Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

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

Predicting educational attainment: Does grit compensate for low levels of T

cognitive ability?
⁎
Audrey Light , Peter Nencka
Department of Economics, Ohio State University, United States of America

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study examined the role of cognitive ability in moderating grit's association with educational outcomes.
Grit Using a large, representative sample of young adults, we estimated probit models for the probability of grad-
Cognitive ability uating from high school, enrolling in college, earning any college degree, and earning a bachelor's degree. For
Academic achievement each outcome, the effect of grit (and, alternatively, each lower-order facet) was allowed to differ flexibly with
Educational outcomes
cognitive ability. We found that grit's estimated marginal effect is largely concentrated among students at the
high and low ends of the ability distribution. The low-ability effect is more pronounced when expressed relative
to the ability-specific, baseline probability of success, and the high-ability effect increases with each successive
outcome. The findings are consistent with the notion that high-ability students adopt self-regulated learning
processes that exploit their grit, especially as educational tasks become more challenging. For low-ability stu-
dents, it appears that grit plays a compensatory role.

1. Introduction
As part of a broad effort to identify factors that explain individual
difference in success, researchers have begun to compile evidence that
grit is associated with a range of educational outcomes (Bowman, Hill,
Denson, & Bronkema, 2015; Datu & Fong, 2018; Datu, Valdez, & King,
2016; Datu, Yuen, & Chen, 2018; Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, &
Kelley, 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Eskreis-Winkler, Shulman,
Beal, & Duckworth, 2014; Rimfeld, Kovas, Dale, & Plomin, 2016;
Schmidt, Fleckenstein, Retelsdorf, Eskreis-Winkler, & Möller, 2017;
Strayhorn, 2014; Sturman & Zappala-Piemme, 2017; West et al., 2016).
Recent meta-analytic evidence suggests grit's predictive power might be
small and subsumed by other factors (Credé, 2018; Credé, Tynan, &
Harms, 2017), yet the topic demands further attention because grit—-
defined as “passion and perseverance for long-term goals” (Duckworth
et al., 2007)—has the potential to be instilled in individuals at rela-
tively young ages (Duckworth & Gross, 2014). As a result, grit might
prove to be a useful mechanism for improving rates of high school and
college completion as well as grades, test scores, and other measures of
educational achievement.
In this study, we contributed new evidence on the grit-education
relationship by determining whether grit's effect on educational out-
comes differs across the cognitive ability distribution. Credé et al.
(2017) conjectured that the adaptive effect of grit found for many
domains might hold only for individuals with high levels of cognitive
ability or metacognition. This argument was augmented in Credé
(2018) by the conjecture (page 4) that “(i)t is also possible that non-
cognitive attributes such as grit are particularly important for in-
dividuals at the lower end of the ability spectrum.” We operationalized
these ideas by exploring two non-competing hypotheses: (1) grit plays a
synergistic role for high-ability students—especially when educational
tasks are challenging—because they are able to adopt learning pro-
cesses that leverage their grit; and (2) grit plays a compensatory role in
the learning process of low-ability (and, potentially, medium-ability)
students; that is, lower-ability students who successfully attain educa-
tional milestones might do so by substituting grit (and other traits) for
ability.
One reason the potentially moderating influence of cognitive ability
had not been explored prior to the current study is because the litera-
ture often focused on genius, or eminence. Building on the work of
Galton (1892), samples of high achievers were used to obtain seminal
evidence that grit is predictive of success (Duckworth et al., 2007;
Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) and that increased deliberate practice is a
mechanism by which grit affects achievement (Duckworth, Kirby,
Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson, 2011; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-
Römer, 1993). Those samples—which included West Point cadets, Na-
tional Spelling Bee participants, and Ivy League undergraduates—were
not suited to learning whether grit is equally predictive for low-ability

⁎
Corresponding author: 410 Arps Hall, 1945 N. High Street, Columbus, OH 43210-1172, United States of America.
E-mail addresses: light.20@osu.edu (A. Light), nencka.2@osu.edu (P. Nencka).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.02.002
Received 8 July 2018; Received in revised form 27 January 2019; Accepted 2 February 2019
1041-6080/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Light, P. Nencka
and high-ability individuals. In contrast, a small number of subsequent
studies of educational outcomes used large samples spanning the po-
pulation-wide cognitive ability distribution (Eskreis-Winkler et al.,
2014; Marks, 2016; Rimfeld et al., 2016; West et al., 2016). While those
data could be used to explore the grit-education relationship across a
non-truncated cognitive ability distribution, we were the first to ask:
Does grit's relationship to educational outcomes differ for low-ability,
medium-ability, and high-ability students?
1.1. Cognitive ability as a moderator of grit's relationship to educational
outcomes
We drew from the educational psychology, personality psychology,
and economics literatures to hypothesize that grit can potentially en-
hance educational outcomes at both the high end and the low end of the
cognitive ability distribution. Turning first to educational psychology,
the interdependence of grit and cognitive ability can be considered in
the context of self-regulated learning models that describe metacogni-
tive, feedback, motivational, and other processes by which students
affect their own learning (Cohen, 2012; Winne, 2013; Zimmerman,
1986, 1990). In describing self-regulated learners as “self-starters who
display extraordinary effort and persistence during learning” (p. 5),
Zimmerman (1990) effectively characterized them as gritty. Therefore,
it was unsurprising that Wolters and Hussain (2015) found empirical
evidence that grit—especially perseverance of effort which, along with
consistency of interest, is one of its two lower-order facets—was
strongly, positively related with a host of observed indicators of self-
regulated learning. Their evidence suggests that adoption of self-regu-
lated learning is a mechanism by which grit (or perseverance) promotes
academic achievement.
The question remains: Does the link between grit and learning
processes depend on students' cognitive ability levels and, if so, how?
Wolters and Hussain (2015) were unable to address this question em-
pirically with their sample of 213 college students. Others have sug-
gested that grit is more likely to promote self-regulated learning (and,
in turn, academic achievement) among high-ability students because,
relative to their low-ability peers, they have better metacognition, are
better able to recognize value and respond to feedback, and are better
able to employ learning strategies productively (Credé & Kuncel, 2008;
Credé & Phillips, 2011; Zimmerman, 1990). If this hypothesis holds,
then cognitive ability not only has a direct effect on academic perfor-
mance, but it also enables students to engage in self-regulated learning
and deliberate practice (Duckworth et al., 2011; Ericsson et al., 1993)
that fully utilize their grit.
