See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281333814

Predicting academic success: General intelligence, "Big Five"

personality traits, and work drive

Article in College Student Journal · January 2004

CITATIONS READS
135 6,219

2 authors, including:

John W Lounsbury
University of Tennessee
117 PUBLICATIONS 5,953 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by John W Lounsbury on 11 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

3
Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–&
4
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

OF
5

8 Intelligence, ‘‘Big 5’’ personality traits, and work drive as

RO
9

10
predictors of course grade
11

12
John W. Lounsburya,*, Eric Sundstroma, James M. Lovelanda, Lucy W. Gibsonb

DP
a
13 Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0900, USA
b
14 Resource Associates, Inc., USA
15
Received 11 March 2002; received in revised form 3 September 2002; accepted 29 October 2002
16

17
TE
18

19 Abstract
20
General intelligence, Big 5 personality constructs, and a measure of work drive were studied in relation
21
to course grade in an undergraduate psychology course taught by the same professor for 175 students over
EC

22
a 5-year period. Using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, general intelligence accounted sig-
23
nificantly for 16% of the variance in course grade; Big 5 personality measures accounted significantly for
24
an additional 7% of the variance; and work drive accounted significantly for an additional 4% of the
25 variance. However, when work drive was entered before the Big 5 variables, the Big 5 variables did not add
RR

26 significantly (either as a set or individually) to the prediction of course grade. Results were discussed in
27 terms of the importance of personality constructs in uniquely predicting academic performance and the
28 need for additional study using more diverse predictors and aggregated criterion measures.
29 # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
CO

30

31

32 The prediction of college grades from individual differences variables has been extensively
33 researched, with a recent shift in emphasis from studying cognitive predictors to examining the
role of personality constructs. A number of studies have examined the relationship between
UN

34

35 grades and cognitive ability measures, with most finding a significant positive correlation (e.g.
36 Mathiasen, 1984; Mouw & Khanna, 1993; Passons, 1967; Schneider & Overton, 1983; Wolfe &
37 Johnson, 1995). As noted by Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, and King (1994) there are logical and
38 empirical grounds for the prediction of academic performance from personality variables. For
39 example, students who are: more open to new learning, discovery, and exploration (see openness
40 as conceptualized by McCrae & Costa, 1997); higher on self-control, orderliness, and achieve-
41 ment striving (see conscientiousness as reviewed by Hogan & Ones, 1997) and lower on anxiety,
42

43 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-865-974-2531; fax: +1-865-577-2764.

44 E-mail address: [email protected] (J. W. Lounsbury).

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S0191-8869(02)00330-6
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

2 J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–&

1 impulsivity, hostility, and vulnerability (see neuroticism as discussed by Wiggins & Trapnell,
2 1997), would be more likely to perform well academically. Indeed, a number of studies have
3 examined the predictability of collegiate grades from personality variables (Boyer & Sedlacek,
4 1988; Brown, 1994; Dollinger & Orf, 1991; Dyer, 1987; Musgrave-Marquart, Bromley, & Dalley,

OF
5 1997; Okun, & Finch, 1998; Omizo, Ward, & Michael, 1979; Pfeifer & Sedlacek, 1974; Rainey,
6 1985; Rothstein et al., 1994; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995).
7 Among the personality traits most frequently found to be significantly (and positively) related
8 to course grades and grade point average are the ‘‘Big 5’’ constructs of Conscientiousness (e.g.

RO
9 Dollinger & Orf, 1991; Musgrave-Marquart et al., 1997; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001) and Open-
10 ness (e.g. Paunonen & Ashton, 2001), though Rothstein et al. (1994) found Agreeableness to be
11 significantly related to grade point average in a sample of business school graduate students. A
12 few studies have examined the unique effects of personality constructs in predicting college grades

DP
13 (Brown, 1994; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). For example, Wolfe and Johnson (ibid), found that SAT
14 scores and Conscientiousness both correlated 0.34 college GPA for a sample of 201 under-
15 graduates. After controlling for high school grades, Conscientiousness accounted for 9% unique
16 variance in college GPA whereas SAT contributed an additional 4% unique variance.
17 Few published studies have examined the incremental validity of personality variables above
and beyond cognitive ability in predicting academic performance (exceptions include Brown,
TE
18

