analysedEvidence for the Relationship between the Big 5 and Academic Achievement
Many different personality traits have been linked to academic performance. Since the Five Factor Model, or “Big 5“, has enjoyed prominence in the personality literature (Digman, 1990), as well as being recognised by the economics literature (Borghans et al., 2008), we believe it is valuable to organise the findings of the research regarding personality and performance around the Big 5 framework. Here we review these findings, one factor at a time.
Openness (O)
Ackerman and Heggestad’s (1997) meta-analysis revealed a positive relation between O and standardised measures of knowledge and achievement. They suggested that crystallised intelligence (that is, previously acquired cognitive skills) may be one potential mediating factor in the relationship between O and scholastic ability.
O has been found to correlate modestly with cognitive ability; correlations typically ranging between 0.20 and 0.30. Of the Big 5, O has the highest correlations with SAT verbal scores, also falling in the 0.20 to 0.30 range (Noftle & Robins, 2007).
Interestingly, O did not correlate with SAT math. O has also been positively associated with final grades, even when controlling for intelligence (Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). O may facilitate the use of efficient learning strategies (for example, critical evaluation), which in turn affects academic success (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). However, a meta-analysis (Crede & Kuncel, 2008) found that O correlated with study attitudes (r = .30), but not study habits (r = .08).
The Mixed Relationship Between Openness and Academic Achievement
The correlation between O and academic achievement is not always found (e.g., Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007), leading to the suggestion that the creative and imaginative nature of open individuals may sometimes be a disadvantage in academic settings, particularly when individuals are required to reproduce previously acquired skills rather than display creative problem-solving (De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996).
Some of the ambivalence in findings concerning O may also be due to the loose nature of the O factor (deRaad, 2006; Hong, Paunonen, & Slade, 2008), which reflects both intellectual orientation and openness. That is, items used to measure O in one particular study may not be the same as the items used in a different study.
Conscientiousness (C)
Conscientiousness (C) has consistently been linked to academic achievement from preschool through adulthood. Studies show that C predicts performance in preschool, high school, tertiary education, and even adult learning.
>Research also found that C measured in school-aged children predicts academic achievement at age twenty and overall academic attainment by age thirty.
Conscientiousness also predicts college grades even after accounting for high school grades and SAT scores. This suggests that C may help compensate for lower cognitive ability, allowing students to perform better through effort, discipline, and organisation.
How Conscientiousness (C) Influences Academic Achievement
High C may be associated with personal attributes necessary for learning and academic pursuits such as being organized, dependable, efficient, striving for success, and exercising self-control (Matthews & Deary, 1998). For example, C was found to predict early completion of independent credit assignments as well as early sign-up for study participation (Dollinger & Orf, 1991). C might even affect achievement through its effect on the sleep schedule; that is, C is related to “morningness” (Randler, 2008; R. Roberts & Kyllonen, 1999) and high C individuals experience earlier rising and retiring times (Gray & Watson, 2002).
The effects of Conscientiousness (C) on academic performance may be influenced by several motivational processes. These include effort, persistence, perceived intellectual ability, effort regulation, and attendance. Research also shows that certain facets of conscientiousness—such as achievement-striving, self-discipline, diligence, and achievement through independence—can strongly predict academic success. In many cases, these specific facets may be even better predictors of performance than the broad C trait itself.
Neuroticism (N)
In early studies, N was shown to predict poorer academic performance among school-aged children. For example, Entwistle and Cunningham (1968) analyzed data from 3,000 13-year-olds and found that emotional stability was linked to academic success. Shiner and Masten (2002) conducted a longitudinal study of 205 participants, assessing them at ages 10, 20, and 30.
Negative emotionality at age 20 was correlated with poor adaptation both concurrently and ten years previously. Meta-analytical research shows a correlation of about -0.20 between Neuroticism (N) and academic achievement. Studies also highlight the strong impact of the anxiety and impulsiveness facets of N.
Another meta-analysis suggests this link may stem from N’s correlation with negative study attitudes (-0.40).
However, some studies of both school children (Heaven, Mak, Barry, & Ciarrochi, 2002) and university students (Busato et al., 2000) have failed to find any significant correlations between N and attainment. Two reviews and meta-analyses (Nofte & Robins, 2007; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007) also did not find a consistent relationship. Such inconsistencies may reflect the role of moderator factors. For example, McKenzie and Tindell (1993) showed that N was related to lower achievement only in students with weak superegos. Self-control and focusing of motivation may compensate for negative emotionality.
Extraversion (E)
There is generally no clear link between Extraversion (E) and college performance. Some studies do show a small negative correlation. Age may influence how E affects academic success. Before age 11 or 12, extraverted children often perform better than introverted children. In adolescence and adulthood, introverts tend to achieve more than extraverts.
This shift in correlation is linked to the transition from primary to secondary school. Primary schools offer a sociable and less competitive environment. Secondary schools and higher education are more formal. In these settings, introverted behaviours like avoiding intense socialising become beneficial. Extraverts and introverts also differ in how they process information. They vary in speech production, attention, and reflective problem-solving. These differences influence their academic performance in meaningful ways.
For example, extraverts are better at oral contributions to seminars but poorer at essay-writing than introverts (Furnham & Medhurst, 1995).
Agreeableness (A)
Although traits like prosocial orientation support better social adjustment, Agreeableness (A) does not predict academic performance. Research consistently shows no significant link between A and academic attainment. Roberts, 2003). However, antisocial personality traits associated with low A may have detrimental effects.
In sum, generalised personality traits constitute one of several noncognitive factors that may impact classroom learning and academic performance. Personality assessment may also be informative about a student’s strengths and weaknesses at the factor level. High-N students may need support with stress management. Low-C students often need help staying interested. High-E students may require guidance to manage social distractions.
Research on anxiety-by-treatment interactions suggests that educators should design personalised learning environments based on personality traits. Students with high trait anxiety usually benefit from structured learning settings. In contrast, students with low trait anxiety, as well as those high in E or O, tend to perform better in unstructured learning environments.