Recent studies in the economics of education made similar argu-
ments in the context of production functions (Almlund, Duckworth,
Heckman, & Kautz, 2011; Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, & ter Weel,
2008; Cunha & Heckman, 2008). For our purpose, we can consider a
production process in which students combine inputs, including cog-
nitive ability and grit, to learn a concept. A key aspect of the technology
(or learning process) by which inputs convert to output is that inputs
can be complements or substitutes. Complementarities between inputs
imply, for example, that increased levels of cognitive ability increase
the efficiency with which grit leads to output. Proponents of this pro-
duction function framework did not elaborate on the precise reasons for
such complementarity, but it could arise for the reason we already
provided: high-ability students know how to adopt self-regulated
learning processes that make full use of their grit. Regardless of the
reason for the complementarity, the production function approach
supports the hypothesis that grit enhances learning and educational
achievement relatively more for high-ability students than for low-
ability students.
The production function framework also yields the opposite pre-
diction: grit and ability can serve as substitutes in the learning process.
Students are assumed to behave optimally (given their current in-
formation) in deciding how to combine inputs, and students with a
143
Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154
relative paucity of cognitive ability must choose between intensifying
their use of other inputs, including grit, or failing to achieve. This ar-
gument is closely related to the idea of “resource substitution” invoked
by Damian, Su, Shanahan, Trautwein, and Roberts (2015) and
Shanahan, Bauldry, Roberts, Macmillan, and Russo (2014), who found
empirical evidence that children from low-SES households were able to
improve educational outcomes by substituting Big 5 personality traits
for the resources they lacked. Whether substituting conscientiousness
and agreeableness for family resources or substituting grit for cognitive
ability, the hypothesis is that students who lack a given input exploit
their comparative advantage as a means of achieving success (Almlund
et al., 2011).
It is important to understand that complements and substitutes can
exist side by side. High-ability students can synergistically combine
their ability and grit in the service of highly effective learning pro-
cesses, while low ability students can compensate for their lack of
cognitive ability by relying on grit. There is little question that students
who possess high levels of cognitive ability and grit will be the most
productive, and will typically surpass minimal educational milestones
such as graduating from high school and attending college. Low-ability
students will invariably be less productive than their high-ability peers
no matter how much grit they possess, but those who achieve a given
educational milestone are likely to do so because they made good use of
their grit. An analogy can be made to farming, where farmers who
employ both rich land and good laborers will produce large crops, while
farmers with poor soil will often experience crop failure. However,
those farmers who produce moderate crop levels despite having poor
soil will succeed because they found a way to compensate for their land
deficiency by effectively substituting labor.
The moderating effect of ability on the grit-education relationship
might depend on the educational outcome being considered.
Complementarities between ability and grit will enable high-ability
students to be highly productive; e.g., to master the most difficult
concepts and graduate from the most competitive schools. High-ability
students are likely to attain more modest milestones (e.g., graduating
from high school) with or without the implementation of productive
learning processes, so grit might be unrelated to these outcomes; a si-
milar argument is made by MacNamara, Hambrick, and Oswald (2014)
regarding the effect of deliberative practice on outcomes that differ in
task predictability. In contrast, low-ability students might find it ne-
cessary to substitute grit for cognitive ability to attain even modest
educational outcomes. As the outcomes become more challenging,
fewer low-ability students will meet with success and the role of grit
will increase in magnitude relative to the unconditional success rate.
Although the discussion thus far has focused on the contrast be-
tween low and high ability students, estimated effects of grit are not
necessarily equal for low and high ability students, or absent in the
middle of the ability distribution. Increasing cognitive ability is likely to
correspond to decreased reliance on resource substitution and increased
use of synergistic, self-regulated learning processes. How (and whether)
grit's effect on educational outcomes differs for low-, medium-, and
high-ability students is an empirical question—which we addressed, as
described in Section 2.3, with a model specification that allows the
estimated marginal effect of grit to change with ability in a flexible
fashion.
1.2. Existing evidence on relationships between traits, ability, and education
Relationships between grit, cognitive ability, and educational out-
comes are a relatively new area of investigation. In contrast, an ex-
tensive literature exists on the role of traits that are closely related to
grit, such as motivation and conscientiousness. Rather than attempt an
exhaustive review of the literature, we focused on studies that are
particularly relevant to our analysis.
Conscientiousness—a Big 5 trait with facets that include orderliness
and self-control (Roberts, Lejuez, Krueger, Richards, & Hill, 2014)—was
A. Light, P. Nencka
consistently found to have a strong, positive association with academic
performance measures such as college grade point average. Although
counter-evidence was found on occasion (e.g., Farsides & Woodfield,
2003), the preponderance of evidence based on multivariate regression
analysis (Conard, 2006; Ivcevic & Brackett, 2014; Noftle & Robins,
2007; O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Poropat, 2009; Wolfe & Johnson,
1995) established that conscientiousness is typically more predictive of
academic performance than are other Big 5 traits, and that its effect on
performance holds when measures of other personality traits and/or
cognitive ability are included among the regressors. The majority of
studies in this literature shared a characteristic with parallel analyses of
the grit-performance relationship: the effect of conscientiousness was
often estimated conditional on cognitive ability, but was not allowed to
vary with ability.
An important group of studies deviated from the conventional
strategy by allowing estimated effects of traits to differ with ability.
Ganzach (2000) and Ganzach, Saporta, and Weber (2000) modeled
educational attainment as a function of cognitive ability, motivation
(measured as educational expectations), and the interaction between
ability and motivation. Both studies invoked what Ganzach et al. (2000)
referred to as the “axiomatic” view that performance in academics and
other domains is enhanced by the combination of high ability and
motivation (Vroom, 1964); both estimated positive coefficients for the
ability-motivation interaction terms, which supported the prediction of
a synergistic relationship between these factors. Logan, Lundberg, Roth,
and Walsh (2017) modeled college exam scores as a function of cog-
nitive ability, conscientiousness, and the interaction between the two to
test the hypothesis of a positive interaction (Maier, 1955). They, too,
found evidence of synergistic effects. In a similar vein, Nonis and
Wright (2003) modeled college GPA as a function of achievement
striving, ability, and their interaction and, alternatively, situational
optimism, ability, and their interaction; they identified positive inter-
action terms using both motivation and optimism.1
There is an important difference between these studies and our
approach. By including in their regression models an interaction term
between a personality trait and cognitive ability, existing studies con-
strained the estimated effect of the personality trait on the outcome to
increase or decrease linearly with ability.2 That is, they allowed the
data to identify either a positive (synergistic) effect, as hypothesized, a
negative (offsetting) effect, or no effect. In contrast, we hypothesized
that synergistic and offsetting (or, in our terminology, synergistic and
compensatory) effects can exist side by side. As described in Section
2.3, we specified models in which grit is interacted with both ability
and its square, thus allowing its estimated marginal effect to fall and
then rise as ability increases or, alternatively, rise and then fall, rise
monotonically, fall monotonically, or remain unchanged. Existing stu-
dies that included interactions served as important precursors to our
analysis, but differed from our approach by predicting a positive in-
teraction effect only and, in most cases, constraining the specification to
disallow nonmonotonic effects.