19 1994; Roessler, 1978; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995). None of the above studies have examined general
20 intelligence as a predictor of college grades. Rather, most studies have focused on ACT and SAT
21 scores as cognitive predictors and, in some cases, as proxies for general intelligence, even though,
EC

22 in the case of the SAT, the Educational Testing Service makes no claim that it measures general
23 intelligence but it measures verbal and mathematical reasoning abilities. With few exceptions (viz.
24 Dollinger & Orf, 1991; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001), most studies have examined as the criterion
25 variable collegiate grade-point-average (GPA) summated across courses. However, overall GPA
RR

26 contains between-teacher and between-major variability, which represent uncontrolled sources of

27 variance. These sources of variance may have attenuated estimates of the validity for personality
28 and mental ability variables in predicting course performance.
29 The present study addressed the above concerns by using a recognized measure of general intel-
CO

30 ligence as a predictor and the grade received in a single course as the criterion variable. In view of
31 the widespread recognition of the Big 5 personality model (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Digman, 1990;
32 Goldberg, 1992; John, 1990), we examined the ‘‘Big 5’’ traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Open-
33 ness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness in relation to course grade. We investigated the joint
and unique effects of predicting college course grade from intelligence and personality constructs.
UN

34

35 More specifically, we examined: (1) the predictability of course grade from intelligence; and (2)
36 whether the Big 5 personality variables of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness,
37 and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Goldberg, 1992) together added incremental var-
38 iance to the prediction of course grades above and beyond that attributable to general intelligence.
39 We also addressed one other personality trait in addition to the ‘‘Big 5’’: work drive. As defined
40 by Lounsbury, Loveland, Sundstrom, Gibson, Drost, and Hamrick (in press), work drive repre-
41 sents an enduring motivation to expend time and effort to finish projects, meet deadlines, be
42 productive, and achieve success. Work drive includes elements of similar constructs: work values
43 (Blood, 1969); protestant ethic (Mirels & Garrett, 1971); job involvement (Lawler & Hall, 1970;
44 Lodahl & Kejner, 1965); work involvement (Kanungo, 1982); and work centrality (Paullay et al.,
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–& 3

1 1994). A recent study by Rau and Durand (2000) found that academic work ethic predicted col-
2 lege grades. Accordingly, a third question we addressed in the present study was: Does work drive
3 predict unique variance in college course grades beyond that predicted by intelligence and the
4 ‘‘Big 5’’ personality traits?

OF
5

7 1. Method
8

RO
9 1.1. Research design
10

11 A field study of students in one course taught by one instructor over a period of 5 years mea-
12 sured course grades, general intelligence via the Otis–Lennon test, a measure of the ‘‘Big 5’’ per-

DP
13 sonality traits tailored for college students, and a measure of work drive.
14

15 1.2. Participants
16

17 The sample for this study was comprised of a total of 175 students enrolled in a senior-level
course in psychological testing from 1997 to 2001 at a large southeastern state university. The same
TE
18

19 professor taught this course each of the 5 years using standard testing and grading criteria. Sixty-
20 four percent of the students were female; 36% were male. The average age was 22.7 (S.D.=3.44).
21
EC

22 1.3. Measures
23

24 1.3.1. Big 5 personality measures

25 To measure personality, we used the Personal Style Inventory (PSI), a general personality
RR

26 inventory developed by Lounsbury and Gibson (1998), with construct validity evidence on a
27 college student sample provided by Lounsbury, Tatum, Chambers, Owens, and Gibson (1999)1
28 and on a sample of 5932 adults representing a wide range of occupational groups provided by
29 Lounsbury, et al., (in press). Each item in the PSI is placed on a five-step scale with bipolar verbal
CO

30 anchors. For example, in the following conscientiousness item, participants are asked to choose
31 the point on the scale closest to the way they see themselves.
32

33 I don’t always try to perform every school & & & & & I always try to perform every school
assignment in a very thorough manner. 1 2 3 4 5 assignment in a very thorough manner.
UN

34

35

36 The following Cronbach coefficient alphas were observed: Neuroticism—0.81, Extraversion—0.83,

37 Openness—0.84, Agreeableness—0.81, and Conscientiousness—0.78.
38

39 1.3.1.1. Work drive. Drawing on the constructs of Protestant Ethic (Blood, 1969; Mirels & Gar-
40 rett, 1971), job involvement (Lawler & Hall, 1970; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), work involvement
41

