Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

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

Unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance:
The moderating and mediating effects of self-efcacy and academic motivation
Tim De Feyter , Ralf Caers, Claudia Vigna, Dries Berings
Center for Business Management Research, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, K.U.Leuven Association, Belgium

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 March 2011
Received in revised form 14 March 2012
Accepted 22 March 2012
Keywords:
Big Five personality traits
Self-efcacy
Academic motivation
Academic performance

a b s t r a c t
The main purpose of this study is to unravel the impact of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance. We propose a theoretical model with conditional indirect effects of the Big Five personality factors
on academic performance through their impact upon academic motivation. To clarify the mixed results of
previous studies concerning the impact of neuroticism, we suggest a moderating role of self-efcacy. Hierarchical, moderated mediation and mediated moderation regression analyses were performed on longitudinal
data collected from 375 students of a University college in Belgium. The ndings revealed a positive indirect
effect of neuroticism on academic performance at higher levels of self-efcacy, complemented by a positive
direct effect of neuroticism at lower levels of self-efcacy. Finally, this study showed that conscientiousness
positively affected academic performance indirectly through academic motivation, but also that it is a condition for the indirect impact of extraversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness.
2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that the Big Five personality factors
(neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) capture most of the individual differences in behavioral
patterns (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and therefore are appropriate in
studying daily behavior and performance in a wide range of domains.
For example, it is known that, among the Big Five personality traits,
conscientiousness and neuroticism are the best predictors of workrelated performance (Salgado, 1997). In an educational context,
numerous studies explored the relation between the Big Five personality factors and academic performance (AP). Across various educational settings, personality traits have been shown to contribute to
the explanation of individual differences in AP (Chamorro-Premuzic
& Furnham, 2008; Furnham & Monsen, 2009; Nguyen, Allen, &
Fraccastoro, 2005; O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007). Whereas the results
on the relation of academic performance to the other four personality
traits are mixed or relatively weak, conscientiousness is mostly identied as a strong predictor of AP (Diseth, 2003; Noftle & Robins, 2007;
Poropat, 2009). Conscientious students are characterized by their orderly, unsupercial, and precise manner of working. Therefore, this
personality trait strongly enhances performance during examinations
or other evaluation methods. In contrast to conscientiousness, most
scholars believe neuroticism to have a negative impact on AP. However, earlier research on the association between neuroticism and
Corresponding author at: Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Warmoesberg 26, B-1000
Brussels, Belgium. Tel.: +32 2 609 8274.
E-mail address: tim.defeyter@hubrussel.be (T. De Feyter).
1041-6080/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.013

academic achievements showed mixed and inconclusive results

(Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, & McDougall, 2003). The current
study examines the impact of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance in more depth, focusing especially on conscientiousness and neuroticism.
Besides the direct effect, a student's personality also relates to
other important predictors of academic performance like approaches
to learning, effective learning strategies, cognitive abilities, and academic motivation (AM; Barrick & Mount, 1996; Bidjerano & Yun
Dai, 2007; Clark & Schroth, 2010; Diseth, 2003; Swanberg &
Martinsen, 2010; Zhang, 2003). Consequently, it is also relevant to
study the indirect effects of the Big Five personality factors on AP.
Komarraju, Karau, and Schmeck (2009) indicated a lack of empirical
research simultaneously investigating the effects of personality on academic motivation and on performance. Their ndings suggested that
the Big Five personality factors predicted AM, but outperformed motivation in explaining variations in self-reported grade point averages.
They called for additional research using an objective actual measure
of academic success. Further, they suggest adding other individual
difference constructs which can contribute to the explanation of academic motivation and performance. The present study responds to
this call.
The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we examine the role of
self-efcacy in order to clarify the mixed results in earlier research
on the impact of neuroticism. Secondly, we provide a better understanding of the often-reported impact of conscientiousness on AP,
by extending Komarraju et al.'s (2009) framework, which includes
indirect effects of the Big Five personality traits on AP through AM
on the one hand, and conscientiousness as a moderator of the

440

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

relationship between academic motivation and performance on the

other hand.
1.1. Effects of neuroticism
Because neurotic individuals are characterized as being anxious,
emotional, nervous, and tensed, numerous authors expect that neuroticism hinders performance in an academic environment. However,
the association between neuroticism and AP might be more complex.
Previous work on this relationship indeed showed mixed and inconclusive results. Whereas several earlier studies have indicated a negative effect (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Furnham &
Monsen, 2009; Lounsbury, Sundstrom, Loveland, & Gibson, 2003),
other research reported no or even a positive impact of neuroticism
on AP (Furnham et al., 2003; Komarraju et al., 2009; Nguyen et al.,
2005; Rosander, Bckstrm, & Stenberg, 2011). These inconsistent results may be explained by the role of AM as partial mediator in the relation between the Big Five personality traits and academic achievements.
Neuroticism could indeed have a direct negative effect on AP, especially
in stressful situations like exams. But this adverse inuence may be neutralized or even reversed by a supplementary positive indirect effect
through motivation. For this positive indirect effect to occur, neuroticism
should have a positive impact on AM. However, arguments exist for both
a positive and negative relation between neuroticism and academic
motivation.
On the one hand, it is a popular belief that neuroticism relates negatively to AM. Due to their fear of failure, neurotic students are
expected to avoid failure by becoming less dedicated to academic
achievements. Komarraju and Karau (2005) provided empirical support for neuroticism being a predictor of avoidance motivation.
On the other hand, several scholars demonstrated a positive impact
of neuroticism on AM. Drawing on self-determination theory (Baker,
2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000), Komarraju et al. (2009) assessed motivation
in terms of three distinctive processes: amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation. Their ndings indicated that neuroticism
was not related to amotivation and was positively related to extrinsic
motivation. This is in line with the results on introjected regulation. In
an educational context, introjected regulation refers to extrinsic motivation to engage in hardworking study behavior, out of a sense of obligation and to avoid feelings of guilt (Assor, Vansteenkiste, & Kaplan,
2009). Because they are unstable and emotional, neurotics may be
very sensitive to tensions that generate guilt and guilty thoughts. This
explains why previous work showed that neuroticism is positively associated with introjected regulation (Clark & Schroth, 2010; Phillips,
Abraham, & Bond, 2003). Although introjected regulation might not
be the optimal source of motivation, it could well turn into increased academic results. Further, Bidjerano and Yun Dai (2007) provide an additional argument for the existence of a positive effect of neuroticism on
extrinsic motivation. They state that, instead of avoiding academic
engagement, neurotic students cope with their anxiety about failure
by intensifying their efforts in trying to prevent failure.
Thus, although there is consensus on fear of failure being inherent
to neuroticism, scholars differ in their opinions on how neurotic students deal with it. This coping style determines whether neuroticism
affects amotivation or extrinsic motivation, and this way inuences
the impact of neuroticism on academic performance through motivation. The literature on cognitive learning strategies provides a better
understanding of the way that students cope with anxiety about
failure.
1.2. Coping with anxiety about failure
In the literature on cognitive learning strategies, a distinction is
made between defensive pessimism and self-handicapping strategies
to cope with anxiety about failure. Defensive pessimists handle their
fear by lowering their success expectations with the objective of