1.3. The current study
The primary goal of this study was to identify the moderating effect
of cognitive ability on the grit-education relationship for a range of
educational outcomes. Specifically, we sought to determine whether
two hypotheses received empirical support: (1) grit's positive
1
The argument that personal traits might affect outcomes differently at the
low or high ends of the ability distribution was also made in the context of
nonlinear, nonconjunctive judgment strategies (Einhorn, 1970; Ganzach &
Czaczkes, 1995). In these studies, a negative (positive) interaction term is
evidence of a conjunctive (disjunctive) strategy.
2
The exception is Ganzach et al. (2000) who, as part of a robustness check,
added interactions between motivation and ability squared.
144
Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154
relationship with educational outcomes exists for both low-ability and
high-ability students; and (2) the effect of grit among high-ability stu-
dents is more pronounced for relatively challenging educational out-
comes.
To achieve these goals, we used data from the 1997 National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) to construct a large sample of
individuals for whom we could assess four educational outcomes: high
school graduation by age 20, and college enrollment, completion of any
college degree, and completion of a bachelor's degree by age 26. In
contrast to studies that examined the grit-education relationship for
small, select samples (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn,
2009), our analysis used a representative sample of students with
ability levels spanning the population-wide distribution. In addition,
our analysis used a uniform sample of individuals as they advanced
through successive educational levels, thus eliminating problems of
noncomparability across studies that focus on a single educational in-
stitution (Bowman et al., 2015; Datu et al., 2016; Duckworth et al.,
2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; MacCann & Roberts, 2010: Strayhorn,
2014) or a single public school district (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014;
West et al., 2016).3
For each educational outcome, we used multivariate probit models
in which the regressors included a grit score, a cognitive ability test
score and it square, and interactions between grit and both ability
terms. This specification allowed grit's relationship with each outcome
to differ in a flexible manner across the cognitive ability distribution.
Our analysis brought to bear arguments made by both proponents
and critics of existing evidence regarding grit's association with edu-
cational outcomes. The first issue concerns how best to assess the
magnitude of one's estimates. Credé et al. (2017) criticized Duckworth
et al. (2007) and Duckworth and Quinn (2009) for overstating the
magnitude of their findings by presenting (large) odds-ratios in a
manner that did not identify the (small) increase in the predicted
probability of success that can be attributed to grit. At the same time,
Credé et al. (2017) noted that “variables that exhibit small to moderate
effect sizes can still be very useful in high-stakes settings because even
marginal improvements in individuals' performance can have very
meaningful positive effects” (page 11). In light of these arguments, we
presented “average marginal effects” of grit computed at various levels
of cognitive ability, and also expressed those estimated effects relative to
the unconditional probability of the outcome at the given ability level.
Because unconditional probabilities vary dramatically with ability, this
innovation in the reporting of findings proved to be a critical aspect of
our analysis.
Another point of contention in the grit literature concerns the extent
to which grit and its subscales are distinct from conscientiousness and
other Big 5 personality traits. While Credé et al. (2017) concluded from
their meta-analysis that grit is so highly correlated with con-
scientiousness as to have virtually no independent, predictive power,
several studies demonstrated that grit's relationship with the outcome
of interest was maintained even after measures of Big 5 personality
traits were included among the controls (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009;
Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014; West et al., 2016). The extent to which grit
and Big 5 traits have independent predictive power was also explored
for noneducational outcomes (Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014; Reed,
Pritschet, & Cutton, 2012). We pursued a similar analysis, although
measurement issues (discussed in Section 2.2) limited our contribution
to suggestive evidence that correlations between grit and Big 5 mea-
sures should be explored more fully across the cognitive ability dis-
tribution.
3
Mendolia and Walker (2015) is a rare example of a prior study that ex-
amined the predictive power of grit with large-scale survey data. They used
data from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England to analyze the
relationship between grit and being “NEET” (neither in education, employment
nor training).
A. Light, P. Nencka
A final issue that we incorporated is whether overall grit scores
should be replaced with subscale scores for consistency of interest and
perseverance of effort (hereafter referred to as consistency and perse-
verance). Duckworth et al. (2007) and Duckworth and Quinn (2009)
provided theoretical and empirical support for the notion that grit is a
high-order construct and, as noted in Credé et al. (2017), the majority
of grit-related studies used overall grit scores as predictors. This prac-
tice was criticized by Credé et al. (2017), whose meta-analysis de-
monstrated that perseverance is more predictive than grit for a range of
outcomes. Studies showing perseverance to be a stronger predictor than
consistency for educational outcomes include Abuhassàn and Bates
(2015), Bowman et al. (2015), Datu et al. (2016), West et al. (2016) and
Wolters and Hussain (2015); see also Sturman and Zappala-Piemme
(2017). We conducted a similar comparison and found that estimated
effects of perseverance are often (but not always) substantially larger
than those of grit.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Our data source was the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (NLSY97), which is a large-scale, longitudinal survey sponsored
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The
NLSY97 began in 1997 with a sample of 8984 respondents born in
1980–84. This sample combined two independent probability samples:
one designed to be representative of the 1980–84 birth cohort residing
in the U.S. in 1997 (n = 6748) and an over-sample of black and
Hispanic individuals in this birth cohort (n = 2236).4 Respondents were
interviewed annually from 1997 through 2011 (rounds 1–15) and bi-
ennially from 2013 to the present. Interviews were completed for 7141
respondents in 2013, yielding a 79.5% retention rate over the first 16
interview rounds. Each data collection effort received approval from
Institutional Review Boards and complied with federal laws governing
human subjects research.
The NLSY97 provides detailed, longitudinal records of individuals'
educational activities, employment experiences, family formation and
fertility, household income and assets, geographic mobility, and much
more. It has been widely used in the social sciences to study a myriad of
topics, including educational outcomes. However, we are unaware of
prior studies that used the self-reported grit measures for any purpose,
let alone as predictors of educational outcomes.