42 1
For example, Lounsbury et al. (1999) reported correlations between common Big 5 constructs from the PSI and
43 the NEO-FFI short form (Costa & McCrae, 1985) as: Extraversion: 0.72; Neuroticism: 0.70; Openness: 0.60; Agree-
44 ableness: 0.67; and Conscientiousness: 0.60.
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

4 J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–&

1 (Kanungo, 1982), and work centrality (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994), Lounsbury and
2 Gibson (1998) developed a scale to measure what they term work drive which reflects a person’s
3 disposition to work hard, put in long hours and extend oneself to finish projects, meet deadlines,
4 be productive, and achieve success. This scale has been extensively validated in a variety of work

OF
5 and academic settings (Lounsbury & Gibson, 1998; Lounsbury et al., in press). In the present
6 study, work drive was measured on an 11-item scale tailored for students with responses placed
7 on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to 5 ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ Here are
8 four sample items: (1) I always try to do more than I have to in my classes. (2) I don’t mind

RO
9 staying up late to finish a school assignment. (3) Doing well in school is the most important thing
10 in my life. (4) My friends say I study too much.
11 Cronbach alpha for the work drive scale=0.81. The average score was 3.33 with a standard
12 deviation of 0.74.

DP
13

14 1.3.1.2. General intelligence. We used the Otis–Lennon Test of Mental Maturity—an 80-item
15 group-administered test of general intelligence which has been extensively normed and researched
16 (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997; Otis & Lennon, 1969).
17

1.3.1.3. Course grade. The final grade in the course served as the criterion variable in this study.
TE
18

19 Grades were made on a 4-point scale ranging from 0=F to 4=A., with half-point intermediate
20 scale values. The median course grade was 3.0. Grading was based primarily on performance on
21 standardized tests (multiple choice and matching) scored by the graduate teaching assistant for
EC

22 the course using preset cutoffs for grades. The graduate student did not have access to personality
23 scores or results, which helped maintain independence of grades and personality scores.
24

25
RR

26 2. Results
27

28 Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix for the study variables. As
29 can be seen from this table, the following constructs were significantly related to course grade:
CO

30

31 Table 1
32 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for study variablesa
33 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Neuroticism (1) – 0.38** 0.40** 0.57** 0.45** 30** 0.03 0.11
UN

34

35 Extraversion (2) – 0.24** 0.40** 0.14 0.28** 0.10 0.01

36
Openness (3) – 0.29** 0.17* 0.40** 0.12 0.16*
Agreeableness (4) – 0.50** 0.30** 0.01 0.01
37
Conscientiousness (5) – 0.53** 0.01 0.18*
38
Work drive (6) – 0.02 0.28**
39 General intelligence (7) – 0.40**
40 Course grade (8) –
41

42
M 2.55 3.64 3.83 3.67 3.37 3.32 59.53 3.08
S.D. 0.64 0.64 0.58 0.57 0.72 0.74 10.26 0.75
43
a
44 Sample sizes for correlations range between 143 and 175. *P< 0.05. **P< 0.01.
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–& 5

1 Openness (r=0.16, P<0.05), Conscientiousness (r=0.18, P<0.05), Work Drive (r=0.28,

2 P<0.01), and general intelligence (r=0.40, P<0.01).
3 To examine the incremental validity of the Big 5 and work drive constructs above and beyond
4 general intelligence, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis of course grades

OF
5 with the following order of entry: (1) Step 1-general intelligence; (2) Step 2-the Big 5 variables;
6 and (3) Step 3-work drive. The results are shown in part one of Table 2. The amount of unique
7

8
Table 2

RO
Hierarchical multiple regression results for general intelligence, work drive, and Big 5 variables entered as a seta
9

10 Step Variable Dependent variable: course grade

11
Multiple R R2 R2 Change
12
Part 1: Results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis with work drive entered last

DP
13
1 General intelligence 0.401** 0.161** 0.161**
14
2 Big 5 personality measures 0.477** 0.227** 0.067**
15
3 Work drive 0.551** 0.268** 0.041**
16

17 Part 2: Results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis with Big 5 variables entered last
1 General intelligence 0.401** 0.161** 0.161**
TE
18

19
2 Work Drive 0.489** 0.239** 0.078**
3 Big 5 personality measures 0.517** 0.268** 0.028 (n.s.)
20
a
21 n=144. *P< 0.05. **P <0.01.
EC

