When academic achievement (also) reflects personality: Using the personality-achievement saturation hypothesis (PASH) to explain differential associations between achievement measures and personality traits.

Abstract

Students' academic achievement is a key predictor of various life outcomes. The two most prominent measures of academic achievement are grades and standardized test scores. Both measures are commonly used during selection processes as well as for educational monitoring and accountability. Research has suggested that grades and test scores are strongly related to students' characteristics (e.g., cognitive abilities) but might differentially reflect personality.In order to better explain differential personality-achievement associations, it is important to move beyond the dichotomy of grades versus test scores. To this end, we propose the personality-achievement saturation hypothesis (PASH), which suggests that associations between personality and achievement vary, depending on four main features of the achievement measure used: level of standardization, relevance for the student, curricular validity, and instructional sensitivity. The PASH suggests that conscientiousness should typically be more strongly associated with grade point average, followed by course grades and final examination grades, whereas openness should be more strongly associated with test scores. We used data from three large-scale studies (total N = 14,953) and aggregated our findings. In line with the PASH, conscientiousness was most strongly related to grades, which have lower standardization, moderate to high relevance, high curricular-validity, and high instructional sensitivity, whereas it had substantially weaker associations with more highly standardized, less curriculum-valid, and less instructionally sensitive measures. In addition, openness was most strongly related to highly standardized, less relevant, less curriculumvalid, and less instructionally sensitive measures in English. Implications for the ways in which achievement measures can be used are discussed.

How causal is a reciprocal effect? Contrasting traditional and new methods to investigate the reciprocal effects model of self-concept and achievement

“…Notably, this study also suggests that self-concept might be more strongly related to grades than to achievement in standardized tests. The authors argue that grades are often based on high-stakes assessments, which have strong implications for students and are therefore strongly influenced by motivational student characteristics, whereas achievement assessed in standardized achievement tests in educational studies are typically more low-stakes and therefore less strongly influenced by students' self-concept (e.g., Arens et al, 2017;Hübner, Spengler, et al, 2021;Marsh et al, 2005;Wylie, 1979). Further studies have extended these findings by focusing on dimensional comparisons (e.g., internal and external frames of reference).…”

The Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML): Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

“…The model in Figure 1 presents the hypothesized link between the affective and conative constructs of motivation and self-regulated learning (SRL or volition). The distalto-proximal learning influence link between affective (personality) and conative constructs (motivation and SRL) is mediated primarily by the Big 5 personality traits of Openness to Experience (O) and Conscientiousness (C) (Hübner et al, 2021;Mammadov, 2021) and 8 of 17 social-emotional facets. 7 The affective→conative bridge portrayed in Figure 1, which indicates that personality trait effects are transmitted or mediated through the more proximal conative characteristics, is grounded in multiple sources of research (Burrus & Brenneman, 2016;Corno et al, 2002;Hübner et al, 2021;Lipnevich et al, 2016;Mammadov, 2021;Poropat, 2009;Vedel, 2014).…”

“…The distalto-proximal learning influence link between affective (personality) and conative constructs (motivation and SRL) is mediated primarily by the Big 5 personality traits of Openness to Experience (O) and Conscientiousness (C) (Hübner et al, 2021;Mammadov, 2021) and 8 of 17 social-emotional facets. 7 The affective→conative bridge portrayed in Figure 1, which indicates that personality trait effects are transmitted or mediated through the more proximal conative characteristics, is grounded in multiple sources of research (Burrus & Brenneman, 2016;Corno et al, 2002;Hübner et al, 2021;Lipnevich et al, 2016;Mammadov, 2021;Poropat, 2009;Vedel, 2014). This link has been solidified by recent research integrating social-emotional (SE) constructs within the Big 5 theory, the consensus taxonomy of personality traits.…”

Beyond Competencies: Associations between Personality and School Grades Are Largely Independent of Subject-Specific and General Cognitive Competencies

“…However, the psychological mechanisms underlying these personality–achievement associations still need to be better understood. In particular, the associations between personality and school grades are assumed to reflect multiple mechanisms ( Hübner et al 2022 ; Poropat 2009 ; Westphal et al 2021 ). On the one hand, specific behavioral tendencies might facilitate learning, fostering the competencies a student needs, for example, in mathematics and thus lead to better school grades.…”

“…Such associations between personality and academic achievement exist even beyond the influence of general cognitive ability (e.g., Barbaranelli et al 2003 ; Borghans et al 2016 ; Lechner et al 2017 ; Mammadov 2021 ; Meyer et al 2019 ; Poropat 2009 ; Spengler et al 2013 ; Zhang and Ziegler 2016 ; Ziegler et al 2012 ), the central predictor of academic achievement ( Deary et al 2007 ). In particular conscientiousness and—to a lesser extent—openness have been established as robust predictors of academic achievement (e.g., De Raad and Schouwenburg 1996 ; Dumfart and Neubauer 2016 ; Hübner et al 2022 ; Mammadov 2021 ; Poropat 2009 ). Conscientiousness represents a person’s self-discipline and will to achieve and their tendency to responsibly keep things in order and follow rules (e.g., Soto and John 2017 ).…”