Most of our analysis was based on a sample of 4448 respondents
who satisfied four selection criteria. First, they must have been ad-
ministered the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB),
which provided our cognitive test scores; 7093 of the original sample of
8984 (79%) met this criterion. In addition, they must have been ad-
ministered the Grit-S (n = 5323 of 7093 respondents) and the Ten-Item
Personality Inventory (TIPI) of Big 5 personality traits (n = 4828 of
5323 respondents). Finally, we required that respondents reported their
enrollment and degree attainment in sufficient detail that their
achievements could be identified at ages 20 and 26 (n = 4448 of 4828
respondents). Although respondents were as old as 36 when inter-
viewed in 2015–16 (the last interview round for which we had data), an
age 26 cutoff gave us the largest possible sample of individuals who had
largely (albeit not entirely) completed their education.
We used this uniform sample of 4448 individuals to identify the
effect of grit on the probability of completing several educational out-
comes. Because individuals who did not receive a high school diploma
4
The NLSY97 is one of several cohorts collectively referred to as the National
Longitudinal Surveys. See https://www.nlsinfo.org for information about the
NLS and the NLSY97. The NLSY97 Technical Sampling Report can be viewed at
https://www.nlsinfo.org/sites/nlsinfo.org/files/attachments/121221/
TechnicalSamplingReport.pdf
145
Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154
(or GED) are typically ineligible to pursue post-secondary education, we
also examined college-related outcomes for a subsample of 3632 high
school graduates.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Grit
NLSY97 respondents were administered the Grit-S scale in 2013, at
ages 28–33, as part of the self-administered portion of the regular in-
terview. The timing of this measure is potentially problematic because,
as discussed below, our outcome measures are based on educational
attainment at age 26; therefore, grit was measured 2–7 years after
educational outcomes were observed. Under the assumption that grit
remains stable over this portion of the lifecycle or, at minimum, is
unaffected by educational attainment, the “late” measure of grit pro-
vided by the NLSY97 is appropriate for our analysis. Unfortunately,
these assumptions are unlikely to be valid, so additional research will
be necessary to determine whether our findings are robust to changes in
the measurement of grit.5
We used all four items for the consistency subscale (4 items;
α = 0.74) but only three items from the perseverance scale (3 items;
α = 0.61) to obtain a seven-item overall grit score (7 items; α = 0.75).
Following Bowman et al. (2015), we dropped “setbacks don't dis-
courage me” from the perseverance scale because its inclusion caused a
substantial reduction in reliability. All three alphas are virtually iden-
tical to comparable statistics reported for samples of West Point cadets
in Duckworth and Quinn (2009), and within the ranges reported in the
meta-analysis of Credé et al. (2017). In our sample of 4448 individuals,
the two subscales were moderately correlated with each other
(r = 0.41, p < .001) and highly correlated with the overall grit score
(r = 0.92, p < .001 for consistency; r = 0.74, p < .001 for persever-
ance).
Given that NLSY97 grit data appeared not to have been used prior to
this study, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis to establish the
scale's psychometric validity. Perseverance and consistency were esti-
mated as latent, potentially correlated constructs measured by three
and four questions, respectively. Our estimated, standardized factor
loadings were 0.46, 0.79, and 0.50 for the three perseverance questions
and 0.56, 0.63, 0.64, and 0.75 for the four consistency questions; si-
milar factor loadings were found by Duckworth and Quinn (2009). The
two-factor model fit the data significantly better than the one-factor
model: χ2(13, N = 4448) = 306.34, p < .001 versus χ2(14,
N = 4448) = 940.40, p < .001; Δχ2(1) = 634.06, p < .001. Addi-
tional fit indices revealed a satisfactory fit for the two factor model:
RMSEA = 0.071 (90% CI = 0.064–0.078), CFI = 0.96. These statistics
suggest a fit that is comparable to or better than those found by
Duckworth and Quinn (2009) for five alternative samples.
2.2.2. Cognitive ability
We used an age-adjusted, percentile achievement test score com-
puted by NLSY97 staff as our measure of cognitive ability. This test
score was based on the arithmetic reasoning, mathematical knowledge,
paragraph comprehension, and word knowledge components of the
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which was ad-
ministered to NLSY97 respondents in 1997, when respondents were
ages 12–17. The ASVAB was not a high-stakes test for NLSY97 re-
spondents, but each individual received a $75 participation fee for
5
Although the potential limitation of our grit measure is undeniable, one
advantage of the survey design is that respondents were unlikely to be thinking
about their educational experiences when self-reporting their grit. Most re-
spondents were far removed from school by 2013, and those with schooling
activities to report in 2013 subsequently discussed many other topics (in a
survey often lasting well over an hour) before being administered the Grit-S
scale.
A. Light, P. Nencka Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154

completing the test. The four-item score that we used was designed to 2.2.4. Additional controls
correspond to an Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score, and is The remaining controls in our regression models included binary
hereafter referred to as an AFQT score. indicators of whether the individual was male (mean = 0.48), black
AFQT scores reflect achievement as much as innate ability (mean = 0.26), and Hispanic (mean = 0.19), plus measures of both the
(Borghans, Golsteyn, Heckman, & Humphries, 2016; Cascio & Lewis, father's and mother's highest grade completed. We included these
2006), but have been found to be highly predictive of numerous aca- measures in light of extensive evidence that educational outcomes
demic and labor market outcomes (Almlund et al., 2011; Altonji, differ by sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, the latter of
Bharadwaj, & Lange, 2012; Ganzach, 2014; Kearney & Levine, 2016). which represents opportunity to perform (Musu-Gillette et al., 2016;
We further validated this measure's predictive capability by computing Shanahan et al., 2014; Sirin, 2005). Moreover, we would not want es-
its correlation with a range of achievement test scores drawn from timates of the moderating effects of ability to reflect effects of omitted
NLSY97 respondents' college transcripts. For each correlation, we used demographic factors that are correlated with ability. It was unnecessary
a sample consisting of all respondents for whom an AFQT score and the to control for age because all outcomes were defined with respect to a
given achievement test score were available. We found correlations of fixed point in the lifecycle (age 20 for high school completion, and age
r = 0.74 (p < .001, n = 1193) for AFQT and SAT math scores, 26 for the college-related outcomes).