22

23 Table 3
24 Hierarchical multiple regression results for general intelligence, work drive, and individual Big 5 variablesa
25
Step Variable Dependent variable: course grade
RR

26

27 Multiple R R2 R2 Change
28 Part 1: Results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis with general intelligence and work drive included and with
29 forced entry of individual Big 5 variables based on order of importance
CO

30 1 General intelligence 0.401** 0.161** 0.161**

31
2 Work drive 0.489** 0.239** 0.078**
3 Agreeableness 0.500** 0.250** 0.011 (n.s.)
32
4 Emotional stability 0.513** 0.264** 0.011 (n.s.)
33
5 Conscientiousness 0.517** 0.267** 0.004 (n.s.)
6 Extraversion 0.517** 0.268** 0.000 (n.s.)
UN

34

35 7 Openness 0.517** 0.268** 0.000 (n.s.)

36
Part 2: Results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis with work drive included and with forced entry of individual
37
Big 5 variables based on order of importance
38
1 Work drive 0.288** 0.083** 0.161**
39 2 Agreeableness 0.307** 0.094** 0.011 (n.s.)
40 3 Emotional stability 0.322** 0.103** 0.009 (n.s.)
41 4 Extraversion 0.327** 0.107** 0.004 (n.s.)
42
5 Openness 0.331** 0.109** 0.002 (n.s.)
6 Conscientiousness 0.337** 0.113** 0.002 (n.s.)
43
a
44 n=144. *P< 0.05. **P <0.01.
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

6 J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–&

1 variance contributed at each step is represented by the incremental variance or the squared semi-
2 partial correlation coefficient (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). A total of 27% of the variability in course
3 grade was accounted for, with general intelligence accounting for 16% of the variance in course
4 grade (P<0.01) with the set of Big 5 personality variables adding an additional 7% (P< 0.01),

OF
5 and work drive an additional 4% (P<0.01) of the unique variance in course grade.
6 Given the relative importance of work drive in accounting for variance in course grade, we
7 decided to examine whether the Big 5 variables contribute any significant variance in course grade
8 above and beyond that accounted for by work drive. Thus, we reversed Steps 2 and 3 above, with

RO
9 results shown in part two of Table 2. In this case, work drive accounted for 8% (P<0.01) of the
10 unique variance in course grade after general intelligence, but the Big 5 variables accounted for a
11 non-significant 3% of the unique variance in course grade.
12 To further examine whether any of the individual Big 5 variables contributed uniquely to the

DP
13 course grade variance, we performed two additional sets of hierarchical multiple regression ana-
14 lyses. In the first analysis, we included both general intelligence and work drive—in that order—
15 followed by forced entry of each of the Big 5 variables in order of magnitude of semi-partial
16 correlations. In the second analysis, we included just the work drive variable followed by forced
17 entry of each of the Big 5 variables in order of magnitude of semi-partial correlations. As can be
seen from the results of these two analyses displayed in parts one and two of Table 3, none of the
TE
18

19 Big 5 variables added significant variance to the prediction of course grade beyond general intel-
20 ligence and work drive as predictors or work drive alone as a predictor.
21
EC

22

23 3. Discussion
24

25 Our results confirmed the significant, positive relationship between general intelligence and
RR

26 course grade. This result is consistent with results of other studies that found a significant positive
27 relationship between SAT/ACT scores and course grades (Dollinger & Orf, 1991; Paunonen &
28 Ashton, 2001). Since SAT correlates about 0.70 with the Otis Lennon Mental Ability Test (Otis &
29 Lennon, 1969), it is an open question whether SAT or ACT scores uniquely related to course
CO

30 grades after controlling for general intelligence. This represents an interesting topic for future
31 research.
32 The present results also affirm the predictive validity of Big 5 personality traits in relation to
33 course grade. In fact, our results mirrored those of Paunonen and Ashton (1977) who found
Conscientiousness and Openness significantly, positively related to the final grade in a psychology
UN

