Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

Counterproductive academic behaviors (CAB) are a major problem for educational institutions all over the world. For this reason, to determine the potential predictors of CAB is relevant. After defining CAB and introducing a typology of seven CABs facets (i.e., cheating, absenteeism, plagiarism, deception, breach of rules, low effort, and misuse of resources), this study reports on a comprehensive meta-analysis carried out to estimate the relationships between CAB and its facets with the Big Five personality dimensions and intelligence. Results showed that conscientiousness (K ϭ 77, N ϭ 31,473, ϭ Ϫ.28) and agreeableness (K ϭ 56, N ϭ 24,436, ϭ Ϫ.14) were predictors of the student's propensity to engage in CAB. Conscientiousness also predicted the 7 facets of CAB, particularly absenteeism ( ϭ Ϫ.30), cheating ( ϭ Ϫ.34), misuse of resources ( ϭ Ϫ.32), low effort ( ϭ Ϫ.29), and breach of rules ( ϭ Ϫ.27). Intelligence showed a negative relationship with CAB (K ϭ 55, N ϭ 30,052, ϭ Ϫ.19), and it was the best predictor of deception (K ϭ 18, N ϭ 3,575 ϭ Ϫ.48). The educational level, the type of cognitive tests, and the intelligence factor assessed were relevant moderators of the validity estimates. The validity of a compound of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and intelligence was .42 for predicting overall CAB. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

Individual differences and counterproductive academic behaviors in high school

“…Empirical evidence on the relationship between the Big Five model of personality and CAB shows that conscientiousness and agreeableness are the personality dimensions most linked to these behaviors. Cuadrado et al [17] found that both dimensions were valid predictors of overall CAB with true effect sizes of -.28 and -.14, respectively. When the moderator variable "academic level" was analyzed, results for high school samples were very similar, reaching a true effect size of -.24 for conscientiousness and of -.13 for agreeableness.…”

“…The current research focuses on the second group of characteristics, especially in the study of the Big Five personality dimensions and the students' general mental ability (GMA) and their relationship with CAB and its facets. The association between these variables has been previously tested in various meta-analyses [see, [16][17][18][19]. However, these meta-analyses reveal the dearth of investigation of CAB at the high school level.…”

“…However, none of them was calculated using high school samples, but only students from higher or lower academic levels. Cuadrado et al [17] examined the link between the Big Five model dimensions, intelligence, and overall CAB and its facets. This work improved upon previous meta-analysis by integrating a larger number of studies, applying new artifactual corrections, and considering the educational level as a possible moderating variable.…”

“…Paulhus and Dubois [19] have reported an observed negative effect size between intelligence and a compound of dishonest conducts of r = -.21. Meta-analysis by Cuadrado et al [17] found that intelligence was a valid predictor of overall CAB with true validity coefficient of -.19. When samples composed of high school students were separately analyzed, the result was slightly higher in magnitude (ρ = -.22).…”

“…Cuadrado et al [17] also performed separate analyses to test the possible differences in the results when the type of intelligence test and the intelligence construct assessed were treated as potential moderator variables. The results showed that traditional intelligence tests (e.g., Raven's Matrices Test, Cattell's Fair Culture Tests, Wonderlic Personnel Test) yielded a stronger result than cognitive tests used for academic admissions (e.g., SAT, ACT, GRE) (ρ = -.26 and ρ = -.13, respectively).…”