r = 0.76 (p < .001, n = 1192) for AFQT and SAT verbal scores,
r = 0.82 (p < .001, n = 1132) for AFQT and ACT scores, r = 0.75
(p < .001, n = 869) for AFQT and PSAT verbal scores, and r = 0.74 2.2.5. Educational outcomes
(p < .001, n = 868) for AFQT and PSAT math scores. We considered four educational outcomes representing increasingly
A small, negative correlation was found between grit and AFQT challenging achievements: earn a high school diploma by age 20, enroll
scores (r = −0.06, p < .01, n = 4448). A similar negative correlation in a two-year or four-year college by age 26, earn any undergraduate
was found for consistency and AFQT scores (r = −0.08, p < .001, college degree (associate's or bachelor's) by age 26, and earn a bache-
n = 4448) while no significant correlation was found for perseverance lor's degree by age 26. We required that enrollment and educational
and AFQT scores (r = 0.01, p ≥ .05, n = 4448). These findings indicate attainment be reported through age 26 for inclusion in our sample, so
that AFQT scores are largely unrelated to grit and its lower-order facets all four outcomes were observed for all 4448 sample members. Sample
and can be viewed as independent predictors of educational outcomes. members who did not receive a high school diploma would typically be
ineligible to enter college and complete a college degree, so we per-
formed regression analysis for the three college-related outcomes for a
2.2.3. Big 5 personality traits sub-sample of 3632 high school graduates as well as for the full sample.
For select specifications, we added measures of the Big 5 personality For each outcome, we created a binary indicator equal to one if the
traits (conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, extraver- educational milestone was attained and zero otherwise. Summary sta-
sion, and openness). Scores were based on the ten-item personality tistics for all outcomes and select regressors, for both samples, were
inventory (TIPI) developed by Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann Jr. summarized in Table 1. Although this table shows means and standard
(2003), which was administered to NLSY97 respondents in 2008, when deviations for “raw” grit, AFQT, and TIPI scores, we used standardized
they were ages 23–28. scores (mean = 0, SD = 1) for the regression analysis.
Unfortunately, these measures of Big 5 traits suffer from two po-
tential problems. First, they were based on a ten-item scale (two items
per trait), which yields less reliable measures of personality traits than a Table 1
richer scale (Gosling et al., 2003). Second, they were measured five Sample means and standard deviations for select variables.
years earlier than grit and, therefore, do not necessarily reflect per-
Full Sample HS Graduates
sonality traits that prevailed when educational outcomes were de-
termined or when grit was measured.
Both shortcomings are expected to reduce the correlations between
Mean SD Mean SD
grit and each Big 5 measure. We found correlations of r = 0.37,
r = 0.22, r = 0.09, r = 0.12 and r = 0.09 (p < .001, n = 4448 in all Outcomes
cases) between grit and conscientiousness, emotional stability, agree- Earn high school diploma 0.82 – 1.00 –
ableness, extraversion, and openness, respectively. These can be com- Enroll in college 0.65 – 0.76 –
pared to correlations reported by Duckworth and Quinn (2009, p. 169) Earn any college degree 0.36 – 0.43 –
Earn Bachelor's degree 0.28 – 0.35 –
for a sample of 1554 adults who were contemporaneously administered Covariates
the Grit-S scale and the 44-item Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1 if male 0.48 – 0.47 –
1999) as part of an online survey: r = 0.77 (p < .001), r = −0.40 1 if black 0.26 – 0.24 –
(p < .001), r = 0.24 (p < .001), r = 0.20 (p < .001), and r = 0.06 1 if Hispanic 0.19 – 0.17 –
Father's highest grade completed 12.72 2.84 12.98 2.89
(p ≥ .001) (n = 1554 in all cases). Clearly, the NLSY97-based correla-
Mother's highest grade completed 12.76 2.75 13.04 2.76
tions are smaller than previously-reported correlations based on a AFQT score (A)a 49.07 29.06 54.10 28.00
preferred Big 5 measure for conscientiousness, agreeableness, and ex- Grit score (G)a 26.97 4.28 27.03 4.21
traversion. Consistency scorea 14.35 3.16 14.35 3.10
The question, of course, is how the inclusion of nonoptimally- Perseverance scorea 12.62 1.87 12.68 1.84
Conscientiousnessa 5.68 1.11 5.70 1.08
measured Big 5 traits is expected to affect regression estimates. When Emotional stabilitya 5.01 1.31 5.10 1.26
Big 5 controls are omitted, the estimated relationship between grit and Agreeablenessa 4.99 1.11 5.04 1.10
the educational outcome represents both the “true” effect of grit and the Extraversiona 4.70 1.36 4.76 1.35
effect of omitted Big 5 traits with which grit is correlated. When Big 5 Opennessa 5.50 1.07 5.51 1.04
Sample size 4448 3632
controls are included, any downward bias in their estimated effects due
to mismeasurement is likely to produce upward bias in the estimated Note. Additional regressors include A2, G∙A and G∙A2. Predictions in Table 2
parameter for grit (or for any included variable that is correlated with used estimates from regressions based on the full sample; predictions in Table 3
the Big 5 traits). In short, scenarios exist in which the estimated grit were based on the high school graduation sample.
effect will be overstated with or without Big 5 controls. a
Means and standard deviations for raw scores were reported in this table;
standard scores (mean = 0, SD = 1) were used in all regressions.

146
A. Light, P. Nencka
2.3. Analytic procedure
To model the probability of each (binary) educational outcome, we
used probit models, which are identical to logistic regression models
except that the distribution of errors is assumed to be normal rather
than logistic. Probit and logit models are known to deliver virtually
identical estimates except in extreme tails of the distributions
(Maddala, 1986), which we confirmed for our findings.
Our primary probit model was specified as follows:
Yi ∗ = β0 + β1Gi + β2 Ai + β3 Ai 2 + β4 Gi ∙Ai + β5 Gi ∙Ai 2 + β6 Zi + εi (1)
where Yi ∗
is the latent dependent variable for individual i, Gi and Ai are
standardized scores for grit and cognitive ability, respectively, and Zi is
a vector of additional controls. Our observed outcomes, Yi, take the
value one if Yi ∗ > 0 and zero otherwise; we estimated the binomial
probability Pr(Yi ∗ > 0) using maximum likelihood estimation.
After experimenting with several specifications, we settled on this
“quadratic interaction” model because the estimated marginal effect of
Gi, ∂Yi ∗/∂Gi = β1 + β4Ai + β5Ai2, is a quadratic function of Ai.6 This
functional form allows the estimated marginal effect of grit to be higher
for low and high levels of ability than for intermediate levels, but does
not constrain such a u-shaped pattern to emerge. If the relationship
between grit and each outcome proved to be monotonically increasing
or decreasing in ability or even independent of ability, our model would
identify those patterns.