34

35 course. The present findings also demonstrate the incremental validity of Big 5 personality mea-
36 sures above and beyond general intelligence in predicting course grade. This pattern is consistent
37 with the above-mentioned studies of personality predictors of grade-point-average after control-
38 ling for SAT/ACT scores. Our results are also consistent with research in personnel psychology
39 that shows personality variables, particularly conscientiousness, adding incremental validity
40 beyond general mental ability in predicting job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hogan,
41 1996; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).
42 A unique contribution of the present results to the research literature is the finding that work
43 drive accounted for significant variance in predicting course grade beyond both general intelli-
44 gence and ‘‘Big 5’’ measures. Moreover, if work drive is entered prior to the Big 5 variables, with
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–& 7

1 general intelligence included or excluded in the analysis, in the regression analyses for predicting
2 course grade, it is a significant predictor, but the Big 5 variables, either individually or as a set, do
3 not add significantly to the prediction of course grade. It may be that work drive represents a
4 more parsimonious model for predicting academic performance than the Big 5 constructs.

OF
5 The present results provide one answer to prior calls for more specific or narrow-band person-
6 ality constructs than the Big 5 in predicting college grades (McIntire & Levine, 1984; Paunonen &
7 Ashton, 2001). The result for work drive reinforces the importance of a disposition to work hard,
8 or what has been variously termed work ethic, Protestant work ethic, and work value (e.g.

RO
9 Cherrington, 1980; Hill & Rojewski, 1999; Mirels & Garrett, 1971; Waters, Batlis, & Waters,
10 1975) or, in the college context, ‘‘academic ethic’’ (Rau & Durand, 2000). Further research could
11 compare the present measure of work drive with comparable operationalizations of academic
12 ethic and work ethic.

DP
13 One limitation of the present study is that it dealt with a single course. This deliberate feature of
14 our research design leaves open the question of the generalizability of the present findings to the
15 more global criterion of academic performance—grade point average (GPA). Because GPA
16 represents an aggregated score across many courses, it contains unmeasured differences in grad-
17 ing tendencies between professors. While GPA represents a robust criterion for validation, esti-
mates of the validity of various predictors may be attenuated by grading differences. It would be
TE
18

19 interesting to see what validity estimates would be observed if grader difference effects could be
20 minimized; for example, by converting all course grades to an equivalent metric such as z scores
21 or by examining aggregated grades within majors, to control for inter-major differences in grades.
EC

22 Either of these approaches would overcome the other problem with using a single course grade—
23 low variance in the criterion. Examining aggregated grades across multiple courses would
24 increase criterion variance and could lead to higher validities. Validity estimates generated here
25 are probably attenuated by relatively low criterion variance and may be under-estimates of the
RR

26 validities that could be observed using multiple courses.

27 In conclusion, the present study found that measures of ‘‘Big 5’’ personality traits con-
28 scientiousness and openness, and a new measure of work drive, predicted unique variance in course
29 grades beyond that predicted by general intelligence. However, the results indicated that the Big 5
CO

30 variables did not add significantly to the prediction of course grade above and beyond work drive.
31 These results provide additional support for the importance of non-cognitive variables in predict-
32 ing collegiate academic performance and for studying both broad personality constructs as well as
33 more specific, contextualized constructs in relation to academic attainment. Hopefully, future
research can confirm and extend these results using more diverse predictor and criterion measures.
UN

34

35

36

37 References
38

39 Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis.
41 Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Blood, M. (1969). Work values and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(6), 456–459.
42
Boyer, S. P., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1988). Noncognitive predictors of academic success for international students: a
43
longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Development, 29(3), 218–223.
44
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

8 J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–&

1 Brown, N. W. (1994). Cognitive, interest, and personality variables predicting first—semester GPA. Psychological
2 Reports, 74(2), 605–606.
3
Cherrington, D. (1980). The work ethic: working values and values that work. New York: Amacom.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
4
Erlbaum.

OF
5
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
6 (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
7 Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
8
Dollinger, S. J., & Orf, L. A. (1991). Personality and performance in ‘‘personality’’: conscientiousness and openness.

RO
Journal of Research in Personality, 25(3), 276–284.
9
Dyer, E. D. (1987). Can university success and first-year job performance be predicted from academic achievement,
10
vocational interest, personality and biographical measures? Psychological Reports, 61(2), 655–671.
11 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of marker variables for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assess-
12 ment, 4, 26–42.