protecting their self-esteem in the event of failure (Deb & Arora,

2009; Norem & Cantor, 1986). At the same time, they believe in a conditional likelihood of failure and realize that they cannot afford to endanger their AP by neglecting their studies (Lim, 2009). This extrinsic
motivational component is not found in the self-handicapping strategy. In order not to jeopardize self-esteem, the latter coping strategy
deals with fear of failure by avoiding study effort, in such a way that
failure cannot be attributed to a lack of abilities.
To reveal the underlying cognitive process that determines a student's coping strategy in educational settings, Maatta, Nurmi, and
Stattin (2007) compared the success expectations of defensive pessimists and self-handicappers. Whereas the self-handicapping strategy
was characterized by low levels, the defensive pessimism strategy
was related to medium levels of success expectations. These results
indicated that students with fear of failure would be extrinsically motivated when they believed in their potential to be successful. Otherwise, their anxiety about failure would lead to avoidance motivation.
Consequently, because fear of failure is inherent to neuroticism,
these results clarify the academic motivation of neurotic students. It
depends on self-efcacy, dened as the individual's belief in their
own capabilities to succeed. Self-efcacy is assumed to exert a positive inuence on the motivation of neurotic students, as it is negatively related to amotivation and positively to extrinsic motivation.
However, to fully comprehend the impact of neuroticism on academic
performance through motivation, it is also necessary to understand
the impact of self-efcacy on the AM of emotionally stable students.
Indeed, because emotional stability is the opposite of neuroticism, it
is not associated with fear of failure.
1.3. Self-efcacy effects
As in other settings, there exists a lot of support for socialcognitive theory in an educational environment (Robbins et al.,
2004; Seifert, 2004; Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). This theory states that self-efcacy expectations increase efforts and task persistence (Bandura, 1991). However, Vancouver, Thompson, and
Williams (2001) introduced another view on self-efcacy effects.
Their approach relies on control theory (Powers, 1973). Applied to
an educational context, this theory states that motivation results
from the discrepancy between the perceived and the desired level
of preparedness for exams (Vancouver & Kendall, 2006). The selfefcacy expectation is one component of the preparedness perception. Consequently, high levels of self-efcacy might not always be
benecial for motivation. As the student believes that he or she is sufciently prepared to pass the exams, his or her high self-efcacy level
would lead to overcondence and lower AM and AP (Furnham et al.,
2003). In other settings, several authors found empirical support for
the relations between self-efcacy, overcondence, motivation, and
performance (Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Stone, 1994; Vancouver,
Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002). In a learning environment, the
results of Pajares and Graham (1999) showed that students' high
levels of self-efcacy concerning task-specic mathematics performance were associated with overcondence. Further, on the basis of
repeated measurement analysis, Vancouver and Kendall (2006)
found that, at a within-person level of analysis, self-efcacy was negatively related to motivation and exam performance.
1.4. Neuroticism and self-efcacy moderation effects
Both theoretical approaches to self-efcacy complement each
other in fully understanding the impact of neuroticism on AM. The
control theory approach predicts a negative impact of self-efcacy
on motivation, because self-efcacy is positively associated with the
perceived level of preparedness for exams. As the perceived level becomes greater than the desired level of preparedness, academic motivation is expected to decrease. Nevertheless, because they are

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

anxious and tensed, it is very unlikely that neurotic students would

experience sufcient preparedness to pass the exams and therefore
would suffer from overcondence (Schaefer, Williams, Goodie, &
Campbell, 2004). Further, at lower levels of self-efcacy, the preparedness perception still increases with self-efcacy. But as long as
it is smaller than the desired level of preparedness, we believe that
even for emotionally stable individuals overcondence is not an
issue. As a result, we expect the prediction of control theory to hold
only for emotionally stable individuals at higher levels of self-efcacy.
For neurotic students and for emotionally stable individuals at
lower levels of self-efcacy, we anticipate that self-efcacy will inuence AM positively, as posited by social-cognitive theory. Regarding
neurotic students, this prediction corresponds to the literature and
propositions discussed in Section 1.2.
Taken together, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Neuroticism will moderate the impact of self-efcacy on academic motivation. In particular, it is expected that:
There is a positive linear relation between self-efcacy and academic motivation for students with high levels of neuroticism
(H1a).
There is a curvilinear relation between self-efcacy and academic
motivation for students with low levels of neuroticism, which
means a positive relation between self-efcacy and academic motivation at lower levels of self-efcacy (H1b) and a negative relation between self-efcacy and academic motivation at higher
levels of self-efcacy (H1c).
To summarize, no difference in the impact of self-efcacy on motivation is expected between neurotic and emotionally stable students at lower levels of self-efcacy. At higher levels of self-efcacy,
on the other hand, the expected impact of self-efcacy on academic
motivation will be different. A positive relation is suggested for neurotic students, and a negative effect is assumed for emotionally stable
students. Taken together, these propositions suggest a positive effect
of neuroticism on motivation at higher levels of self-efcacy. These
assumptions explain the inconsistent results concerning the effect of
neuroticism on AP in earlier research that failed to consider the neuroticism and self-efcacy moderation effect. However, a prerequisite
for such a conclusion is that academic motivation has a positive impact on student achievements and that it mediates the relation
between personality and AP.
1.5. Conscientiousness and academic motivation mediation effects
In general, it is assumed that motivation positively relates to performance. Komarraju et al. (2009), however, concluded that it is in
combination with conscientiousness that AM has a strong effect on
AP. Duckworth and Seligman (2005), indeed, stated that academic
failure can be attributed to a lack of self-discipline. This suggests
that motivational attitudes can improve student achievement, but
here self-discipline is of vital importance. Further, persistence is indispensable for eventually turning motivation into performance.
Self-discipline and persistence are an inherent part of conscientiousness (MacCann, Duckworth, & Roberts, 2009; Paunonen & Ashton,
2001). Therefore, we expect that conscientiousness is a condition
for personality traits being able to have an indirect impact on academic performance through motivation, or at least that it is able to
strengthen those indirect effects.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