In addition to (1), we also used a less flexible specification:
Yi ∗ = γ0 + γ1Gi + γ2 Ai + γ3 Ai 2 + γ6 Zi + ui . (2)
Specification (2) constrains the marginal effect of Gi, ∂Yi ∗/∂Gi = γ1,
to be invariant to ability, but is identical to (1) in all other respects. This
constrained model is similar to what was used in prior studies of the
grit-education relationship.
We estimated alternative versions of (1) and (2). First, we included
the short set of “additional controls” described in Section 2.2 in the
vector Z. Second, we added the Big 5 traits to Z. Third, we reestimated
each specification (with and without controls for Big 5 traits) after re-
placing grit scores with scores for perseverance and, in turn, con-
sistency. All specifications were estimated for four alternative out-
comes: high school graduation, college enrollment, any college degree
completion, and bachelor's degree completion. We also estimated spe-
cifications for the three college-related outcomes with a subsample of
individuals who completed high school. After evaluating a wide array
of estimates, in Section 3 we reported a subset that best illustrated the
key findings.
Because estimated coefficients are difficult to interpret directly in
probit models, we computed “average marginal effects” of grit (and
perseverance and consistency) at select levels of ability. For example,
we assigned each sample member an AFQT score corresponding to the
sample median and actual values for all other regressors, and computed
his/her predicted probability of earning a college degree. We then re-
computed each individual's predicted probability after increasing his/
her grit level by one unit (1 SD, or 4.28 points on a 35-point scale). The
6 sion. Big 5 personality traits were added to the regression controls to
Alternative specifications included (a) adding G2, with and without inter-
actions between G2 and each ability term; (b) adding A3 and G∙A3; (c) extending
to cubics in both A and G; and (d) replacing A, A2, G∙A and G∙A2 in (1) with
binary indicators of the ability quartile and interactions between quartile in-
dicators and G. Each alternative specification yielded similar patterns to what
we reported in section 3. However, because the correlation between A and G
moves from strongly positive at low ability to weakly negative at high ability
(e.g., r = 0.17, p < .001, n = 1211 for ability quartile 1; r = −0.07, p < .05,
n = 1211 for quartile 4), the estimated marginal effect of grit on each outcome
was slightly smaller (larger) at low (high) levels of ability the more flexibly we
controlled for A. Note that (1) includes “main effects” of ability (Ai and Ai2) in
addition to their interactions with Gi to avoid attributing the grit effect to a
direct, uncontrolled ability effect.
147
Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154
difference between these values is the estimated marginal effect of grit
on the individual's probability of college graduation at the median ability
level. The mean of these individual estimates is the estimated average
marginal effect.
In Section 3, we tabulated estimated, average marginal effects of
grit not only at the median (50th percentile) level of ability, but also at
the 10th and 90th percentiles; estimates at other ability levels were
discussed but not tabulated. For estimates based on specification (2),
which does not allow the marginal effect of grit to differ with ability,
we computed only one average marginal effect, using each sample
member's actual ability level.
To interpret the magnitude of each average marginal effect, we also
reported them relative to a baseline probability. If we were to find, for
example, that a one-unit (1 SD) increase in grit is predicted to raise the
chance of earning a college degree by 3.5 percentage points for students
in the 10th percentile of the ability distribution and by 6.4 percentage
points for students in the 90th percentile, a naïve interpretation would
suggest that grit is more beneficial among high-ability students than
among low-ability students. However, high-ability students are 10
times more likely than their low-ability counterparts to graduate from
college. We accounted for such differences by dividing each average
marginal effect by the unconditional probability of the given educa-
tional outcome at the given point in the ability distribution. To compute
the denominators (baseline probabilities), we used subsamples of in-
dividuals whose actually ability levels were “close to” the target levels.7
In our example, this adjustment revealed that a one-unit (1 SD) increase
in grit is predicted to raise the graduation rate by 50% relative to the
baseline (0.035/0.07) at the 10th percentile, but by only 9% relative to
the baseline (0.064/0.70) at the 90th percentile.
3. Results
Table 2 contains estimated “average marginal effects” of grit and
perseverance at three ability levels for our sample of 4448 students.
(See Appendix Table A1 for estimated effects based on consistency, and
Tables A2–A5 for probit model estimates used to compute all marginal
effects.)
To clarify what the numbers in Table 2 represent, consider the es-
timate of 0.013 in the “all” column of the first row. This estimate was
based on specification 2 described in Section 2.3, with high school
graduation as the outcome and grit as the key regressor; it indicates that
a one-SD increase in grit raises the predicted graduation probability by
a statistically significant 1.3 percentage points. The corresponding
“relative effect” indicates that the 1.3 percentage point marginal effect
represents a 1.5% increase relative to the baseline graduation prob-
ability (across all ability levels) of 0.82. The remaining three columns in
the first row were based on specification 1, which augments specifica-
tion 2 by adding interactions between grit and cognitive ability and its
square. Identical probit estimates were used to compute the marginal
effects in the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile columns; only the AFQT
score used for the computations changed across columns. Estimates in
the next two pairs of rows in Table 2 were obtained in identical fashion,
except perseverance scores replaced overall grit score in each regres-
obtain the second pair of perseverance-based estimates.
Focusing first on the “earn high school diploma” outcome in
Table 2, the “all” column indicates that the estimated marginal effect of
grit is small (1.3 percentage points) when it is not allowed to differ with
cognitive ability. However, the next three columns show a much higher
estimated effect of 2.9 percentage points (5.3% relative to the baseline)
among students with AFQT scores at the 10th percentile, and smaller
7
We used subsamples of individuals with AFQT scores in percentile intervals
[0−20], [40–60], and [80–100] to compute baseline probabilities for the 10th,
50th, and 90th percentiles, respectively.
A. Light, P. Nencka Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154

Table 2 As noted in Section 2.2, independent effects of grit/perseverance and

Predicted change in the probability of alternative educational outcomes by Big 5 traits may not be accurately identified due to mismeasurement of
cognitive ability percentile. the latter.9 Overall, however, these estimates are consistent with the
Cognitive ability percentile hypothesis that low-ability students improve their chances of success by
relying on grit—and especially perseverance—to compensate for lim-
Predictor All 10th 50th 90th ited cognitive ability.