DP
13 Hill, R., & Rojewski, J. W. (1999). Double jeopardy: work ethic differences in youth at risk of school failure. Career
14
Development Quarterly, 47(3), 267–279.
Hogan, R. (1996). Personality assessment. In R. S. Barrett (Ed.), Fair employment strategies in human resources man-
15
agement (pp. 144–152). Westport, Connecticut: Quorum.
16
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.),
17 Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA: Academic.
TE
18 John, O. (1990). The ‘‘big five’’ factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in the natural language and in ques-
19
tionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford.
Kanungo, R. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 341–349.
20
Lawler, E., & Hall, D. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic moti-
21
vation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(4), 305–312.
EC

22 Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
23 50(1), 24–33.
24 Lounsbury, J. W., & Gibson, L. W. (1998). Personal Style Inventory: a work-based personality measurement system.
25
Knoxville, TN: Resource Associates.
Lounsbury, J. W., Loveland, J. M., Sundstrom, E., Gibson, L. W., Drost, A. W., Hamrick, F. (in press). An investi-
RR

26
gation of personality traits in relation to career satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment.
27
Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H. E., Chambers, W., Owens, K., & Gibson, L. W. (1999). An investigation of career
28 decidedness in relation to ‘‘Big Five’’ personality constructs and life satisfaction. College Student Journal, 33(4), 646–
29 652.
Mathiasen, R. E. (1984). Predicting college academic achievement. College Student Journal, 18, 380–386.
CO

30
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson,
31
& S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 826–847). San Diego, CA: Academic.
32
McIntire, S. A., & Levine, E. (1984). An empirical investigation of self-esteem as a composite construct. Journal of
33 Vocational Behavior, 25, 290–303.
Mirels, H., & Garrett, J. (1971). The protestant ethic as a personality variable. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
UN

34

35 chology, 36(1), 40–44.

36
Mouw, J. T., & Khanna, R. K. (1993). Prediction of academic success: a review of the literature and some recom-
mendations. College Student Journal, 27(3), 328–336.
37
Musgrave-Marquart, D., Bromley, S. P., & Dalley, M. B. (1997). Personality, academic attrition, and substance abuse
38
as predictors of academic achievement in college students. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12(2), 501–511.
39 Okun, M. A., & Finch, J. F. (1998). The Big Five personality dimensions and the process of institutional departure.
40 Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 233–256.
41 Omizo, M. M., Ward, G. R., & Michael, W. B. (1979). Personality measures as predictors of success in a counselor
education Master’s program. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39(4), 947–953.
42
Otis, A. S., & Lennon, R. T. (1969). Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test Technical Handbook. New York: Harcourt,
43
Brace.
44
 PAID 2389 Disk used No. pages 9, DTD=4.3.1
ARTICLE IN PRESS Version 7.51e

J.W. Lounsbury et al. / Personality and Individual Differences & (&&&&) &–& 9

1 Passons, W. R. (1967). Predictive validities of ACT, SAT, and high school grades for first semester GPA and freshmen
2 courses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 1143–1144.
3
Paullay, I., Alliger, G., & Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job
involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 224–228.
4
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research in Per-

OF
5
sonality, 35, 78–90.
6 Pfeifer, C. M., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1974). Predicting black student grades with non- intellectual measures. Journal of
7 Negro Education, 43(1), 67–76.
8
Rainey, D. W. (1985). The JAS-T and Type A in students: a replication note. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(5),

RO
528–529.
9
Rau, W., & Durand, A. (2000). The academic ethic and college grades: does hard work help students ‘‘to make the
10
grade’’? Sociology of Education, 73(1), 19–38.
11 Roessler, R. (1978). Cognitive and noncognitive variables in the prediction of preclinical performance. Journal of
12 Medical Education, 53(8), 678–680.

DP
13 Rothstein, M. G., Paunonem, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive ability predictors of
14
performance in graduate business school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 516–530.
Schneider, L. F., & Overton, T. D. (1983). Holland personality types and academic achievement. Journal of Counseling
15
Psychology, 30(2), 287–289.
16
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-
17 analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742.
TE
18 Waters, L., Batlis, N., & Waters, C. (1975). Protestant ethic attitudes among college students. Educational and Psycho-
19
logical Measurement, 35, 447–450.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1997). Personality structure: the return of the Big Five. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, &
20
S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 737–765). San Diego, CA: Academic.
21
Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educational and Psycho-
EC

22 logical Measurement, 55, 177–185.

23

24

25
RR

26

27

28

29
CO

30

31

32

33
UN

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

View publication stats