AP at higher levels of self-efcacy (H2a), as well as the indirect effects

of the other Big Five personality traits (H2b).
1.6. Research model
The relations proposed in the hypotheses are summarized in
Fig. 1. The research model is composed of mediated moderation effects and moderated mediation effects. Firstly, we study the moderated impact of neuroticism on AP, mediated by AM (mediated
moderation). We thereby consider linear as well as quadratic moderating effects of self-efcacy. On the one hand, we expect that for highly neurotic students, self-efcacy will have a positive impact on
motivation (H1a). On the other hand, for slightly neurotic students,
we expect a curvilinear relation between self-efcacy and motivation
(H1b-H1c). Secondly, we expect that the mediation through AM will
in turn depend on conscientiousness (moderated mediation), not only
for the moderated impact of neuroticism on AP (H2a), but also for the
other Big Five personality trait effects (H2b).
2. Method
2.1. Sample and procedure
This study relied on primary longitudinal data, collected in three
stages. The sample consisted of 375 college freshmen (60% men and
40% women) enrolled in the rst year of a Bachelor of Business Administration program at a University college in Belgium. The age of
the participants ranged between 18 and 22 years (62% aged 18 years;
27% aged 19 years; 11% aged 2022 years). Firstly, approximately
10 weeks before the end-of-semester exams, in a mandatory class,
participants completed a questionnaire that measured the Big Five personality traits. Secondly, approximately 6 weeks before the exams, students were asked to complete an online questionnaire that measured
AM and self-efcacy. The time lag between the measurement of selfefcacy and the actual performance should be short in order to maximize the self-efcacy effects (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996). However,
in the longitudinal design for this study, it should be sufciently large
to facilitate testing the effect of AM. With a testretest analysis, Lane
and Lane (2001) investigated the stability of the self-efcacy measure.
They concluded that self-efcacy measured 13 weeks before the AP
has sufcient predictive power. Therefore, we believe that the time
lag of 6 weeks in this study is short enough to capture the self-efcacy
effects on AP. Thirdly, using student registration numbers, we matched
the data collected by both questionnaires with the records of exam results. Thus, the survey was not administered anonymously, but we obviously made sure of preserving condentiality.
2.2. Measures
1. Academic performance: In Belgium, the universities and university
colleges offer standard study programs, composed of a number of
courses that represent 60 European credits per year (Adam, 2001).
The credit system reects the student's workload, as expected by

self-efficacy
neuroticism
extraversion
openness

H2. Conscientiousness will moderate the impact of academic motivation on academic performance, so that it strengthens the indirect effects of the Big Five personality traits on academic performance
through academic motivation. In particular, it is expected that conscientiousness strengthens the indirect positive effect of neuroticism on

441

academic
motivation

agreeableness
conscientiousness
Fig. 1. The proposed theoretical model.

academic
performance

442

2.

3.

4.

5.

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

the academic institution. Students are free to decide how many

credits of the standard study program they include in their annual
program and will attempt to earn in the corresponding exam period.
The students earn a credit for a course module if they do not fail the
assessment. Because this system allows differing study programs
among students (different in workload and difculty), a grade
point average is not an appropriate measure to compare students'
academic performances. Instead, the measure for academic performance should reect the degree in which the student realizes his
or her intention to obtain a number of credits. Therefore, we measured AP by the proportion of the total obtained credits, in comparison to the attempted credits during the corresponding end-ofsemester exam period.
Self-efcacy: In their study of postgraduate management students,
Lane, Lane, and Kyprianou (2004) measured self-efcacy by asking
the participants to indicate whether they expected to gain a pass in
the end-of-semester exams. We slightly modied this measure by
asking students to give the proportion of the attempted credits
they expected to earn during the exam period, on a six-point
scale (1: 50%, 2: 5060%, , 6: 90100%). The rationale for this
approach was to make it comparable to the measure of AP, as
this is a prerequisite for nding self-efcacy effects (Bandura,
1997; Lane & Lane, 2001; Pajares, 1996).
Academic motivation: AM was measured by the motivation scale of
the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI; Cano, 2006;
Olaussen & Braten, 1998; Olejnik & Nist, 1992). In the present
study, this 8-item scale had a Cronbach alpha of .83.
Personality: The Big Five personality traits were assessed with the
Flemish adaptation of the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Hoekstra, Ormel, & De Fruyt, 1996). In the present study, the internal consistency estimates ranged from .67 to .84.
Additional study support: Besides the regular classes, this institution
offers students an additional study support program. During supplementary classes, the participants study under the guidance of
their lecturers. Because earlier work showed it to be an important
predictor of exam results in this education program (Berings,
Colpaert, & Koopmans, 2007), we included additional study support as a control variable in the analysis of AP. We veried in the
school's records whether the students participated (0 = not participated; 1 = participated) in the supplementary classes.

3. Analyses and results

3.1. Preliminary analyses
Table 1 presents the reliabilities, means, standard deviations, and
correlations among the variables under study. We compared the average participant's scores on the Big Five factors to the population
norms for adolescents (younger than 25 years), as reported by
Hoekstra et al. (1996). On average, the participants scored signicantly higher on extraversion (mean difference = 1.50, t = 2.89, df = 186,
p b .01) and signicantly lower on openness (mean difference = 1.35,
t = 2.45, df = 186, p = .01), agreeableness (mean difference = 2.02,

t = 4.01, df = 186, p b .01), and conscientiousness (mean difference = 2.51, t = 4.66, df = 186, p b .01). No signicant difference in
neuroticism was found (mean difference = .77, t = 1.10, df = 186,
p = .27).
The correlation analysis shows that AM was positively correlated
with AP, but the relationship was weak. Self-efcacy had a signicant
positive relationship with academic performance, but no signicant
correlation with motivation was found. With regard to the Big Five
personality factors, the ndings indicate that neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness were signicantly related to AP. Although
neuroticism correlated positively with academic performance, it did
not relate signicantly to motivation. Extraversion on the other
hand was signicantly associated with AM, but not with AP. Agreeableness and conscientiousness yielded a signicant positive correlation with both academic motivation and performance.
A t-test shows gender differences in academic motivation and
performance. Women scored signicantly higher on both AM (mean
difference = .39, t = 6.29, df = 292, p b .01) and AP (mean difference = 22.48, t = 6.38, df = 362, p b .01). Further, we found signicant gender differences on some of the Big Five personality traits
(conscientiousness: t=4.46, df=287, pb .01; neuroticism: t=5.74,
df=289, pb .01; agreeableness: t=4.69, df=289, pb .01). A preliminary regression analysis shows that the same personality factors had a
signicant impact on AP. However, by including gender in the regression
analysis, those personality traits were no longer signicant, because their
effect was fully captured by the gender effect (=.18, pb .01). These results suggest that gender differences in AP are partly explained by differences in personality. As the main purpose of the present paper is to
investigate personality effects on academic performance, we did not include gender as a control variable in the analyses in the following sections.
3.2. Prediction of academic motivation
To test Hypothesis 1, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis of AM on self-efcacy and the Big Five personality traits (see
Table 2). The model with the main effects of the Big Five personality
traits, entered in step 1, was signicant and explained 47% of the variance. Conscientiousness had a strong signicant positive impact on
AM. While extraversion and openness had respectively a positive
and a negative signicant inuence, neuroticism and agreeableness
did not signicantly relate to motivation. In step 2, we entered the
main effect of self-efcacy. We did not nd a signicant increase in
explained variance. No signicant relation between self-efcacy and
motivation was found. To test the moderating effect of neuroticism
on the relationship between self-efcacy and AM, we added interaction effects to the model in the third step. Firstly, to compute those interactions, we standardized the variables to minimize the problem of
multicollinearity among main effects and interactions (Aiken & West,
1991). Secondly, the squared standardized values of self-efcacy were
multiplied by the standardized values of neuroticism. For statistical
methodological reasons (Neter, Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Wasserman,
1996), it was also necessary to include the squared self-efcacy term
in the model as well as the linear-by-linear interaction effect of self-