When we analyzed the remaining outcomes, the patterns seen for
Outcome: earn high school diploma by age 20
Grit 0.013 0.029† 0.005 0.010 high school graduation changed in two distinct ways. First, the esti-
Relative effect: 0.015 0.053† 0.005 0.010 mated effects of grit and perseverance are no longer concentrated en-
Perseverance 0.018 0.045‡ 0.005 0.012 tirely among low-ability students. This is especially true for the two
Relative effect: 0.022 0.081‡ 0.005 0.012
college graduation outcomes, where each estimated marginal effect is
Perseverancea 0.009 0.035‡ −0.006 0.007†
Relative effect: 0.011 0.063‡ −0.007 0.008†
larger at the 90th percentile than at the 10th or 50th percentiles.
Baseline probability 0.82 0.56 0.87 0.98 However, because low-ability students have such low baseline prob-
Outcome: enroll in college by age 26
abilities of earning college degrees, relative marginal effects continue to
Grit 0.025 0.041† 0.016 0.024 be higher at the 10th percentile than elsewhere. For example, the es-
Relative effect: 0.038 0.145‡ 0.023 0.026 timated effect of grit on the probability of earning a college degree is
Perseverance 0.038 0.057 0.038 0.022† 0.035, 0.022, and 0.064 at the 10th, 50th, and 90th ability percentiles,
Relative effect: 0.059 0.198‡ 0.054 0.024†
respectively, or 49.9%, 7.1%, and 9.1% when expressed relative to
Perseverancea 0.028 0.047 0.026 0.016
Relative effect: 0.043 0.164‡ 0.037 0.017 baseline graduation probabilities. Even though 0.035 and 0.022 are not
Baseline probability 0.65 0.29 0.70 0.93 statistically distinguishable estimates, the former effect is substantively
Outcome: earn any college degree by age 26
far more important to low-ability students' success than the latter is for
Grit 0.034 0.035 0.022 0.064‡ median-ability students. Second, the estimated grit effect is no longer
Relative effect: 0.097 0.499‡ 0.071 0.091 largely attributable to the role of perseverance. This is especially true
Perseverance 0.038 0.031 0.033 0.062† for the two college graduation outcomes, and at the 90th percentile in
Relative effect: 0.107 0.435‡ 0.107 0.088
the ability distribution. Using the bachelor's degree outcome for illus-
Perseverancea 0.023 0.025 0.015 0.041†
Relative effect: 0.065 0.348‡ 0.049 0.059 tration, the estimated marginal effect at the 90th percentile is 0.076,
Baseline probability 0.36 0.07 0.31 0.70 0.065, and 0.068, respectively, when grit, perseverance, and con-
Outcome: earn bachelor's degree by age 26 sistency (see Table A1) are the key regressors; pair-wise tests of equality
Grit 0.032 0.015 0.021 0.076‡ among these three estimates reveal them to be indistinguishable at
Relative effect: 0.114 0.488† 0.094 0.119 conventional significance levels.10
Perseverance 0.036 0.021 0.032 0.065† The patterns highlighted in the preceding paragraphs are consistent
Relative effect: 0.128 0.678‡ 0.143 0.103
Perseverancea 0.020 0.017 0.014 0.038†
with the hypothesis that grit —and especially perseverance—is asso-
Relative effect: 0.070 0.531‡ 0.060 0.060 ciated with success for low-ability students. Estimated marginal effects
Baseline probability 0.28 0.03 0.23 0.63 at the 10th percentile in the ability distribution tend to be larger (albeit
not always significantly larger) than at the 50th percentile, and are
Note: N = 4448. Estimates in bold are statistically significant at p < .05. Each always far larger when expressed relative to the ability-specific base-
estimate represents an “average marginal effect” as defined in Section 2.3; re-
line. The patterns are also consistent with the hypothesis that, for high-
lative effects are the average marginal effect divided by the baseline prob-
ability students, grit's association with success is confined to the more
ability. Estimates in the “all” column are based on specification 2; other esti-
mates are based on specification 1.
challenging milestones, where complementarities between grit and
†
p < .20 for two-tailed test of the null hypotheses that the difference be- ability in the learning process are particularly valuable. Estimated grit
tween this estimate and the corresponding 50th percentile estimate (in the same effects at the 90th percentile for the two college graduation out-
row) is zero. comes—which are attributed almost equally to perseverance and con-
‡
p < .05 for two-tailed test of the null hypotheses that the difference be- sistency—are significantly larger at the 90th percentile than at the
tween this estimate and the corresponding 50th percentile estimate (in the same median, although differences in magnitudes are reduced when ex-
row) is zero. pressed relative to baseline probabilities.
a
Measures of Big 5 personality traits were added to the regression controls. A final conclusion to draw from Table 2 is that it is important to
compare each predicted marginal effect to the baseline probability of
effects (0.005 and 0.010) for students with AFQT scores at the 50th and success. The last row indicates that a one-SD increase in perseverance
90th percentiles. The estimated effect at the 10th percentile is distin- raises the predicted probability of graduation by 1.7 percentage points
guishable from zero at a 5% significance level and distinguishable from among students with ability at the 10th percentile, and by a similar
the 50th percentile estimate at a 15% significance level. The next rows
of estimates reveal that the relationship between grit and high school
graduation among low-ability students is entirely due to perseverance 9
Using the “all estimates” in Table 2 for illustration, the estimated perse-
which, when used in place of grit, yields a statistically significant es- verance effect decreased by 50%, 26%, 39% and 44% for the four outcomes
timated marginal effect of 0.045, or 8.1% relative to the baseline.8 The when Big 5 measures were added. Similar changes were found for grit (not
estimated effect of perseverance among low-ability students falls to tabulated). We were unable to find comparable evidence in the literature of
0.035 (6.3% relative to the baseline) when Big 5 traits are controlled changes in estimated marginal effects of grit in response to the addition of Big 5
for, but even this reduced effect is significantly different than the near- controls, so we could not assess whether we apportioned “too little” to Big 5
zero estimate for median ability students. (The p-value for the differ- traits.
10
ence between the two perseverance estimates (0.045 vs. 0.035) is 0.30). In comparing relative effects across schooling outcomes for a given (10th,
50th, or 90th ability percentile) column in Table 2, the only pair-wise differ-
ences that are not statistically distinguishable from zero at p < .20 when grit is
used as the predictor are bachelor's degree vs. any degree at both the 10th
8
The p-value for a test of equality between the estimated grit and persever- percentile and 50th percentile; and high school diploma vs. enroll in college at
ance effects (0.029 vs. 0.045) is 0.22. Appendix Table A2 shows that, for this the 50th percentile. When perseverance is used (without Big 5 controls), the
outcome, estimated marginal effects for consistency are small and insignificant only statistically insignificant differences are for bachelor's degree vs. any de-
at all points in the ability distribution. gree at the 90th percentile.

