Društvena istraživanja, 19(4–5), 873–894.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.
Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–153). Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Seifert, T. L. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46(2),
137–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000222421.
Seifert, T. L., & O'Keefe, B. (2001). The relationship of work avoidance and learning goals
to perceived competence, externality and meaning. British Journal of Educational
Pscyhology, 71, 81–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709901158406.
Senko, C., Durik, A. M., & Harackiwicz, J. M. (2008). Historical perspectives and new direc-
tions in achievement goal theory: Understanding the effects of mastery and perfor-
mance-approach goals. In J. Y. Shah, & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation
science (pp. 100–114). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Shiner, R. L., & DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The structure of temperament and personality
traits: A developmental perspective. In P. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of develop-
mental psychology (pp. 113–141). New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199958474.013.0006.
Sorić, I., Penezić, Z., & Burić, I. (2013). Big Five personality traits, cognitive appraisals and
emotion regulation strategies as predictors of achievement emotions. Psychological
Topics, 22(2), 325–349.
Steinmayr, R., Bipp, T., & Spinath, B. (2011). Goal orientations predict academic perfor-
mance beyond intelligence and personality. Learning and Individual Differences,
21(2), 196–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.026.
Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orienta-
tions and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and Instruction,
18, 251–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003.
Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal struc-
tures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44,
331–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., Rodriguez, S., & Piňeiro, I.
(2003). Cognitive, motivational, and volitional dimensions of learning: An empirical
test of a hypothetical model. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 557–580. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025443325499.
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and ac-
ademic achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 30,
123–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-008-9022-4.
Wagerman, S. A., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Acquaintance reports of personality and academ-
ic achievement: A case for conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1),
221–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.001.
Wosnitza, M., & Volet, S. (2012). Group heterogeneity and homogeneity in personal con-
tent goals for a group learning activity: Impact on individual appraisals. Applied
Psychology, 61(4), 585–604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00507.x.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. 13–35). Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–39). Lawrence
Erlbaum Ass. Publishers.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and mo-
tivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of
metacognition in education (pp. 299–317). New York, NY: Routledge.