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations among variables under study.
Variables

Mean

S.D.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

64.76
3.45
32.37
44.70
36.05
40.88
42.09
3.84

37.76
.56
7.42
5.78
5.87
5.25
6.06
1.28

.17**
.15**
.09
.05
.15*
.16**
.16**

(.76)
.01
.19**
.01
.20**
.67**
.10

(.84)
.30**
.01
.04
.05
.08

(.79)
.13*
.26**
.11*
.11

(.67)
.04
.12*
.08

(.70)
.20**
.05

(.80)
.21**

AP
AM
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Self-efcacy

Note. N ranges from 223 to 375. Alpha reliabilities are in brackets on the diagonal. p b .05; p b .01.

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

Table 2
Results of the hierarchical regression analysis of academic motivation.
AM
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1: Main effects of the Big Five personality traits

Neuroticism
.06
Extraversion
.14*
Openness
.11*
Agreeableness
.04
Conscientiousness
.66**

.06
.14*
.11*
.04
.67**

.05
.16**
.13*
.01
.68**

Step 2: Main effects of self-efcacy

Self-efcacy

.05

.05

Step 3: Moderating effects

Self-efcacy neuroticism
Self-efcacy2
Self-efcacy2 neuroticism
R2
Total adjusted R2

.47**
.46**

0
.46**

.09
.06
.18**
.03
.47**

Note. The standardized regression coefcients are presented. p b .10 *p b .05; **p b .01.

efcacy and neuroticism. Those variables, entered in step 3, increased

the explained variance in AM by 3%, which was suggestive but not signicant (p = .06). Only the interaction term self-efcacy2 neuroticism
had a signicant positive impact.
We followed the procedure of Aiken and West (1991) to depict graphically the signicant quadratic-by-linear interaction effect. Fig. 2 presents
the quadratic relationship between self-efcacy and AM, which was
moderated by neuroticism. To further analyze the quadratic-by-linear interaction effect, as suggested by Aiken and West (1991), we tested the
simple slopes at three levels of self-efcacy (at one standard deviation
below the mean, at the mean, and at one standard deviation above the
mean) for students with low, medium and high levels of neuroticism.
This indicates that self-efcacy was not signicantly related to AM for students at the high end of neuroticism, either at low levels (b=.05, t=.60,
p>.05) or at medium (b=.01, t=.21, p>.05) or high (b=.11,
t=1.31, p>.05) levels of self-efcacy. Thus, the ndings were inconsistent with Hypothesis 1a. The results of the simple slope test further
revealed that for students at the low end of neuroticism, the simple regression slope was not signicant at low levels of self-efcacy (b=.07,
t=.53, p>.05). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was not supported. In support of
Hypothesis 1c, at low levels of neuroticism, the simple regression slope
was signicantly negative for students at medium (b=.11, t=2.25,
pb .05) and high (b=.21, t=2.20, pb .05) levels of self-efcacy.

on performance, reecting the lower past educational background of

students enrolling for the additional study support program. As a second step, we introduced the main effects of the Big Five. The personality
traits explained 11% of the variance. Except for openness, all the personality factors signicantly predicted AP. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism had a positive impact. Extraversion, on the
other hand, related negatively to academic success. As a third step, the
main effect of self-efcacy was included in the model, which increased
the explained variance by about 1%. Self-efcacy had a signicant positive inuence on AP. In step 4, as in the regression analysis of AM (see
Section 3.2), together with the quadratic-by-linear interaction term
self-efcacy2 neuroticism, the squared self-efcacy term and the
linear-by-linear interaction term of self-efcacy with neuroticism
were added to the model. This step facilitates testing whether, for students with low levels of neuroticism, a curvilinear impact of selfefcacy on motivation was passed on to academic performance. The interaction term self-efcacy2 neuroticism was signicantly different
from zero. Entering the quadratic-by-linear interaction effect did not
signicantly increase the explained variance. In step 5, we entered the
main effect of motivation as well as the two-way interaction effect of
motivation with conscientiousness. We standardized the involved variables before computing the interactions. Only AM conscientiousness
was signicant, accounting for an incremental variance of 4% over the
variance explained by the main and interaction effects of the Big Five
personality traits and self-efcacy.
Notice that by introducing self-efcacy in step 3, the effect of conscientiousness decreased. Moreover, the effect was no longer signicant after including the moderating effects in the model at step 4.
This result indicates complete mediation of the relation between conscientiousness and performance (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To conrm
that motivation (and not self-efcacy) mediated this relationship,
we carried out an additional regression analysis in which AM was
added to the main effects of the Big Five, without controlling for
self-efcacy. Even then, conscientiousness had no signicant effect
on AP ( = .04, t = .51, p > .10), a result which conrmed academic
motivation as mediator in the model.
Analogously to the analysis of the predictors of AM in Section 3.2,
we used the procedure of Aiken and West (1991) to analyze the signicant interaction results of the hierarchical multiple regression

Table 3
Results of the hierarchical regression analysis of academic performance.
AP

3.3. Prediction of academic performance

To test the moderated mediation effect of the Big Five on academic
performance through motivation, we performed a hierarchical regression analysis of AP. The results are presented in Table 3.
As a rst step, we entered the control variable into the model. As
expected, additional study support had a signicant negative inuence

443

Step 1: Control variable

Additional study support

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

.15*

.15*

.15*

.15*

.15*

.16*
.16*
.07
.17*
.12

.32**
.18*
.08
.20**
.11

.32**
.16*
.08
.19**
.08

.11

.10

Step 2: Main effects of the Big Five personality traits

Neuroticism
.16*
Extraversion
.15*
Openness
.08
Agreeableness
.16*
Conscientiousness
.15*

Academic motivation

3,7
Step 3: Main effects of self-efcacy
Self-efcacy

3,6
3,5

Step 4: Moderating effects

Self-efcacy neuroticism
Self-efcacy2
Self-efcacy2 neuroticism

3,4
3,3
3,2

.12

Low Neuroticism
High Neuroticism

3,1
Low self-efficacy

High self-efficacy

Fig. 2. Interaction effect of self-efcacy and neuroticism on academic motivation.

Step 5: Mediating effects

AM
AM conscientiousness
R2
Total adjusted R2

.03
.01
.23*

.02*
.02*

.11**
.11**

.01
.12**

.03
.13**

.04
.01
.26*

.13
.18**
.04*
.16**

Note. The standardized regression coefcients are presented. p b .10 *p b .05; **p b .01.

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

analysis. This analysis needed to clarify the direction of the moderated relationships.
Fig. 3 graphically illustrates the curvilinear relationship between
self-efcacy and academic performance, signicantly moderated by
neuroticism. It indicates that there was a concave relationship between self-efcacy and AP for students with high levels of neuroticism. Conversely, for students low on neuroticism, self-efcacy
showed a convex relation with AP. The simple slope tests indicates
that, at low levels of self-efcacy, the slope had a signicant positive
value for students with high levels of neuroticism (b = 17.26,
t = 2.24, p b .05), a nonsignicant positive value for students with
medium levels of neuroticism (b = 3.46, t = .55, p > .05), and a nonsignicant negative value for students with low levels of neuroticism
(b = 10.34, t = 1.07, p > .05). At average levels of self-efcacy,
the simple regression slope was signicantly positive for students
with medium levels of neuroticism (b = 5.74, t = 2.02, p b .05), but
not signicant for students at the low end (b = 6.61, t = 1.56,
p > .05) and at the high end (b = 4.21, t = 1.11, p > .05) of neuroticism. Finally, at high levels of self-efcacy, the simple regression slope
had a signicantly positive value for students with low levels of neuroticism (b = 26.12, t = 2.43, p b .01), but did not signicantly differ from
zero for students with high levels (b = 10.09, t = 1.20, p > .05) or
medium levels (b = 8.01, t = 1.16, p > .05). In sum, only the positive effects in Fig. 3 were shown to be signicant.
Fig. 4 presents the signicant AM conscientiousness interaction
effect. It indicates that motivation was positively related to performance, but only for students with high levels of conscientiousness
(b = 9.52, t = 2.54, p b .01). The simple slope test further showed
that for students at the lower end of conscientiousness, motivation
was not related to performance (b = .51, t = .14, p > .10). Thus, as
expected, conscientiousness moderated the positive impact of motivation on academic performance.
3.4. Mediated moderation analysis
To test Hypothesis 2, we still needed to assess the total moderated mediation and mediated moderation effects in the relation between the Big Five personality traits and AP. We followed the
three-step procedure suggested by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes
(2007). Firstly, there should be a signicant (moderated) relation
between the independent variable and the mediator. As already
shown (see Section 3.2), there was a signicant quadratic-by-linear
moderation effect of self-efcacy and neuroticism on AM. Furthermore, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness had a signicant impact on motivation. Secondly, there should be a signicant
moderated relation between mediator and dependent variable. The
results of the regression analysis on AP (see Section 3.3) indeed
showed that conscientiousness moderated the relation between academic motivation and performance. Thirdly, there should be significant conditional indirect effects of the independent variable on the
dependent variable. We used the bootstrapping procedure of
Preacher et al. (2007) to estimate the conditional indirect effects.

Academic performance

90

90

Academic performance

444

85
80
75
70
65
60
Low Conscientiousness

55
50

High Conscientiousness

Low academic motivation High academic motivation

Fig. 4. Interaction effect of academic motivation and conscientiousness on academic

performance.

The results of the regression analysis on motivation showed an inuence of neuroticism on AM at high levels of self-efcacy. The analysis of the conditional indirect effects of neuroticism needs to clarify
whether or not this inuence affects the AP of students with higher
levels of self-efcacy, given that the mediation of motivation depends
on the level of conscientiousness. Table 4 shows the conditional indirect effects of neuroticism at the mean, at one standard deviation
below and at one standard deviation above the mean of conscientiousness. Further, a distinction is made between students with high
levels of self-efcacy (i.e. students expecting to earn at least 90% of
the credits) and medium/lower levels of self-efcacy (i.e. students
expecting to earn less than 90% of the credits). In support of
Hypothesis 2a, the conditional indirect effects were signicant only
at high levels of self-efcacy and conscientiousness.
A similar analysis was carried out to assess the mediated moderation and moderated mediation effects of extraversion, openness, and
conscientiousness. Table 5 presents the conditional indirect effects of
extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness at several values of
conscientiousness. On the one hand, no signicant conditional indirect effects of openness were found. On the other hand, the indirect
effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on AP, through AM,
are dependent on the level of conscientiousness. Thus, we found partial support for Hypothesis 2b.
4. Discussion and conclusions
This study contributes to a better understanding of the predictors of
academic performance by unraveling the impact of the Big Five personality traits in terms of direct effects and indirect effects through academic motivation. In line with Komarraju et al. (2009), our ndings show
that personality factors outperformed academic motivation in predicting student achievements. Further, as expected, only in combination
with high levels of conscientiousness did motivation have a positive incremental effect on academic performance, beyond the impact of personality. Moreover, although we found that conscientiousness and
extraversion positively predicted some of the variance in academic motivation, it was only for high conscientious students that this effect continued into a higher academic performance. In sum, motivation to work
hard during the semester weeks was not a sufcient condition of

85
80

Table 4
Conditional indirect effects of neuroticism.

75
70

Self-efcacy

Conscientiousness

Boot indirect
effect

Boot
SE

Boot
z

Boot
p

Medium/low
Medium/low
Medium/low
High
High
High

1 SD
Mean
+ 1 SD
1 SD
Mean
+ 1 SD

.08
.38
.68
.45
1.55
2.65

.32
.47
.73
.94
1.04
1.40

.26
.82
.92
.48
1.49
1.88

.79
.41
.36
.63
.13
.05

65
60
55

Low Neuroticism
High Neuroticism

50
Low self-efficacy

High self-efficacy

Fig. 3. Interaction effect of self-efcacy and neuroticism on academic performance.

Note. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. All independent variables were standardized.

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

445

Table 5
Conditional indirect effects of openness, extraversion and conscientiousness.
Conscientiousness

Boot
indirect
effect of
openness

Boot
SE

Boot
z

Boot
p

Boot
indirect
effect of
extraversion

Boot
SE

Boot
z

Boot
p

Boot indirect
effect of
conscientiousness

Boot
SE

Boot
z

Boot
p

3.15
2.88
2.61
2.33
2.06
1.79
1.52
1.24
0.97
0.70
0.43
0.16
0.12
0.39
0.66
0.93
1.21
1.48
1.75
2.02
2.29

.27
.23
.19
.15
.11
.07
.02
.02
.06
.10
.14
.18
.22
.26
.30
.34
.38
.42
.46
.50
.54

.69
.62
.54
.47
.40
.35
.30
.28
.28
.31
.35
.41
.48
.55
.63
.71
.79
.87
.95
1.03
1.11

.38
.37
.34
.31
.26
.19
.08
.06
.20
.31
.38
.43
.45
.47
.47
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48

.70
.71
.73
.76
.79
.85
.93
.96
.84
.76
.70
.67
.65
.64
.64
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63
.63

1.59
1.37
1.15
.92
.70
.47
.25
.03
.20
.42
.64
.87
1.09
1.31
1.54
1.76
1.99
2.21
2.43
2.66
2.88

1.27
1.17
1.07
.98
.89
.81
.74
.69
.66
.64
.65
.68
.73
.80
.87
.96
1.05
1.15
1.25
1.35
1.46

1.26
1.17
1.07
.95
.79
.59
.34
.04
.30
.65
.99
1.27
1.49
1.65
1.76
1.84
1.89
1.93
1.95
1.97
1.98

.21
.24
.28
.34
.43
.56
.74
.97
.77
.51
.32
.20
.14
.10
.08
.07
.06
.05
.05
.04
.04

5.52
4.73
3.93
3.14
2.34
1.55
.76
.04
.83
1.63
2.42
3.22
4.01
4.80
5.60
6.39
7.19
7.98
8.77
9.57
10.36

3.69
3.46
3.25
3.04
2.84
2.66
2.51
2.37
2.26
2.19
2.15
2.15
2.18
2.25
2.35
2.48
2.64
2.82
3.01
3.21
3.43

1.50
1.36
1.21
1.03
0.82
0.58
0.30
.02
.37
.74
1.13
1.50
1.84
2.13
2.38
2.57
2.72
2.83
2.92
2.98
3.02

.13
.17
.23
.30
.41
.56
.76
.99
.71
.46
.26
.13
.07
.03
.02
.01
.01
b.01
b.01
b.01
b.01

Note. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. All independent variables were standardized.

performing well in the evaluations at the end-of-semester exams.

The results indicate that persistence, self-discipline and order are indispensable to academic engagement and efforts to produce a higher
level of achievement in exams.
Furthermore, unpacking the direct and indirect effects through
motivation yielded interesting results concerning the relations between personality traits and academic performance.
Conscientiousness was a strong predictor of motivation and in this
way positively inuenced academic achievements. This result is not
surprising, because this personality trait relates to hard work and
self-discipline.
The association between extraversion and exam success was more
complex. While a positive indirect effect through AM emerged, extraversion also had a negative direct impact on AP that was not
explained by academic engagement during the lecture weeks.
Hence, the presented results suggest two distinctive processes. This
is in line with De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), who described
two opposite effects of extraversion on academic performance. On
the one hand, extraversion was reported to reect positive affect, enthusiasm, a high energy level, and desire to learn (Poropat, 2009).
This explains the motivational surplus associated with extraversion.
This advantage may improve performance in exams, as discussed
above. On the other hand, as they are very sociable and seek excitement, extrovert students may prefer to participate in social activities
rather than to study (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2008;
Furnham & Monsen, 2009). Our ndings indicate that this preference
undermines study efforts during the exam period, but not during the
lecture weeks when time pressure is not an issue. Whereas De Raad
and Schouwenburg (1996) did not clarify which of both effects predominates, our results suggest that the direct negative effect on academic performance outweighs the indirect positive effect through
motivation. However, this process may depend on the teaching and
evaluation methods. In the university college in the present study,
the teaching methods consist of formal lectures and seminars during
which the students learn by working on group assignments. But for
every course, the lecturer individually assessed the students by
means of written examinations.
Agreeableness had predictive validity for AP but not for AM. This
suggests that students who are cooperative and trusting are more
likely to learn by group assignments (Farsides & Woodeld, 2003;

Poropat, 2009), but are not necessarily more engaged in hardworking

study behavior.
The results for openness are interesting. Openness is often associated
with studiousness and creative performance (Diseth, 2003). However,
our ndings do not reveal a positive relation either with academic motivation or with performance. Openness even had a negative unique
predictive validity for AM. Likewise, previous studies were not always
able to show a positive relation between openness and academic results
(Blickle, 1996; De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996). Chamorro-Premuzic and
Furnham (2003) explained this by suggesting that divergent and imaginative thinking might be a disadvantage in an academic context focused on reproducing knowledge instead of using knowledge for
creative problem solving. The present study was indeed conducted in
the rst year of a Bachelor program, in which the emphasis in the assessment is on the lowest level in Miller's pyramid of competence (i.e.
straight recall of facts and knowledge; Miller, 1990).
Our ndings show that neuroticism had a positive effect on AP. Although most authors believe neuroticism to be negatively related to
academic achievements, previous research on this relationship has
reported inconsistent results. The inclusion of self-efcacy into our
moderated mediation model has shed light on the causes of the positive impact of neuroticism on students' exam performance. We identied two interesting underlying mechanisms, which further studies
should explore in other samples.
Firstly, our results show a positive direct relation between selfefcacy and academic performance. Because this relation differed
depending on the level of neuroticism, it can explain the effect of
neuroticism on AP. For neurotic students, AP already increased
with self-efcacy at low levels of exam success belief. For emotionally stable students, this positive effect occurred only from average self-efcacy levels upwards. From that point on, emotionally
stable students saw their academic performance increase with
self-efcacy, whereas neurotic students' academic performance
remained constant at a high level. In sum, at each level of selfefcacy, neurotic students always had higher or at least similar
levels of academic performance.
Secondly, our ndings show that neuroticism inuenced the association between self-efcacy and academic motivation. At higher
exam success belief levels, self-efcacy was negatively associated

446

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

with the academic motivation of emotionally stable students, but

no impact was found for neurotic students. At lower exam success
belief levels, the results show no difference in motivation between
neurotic and emotionally stable students, nor do they show a relation between self-efcacy and AM. Hence, at each level of selfefcacy, neurotic students always had higher or at least similar
levels of academic motivation.
As already discussed, conscientiousness was a condition for motivational differences to turn into AP. We indeed found a positive indirect effect of neuroticism on academic achievements at high levels of
conscientiousness and self-efcacy. It is, however, important to note
that the motivational differences between neurotic and emotionally
stable students cannot be attributed to favorable effects of neuroticism as such, but rather to adverse effects of high emotional stability.
When students strongly believed in their exam success, emotionally
stable students suffered from overcondence. However, higher levels
of self-efcacy decreased their academic motivation but increased academic performance. This way, one might argue that overcondence
in the case of emotionally stable students did not arise. Nevertheless, in our opinion, claiming the existence of overcondence is
still appropriate because in general students' prior beliefs on how
many credits they will earn during the exam period were higher
than the credits actually obtained. Moreover, their decrease in academic motivation eventually did negatively affect educational
performance.
As our results indicate the existence of overcondence, we found
support for the control theory. On the other hand, we were not able
to show positive effects of self-efcacy on motivation, as proposed
by the social-cognitive theory. Consequently, we were not able to
nd support for the assumption that self-efcacy beliefs determine
the way that neurotic students cope with fear of failure. Nevertheless,
because neurotic students did not differ in academic motivation compared to emotionally stable students doubting their exam success, our
results do suggest that fear of failure plays a role in academic motivation and performance. In trying to prevent failure, both emotionally
stable students with low self-efcacy levels and neurotic students
let their doubts drive academic motivation, and intensify their study
efforts during the semester. This contradicts traditional beliefs that
neuroticism involves avoiding academic dedication. On the contrary,
it suggests that neurotic students handle their anxiety about failure
by defensive pessimism instead of a self-handicapping strategy.
The regression results (see Section 3.3) show that, in explaining
academic performance, motivation added signicant explanatory
value to a model comprised of the Big Five personality traits. This suggests that, beside the personality factors, other determinants of motivation might have an indirect effect on student achievement. On the
other hand, the interaction effects of self-efcacy and neuroticism
did not signicantly increase the explained variance in AP. So, one
might suggest that the magnitude of those effects is limited. However,
we have to be very careful in interpreting those results. The interaction effects represent the total impact of self-efcacy at different
levels of neuroticism, which was broken down into direct and indirect
effect in the mediated moderation analysis (see Section 3.4). As discussed above, the results reveal that for students with low levels of
neuroticism and high levels of exam success belief, self-efcacy had
a positive direct effect and a negative indirect effect through motivation. Consequently, the total interaction effects in the regression
analysis could not be expected to have high incremental value in
explaining AP.
4.1. Implications
Educational practitioners should be aware that self-efcacy beliefs have a different impact on motivational attitudes during the semester weeks than on performance in the end-of-semester exams.

Consequently, as the exams come closer, teachers should adjust

their motivational strategies to inuence students' self-efcacy beliefs. Our results suggest that average self-efcacy beliefs maximize
student determination to study during the lecture weeks in which
no evaluations are organized. Higher self-efcacy beliefs, on the
other hand, seem to support academic performance in the end-ofsemester exams. An implication of those results is that educators
should increase their efforts to enhance self-efcacy as the semester
progresses. Perceived competence for learning, knowledge of the
task, and knowledge of the required study efforts determine student's self-efcacy beliefs (Deb & Arora, 2009). At the start of the semester, teachers can try to avoid overcondence by emphasizing
that academic success depends on hard work. As the semester continues, educators can stimulate persistence by expressing their belief
in a student's ability to succeed and by clearly explaining the
expected learning outcomes and assessment guidelines.
Another implication of our results is that educators should be
aware that efforts to motivate students are not enough in order to improve academic results. A student's personality can undermine the
impact of strong motivational attitudes. Personality traits are considered stable personal characteristics. Nevertheless, Srivatsava, John,
Gosling, and Potter (2003) suggest that life experiences can still
shape a young adult's personality. Hence, educators and institutions
for higher education can create learning environments that stimulate
the development of productive personalities and learning behavior. In
particular, conscientiousness should receive considerable attention,
as this personality factor is a strong predictor of performance in an
educational setting as well as in later work-related settings. Higher
education should therefore reinforce persistence, self-discipline,
order, and structure.
In creating an educational environment that reinforces a productive personality, caution is required in formulating learning outcomes. In this context, we refer to the ongoing debate on the
content of formulated learning outcomes in higher education, as
well as the way learning outcomes shape students' focus and learning
strategies (Bloom & Epshtyn, 2007). We could interpret our results
using Higgins' concepts of achievement orientation, namely the distinction between promotion and prevention focus (Higgins et al.,
2001). Our results suggest that compliance with teacher instructions
(agreeableness) and a focus on avoiding failure (neuroticism) positively inuence academic success, but creative and imaginative thinking (openness) undermines student's performance. Those relations
between individual differences and academic outcomes indirectly suggest that the educational environment reinforces behavioral patterns
that are consistent with the prevention focus. Under this achievement
orientation, students focus on avoiding failure, on compliance to strictly
dened standards, and on expectations of signicant authorities (instead of focusing on advancement and accomplishment). It is noteworthy to mention that the present study was conducted in an educational
context in which a lot of rules and standards are formalized. Rules and
standards for students, learning outcomes as well as all modalities concerning colleges, assignments, and assessments are documented in a
very formal way. Moreover, as already discussed, the learning outcomes
aim at recalling and reproducing facts and knowledge. Such an approach to education could be partially responsible for the results
obtained in this particular study. Of course, such an inference is too uncertain when based only on our results coming out of one specic sample in one specic educational setting. Therefore, we suggest that it is
useful to replicate this study in a range of university colleges in
which the educational culture differs. Further, it would be interesting to study the impact of the content of the formulated learning outcomes as well as the impact of the degree of formalization and
standardization of the educational processes. Future research could
also include the concepts of promotion and prevention focus within
our research design, so that our interpretation in term of these concepts will gain cogency.

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

4.2. Limitations
Although this paper makes a valuable contribution, we need to
consider some limitations which further research could address.
Firstly, we used the proportion of earned credits to measure AP instead of grade point averages. This objective measure has some useful
benets (see Section 2.2) and is better than self-reported performance
(Gramzow, Elliot, Asher, & McGregor, 2003; Heaven, Mak, Barry, &
Ciarrochi, 2002; Komarraju et al., 2009). However, a disadvantage of
our approach is that no distinction is made between sufcient and outstanding study performances. Other measures for objective AP could produce different results. This can be investigated in future work, without
losing account of comparability between self-efcacy and AP measures.
Secondly, we did not consider intelligence as a control variable.
The predictive value of intelligence however might be small or not
signicant, because it serves as a self-selection criterion in enrolling
in higher academic education programs (Diseth, 2002; Furnham &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004; Furnham et al., 2003).
Thirdly, we expected a positive relation between self-efcacy and
academic motivation for emotionally stable students with lower selfefcacy levels. Although we did nd a positive effect, it was not signicant. We have to be very careful in interpreting this nonsignicant result. In fact, it might be caused by low statistical power, because this is
an important issue to consider in reading the results of a regression
analysis including quadratic interaction effects (Aguinis, 1995).
Fourthly, in studying motivation, the self-efcacy literature makes a
distinction between effort and persistence (Multon, Brown, & Lent,
1991). In the present study, we measured AM as a one-dimensional concept. Future research could extend our research model by making a distinction between both dimensions of motivation. This extension could
further explain the opposing nature of the impact of some individual
differences in personality and self-efcacy beliefs on motivational attitudes on the one hand and academic performance on the other hand.
Fifthly, the data for the present study were collected from college
freshmen in the rst year of a Bachelor program. Consequently, selfefcacy beliefs were strongly determined by students' own abilities
and perceived competence for learning, but less by knowledge of the
task and the required study efforts (Deb & Arora, 2009). This might
have inuenced our results on overcondence, because Bandura
(1997) states that accurate knowledge of the task is a condition for a
positive impact of self-efcacy on motivation. Moreover, the knowledge
of the task may also become more accurate as the semester continues.
Future research could collect data from more experienced students,
measure self-efcacy at different times during the semester and/or include the moderating effect of knowledge of the task on our research
framework.
Finally, we found signicant differences between the average participant's scores on the Big Five factors and the population norms for
adolescents. This is not surprising, because personality inuences the
study choice in higher education (Boone, van Olffen, & Roijakkers,
2004) and all participants were students enrolled in the same Business Administration program. Future research could replicate this
study in other educational programs.
Acknowledgement
The authors are very grateful to the editor and the referees for their
valuable comments and suggestions, which resulted in a substantial improvement of the paper. The authors would like to thank Mark Corner
for providing feedback on an earlier draft of this article.
References
Adam, S. (2001). A pan-European credit accumulation framework Dream or disaster? Higher Education Quarterly, 55, 292305.

447

Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in

management research. Journal of Management, 21, 11411158.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identied versus introjected approach
and introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: The limited benets
of self-worth strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 482497.
Baker, S. R. (2004). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational orientations: Their role in
university adjustment, stress, well-being, and subsequent academic performance.
Current Psychology, 23, 189202.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact
of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 941951.
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, 11731182.
Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception
on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 261272.
Berings, D., Colpaert, T., & Koopmans, B. (2007). Predictoren van het studierendement in
Handelswetenschappen en Handelsingenieur (Predictors of study success in Business
Administration and Business Engineer). Brussels: HUB Research Papers.
Bidjerano, T., & Yun Dai, D. (2007). The relationship between the big-ve model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences,
17, 6981.
Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European
Journal of Personality, 10, 337352.
Bloom, L., & Epshtyn, L. (2007). Improving higher education with the help of learning
outcomes management. Retrieved from. http://edumetry.com/white-papers.php
Boone, C., van Olffen, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2004). Selection on the road to a career: Evidence of personality sorting in educational choice. Journal of Career Development,
31, 6178.
Cano, F. (2006). An in-depth analysis of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory
(LASSI). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 10231038.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237250.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2008). Personality, intelligence and approaches
to learning as predictors of academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 15961603.
Clark, M. H., & Schroth, C. A. (2010). Examining relationships between academic motivation and personality among college students. Learning and Individual Differences,
20, 1924.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10, 405425.
De Raad, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: A review. European Journal of Personality, 10, 303336.
Deb, A., & Arora, M. (2009). Defensive pessimism as a cognitive strategy: An overview.
Indian Journal of Social Science Researches, 6, 415.
Diseth, A. (2002). The relationship between intelligence, approaches to learning and
academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46, 119230.
Diseth, A. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic
achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17, 143155.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939944.
Farsides, T. L., & Woodeld, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: The roles of personality, intelligence and application. Personality
and Individual Differences, 34, 12251243.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,
943955.
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2003). Personality, cognitive
ability, on behalf about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 4764.
Furnham, A., & Monsen, J. (2009). Personality traits and intelligence predict academic
school grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 2833.
Gramzow, R. H., Elliot, A. J., Asher, E., & McGregor, H. A. (2003). Self-evaluation bias and
academic performance: Some ways and some reasons why. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 4161.
Heaven, P. L., Mak, A., Barry, J., & Ciarrochi, J. (2002). Personality and family inuences
on adolescent attitudes to school and self-rated academic performance. Personality
and Individual Differences, 32, 453462.
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Chen Idson, L., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A.
(2001). European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 323.
Hoekstra, H. A., Ormel, J., & De Fruyt, F. (1996). NEO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijsten NEOPI-R en NEO-FFI. Handleiding (NEO personality inventories: NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI.
manual). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Komarraju, M., & Karau, S. J. (2005). The relationship between the big ve personality
traits and academic motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 557567.
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, 4752.

448

T. De Feyter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 439448

Lane, J., & Lane, A. M. (2001). Self-efcacy and academic performance. Social Behavior
and Personality, 29, 687694.
Lane, J., Lane, A. M., & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-efcacy, self-esteem and their impact
on academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 247256.
Lim, L. (2009). A two-factor model of defensive pessimism and its relations with
achievement motives. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 318336.
Lounsbury, J. W., Sundstrom, E. J., Loveland, J. M., & Gibson, L. W. (2003). Intelligence,
Big Five personality traits, and work drive as predictors of course grade. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 12311239.
Maatta, S., Nurmi, J., & Stattin, H. (2007). Achievement orientations, school adjustment,
and well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17,
789812.
MacCann, C., Duckworth, A. L., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). Empirical identication of the
major facets of conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 451458.
Miller, G. E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine, 65, 563567.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efcacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
38, 3038.
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Boston, US: McGraw-Hill.
Nguyen, N. T., Allen, L. C., & Fraccastoro, K. (2005). Personality predicts academic performance: Exploring the moderating role of gender. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27, 105116.
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, 116130.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 12081217.
O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of postsecondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
971990.
Olaussen, B. S., & Braten, I. (1998). Identifying latent variables measured by the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) in Norwegian college students. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 8296.
Olejnik, S., & Nist, S. L. (1992). Identifying latent variables measured by the Learning
and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI). The Journal of Experimental Education, 60,
151159.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efcacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543578.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efcacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124139.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big ve factors and facets and the prediction of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524539.

Phillips, P., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2003). Personality, cognition, and university students' examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 435448.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the ve-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322338.
Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
42, 185227.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261288.
Rosander, P., Bckstrm, M., & Stenberg, G. (2011). Personality traits and general intelligence as predictors of academic performance: A structural equation modelling
approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 590596.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,
6878.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The ve factor model of personality and job performance in the
European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 3043.
Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2004). Overcondence
and the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 473480.
Seifert, T. L. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46,
137149.
Srivatsava, S., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2003). Development of personality
in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 10411053.
Stone, D. N. (1994). Overcondence in initial self-efcacy judgments: Effects on decision processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 452474.
Swanberg, A. B., & Martinsen, L. (2010). Personality, approaches to learning and
achievement. Educational Psychology, 30, 7588.
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efcacy negatively relates to motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
11461153.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. C., & Putka, D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of self-efcacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 506516.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the
relationship among self-efcacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 605620.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efcacy, stress, and academic
success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 677706.
Zhang, L. (2003). Does the big ve predict learning approaches? Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 14311446.