148
A. Light, P. Nencka Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154

(and statistically indistinguishable) 1.4 percentage points among stu- Table 3

dents with median ability levels. This similarity masks the fact that the Predicted change in the probability of alternative educational outcomes by
low-ability students have a much lower baseline probability of college cognitive ability percentile, for a sample of high school graduates.
graduation than do the median-ability students (3% versus 23%). When Cognitive ability percentile
this difference was brought to bear, we learned that 1.7 percentage
points represent a 53.1% increase in the probability of graduating for Predictor All 10th 50th 90th
low-ability students, while 1.4 percentage points represent only a 6.0%
Outcome: enroll in college by age 26
increase for median-ability students. Grit 0.022 0.032 0.018 0.021
It is important to note that estimated marginal effects of grit asso- Relative effect: 0.029 0.072 0.023 0.022
ciated with ability levels other than the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles Perseverance 0.036 0.056 0.037 0.022
Relative effect: 0.047 0.125† 0.047 0.023†
conformed to the pattern revealed by Table 2. Continuing the example
Perseverancea 0.028 0.045 0.028 0.018
from the preceding paragraph, a one-SD increase in perseverance raises Relative effect: 0.037 0.100† 0.036 0.019
the predicted probability of bachelor's degree recipiency by 0.016 at the Baseline probability 0.76 0.45 0.78 0.94
25th percentile in the ability distribution, and by 0.023 at the 75th (not Outcome: earn any college degree by age 26
tabulated). Regardless of the chosen ability level, these computations Grit 0.039 0.045 0.025 0.062†
are based on the same probit estimates and, therefore, are constrained Relative effect: 0.090 0.375‡ 0.071 0.086
to lie along the same quadratic curve. Perseverance 0.042 0.037 0.036 0.059
Relative effect: 0.097 0.310† 0.102 0.083
The advantage of using a uniform sample of 4448 individuals for all
Perseverancea 0.027 0.029 0.020 0.042
specifications summarized in Table 2 is that estimates are comparable Relative effect: 0.063 0.245† 0.056 0.058
across all four outcomes. A disadvantage is that the sample included Baseline probability 0.43 0.12 0.35 0.71
high school dropouts who were ineligible to attend college and earn Outcome: earn bachelor's degree by age 26
college degrees. To determine whether the inclusion of high school Grit 0.036 0.019 0.023 0.072‡
dropouts systematically affected the estimates in Table 2, we re- Relative effect: 0.105 0.342 0.089 0.110
estimated all specifications for the three college-related outcomes for a Perseverance 0.040 0.028 0.035 0.061†
Relative effect: 0.115 0.502† 0.133 0.094
sample of 3632 high school graduates. A subset of these estimates were
Perseverancea 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.036
summarized in Tables 3 and A1. Baseline probabilities are higher in Relative effect: 0.065 0.388† 0.062 0.056
Table 3 than in Table 2, especially at the 10th percentile of ability, so Baseline probability 0.35 0.06 0.26 0.65
estimated relative effects are often smaller in Table 3 than in Table 2.
Despite differences in magnitudes, however, the key patterns described Note: N = 3632 individuals who earn a high school diploma by age 20.
with respect to Table 2 continue to hold for Table 3. Estimates in bold are statistically significant at p < .05. Each estimate re-
presents an “average marginal effect” as defined in Section 2.3; relative effects
are the average marginal effect divided by the baseline probability. Estimates in
4. General discussion
the “all” column are based on specification 2; other estimates are based on
specification 1.
We hypothesized that grit might have an important effect on edu- †
p < .20 for two-tailed test of the null hypotheses that the difference be-
cational outcomes for low-ability students as well as for their high- tween this estimate and the corresponding 50th percentile estimate (in the same
ability counterparts. At the low end of the ability distribution, grit is row) is zero.
‡
likely to compensate for cognitive ability—that is, those low-ability p < .05 for two-tailed test of the null hypotheses that the difference be-
students who succeed in reaching educational milestones might do so tween this estimate and the corresponding 50th percentile estimate (in the same
by overcoming their cognitive disadvantage via the effective substitu- row) is zero.
a
tion of grit. At the high end of the ability distribution, students are Measures of Big 5 personality traits were added to the regression controls.
likely to adopt learning processes that synergistically combine ability
and grit, especially when trying to attain relatively challenging edu- same time, low-ability students appear to rely on resource substitution;
cational outcomes. that is, they compensate for relatively low levels of cognitive ability by
Our findings supported these hypothesis. For students with ability substituting grit (or perseverance) in the learning process. Although the
levels at the 10th percentile, the estimated marginal effects of grit (and estimated effects attributable to resource substitution are relatively
especially perseverance) were positive and statistically significant for modest in magnitude, they represent enormous benefits when viewed in
each outcome. The estimated marginal effect at the 10th percentile was relationship to low-ability students' low baseline probabilities of suc-
not always statistically distinguishable from the comparable estimate at cess. Students with limited cognitive abilities are the least likely to
the 50th percentile—but, as we demonstrated, a given marginal effect attain each educational milestone, but arguably the most worthy of
(even when small in magnitude) represents a substantial boost for low- policy interventions that might enhance their outcomes. Our findings
ability students relative to their low baseline probability of success, suggest that efforts to instill grit—and especially perseverance—in low-
while representing only a small boost for higher-ability students. For ability students could have substantial payoffs with respect to educa-
students with ability levels at the 90th percentile, marginal effects of tional attainment.
grit were positive for each outcome. However, these estimates were Our analysis contributed additional evidence relevant to ongoing
nontrivial in magnitude (especially relative to the baseline) and sig- debates about grit. First, we found that estimated marginal effects of
nificantly larger than comparable median-level estimates only for the perseverance exceed comparable estimated effects of consistency at low
most challenging (college graduation) outcomes. levels of ability, but not at high levels of ability. Given the pre-
To elaborate, we found evidence that the effect of grit on educa- ponderance of evidence that grit's predictive power is largely attribu-
tional outcomes is moderated by cognitive ability in a manner that is table to perseverance (Abuhassàn & Bates, 2015; Bowman et al., 2015;
entirely consistent with learning models. Our findings support the ar- Datu et al., 2016; West et al., 2016; Wolters & Hussain, 2015), our
gument that high-ability students improve their chances of academic findings provide an additional reason for allowing estimated effects of
success by adopting self-regulated learning processes that exploit their grit (and perseverance and consistency) to vary with ability. Second, we
grit. It appears that these students combine grit and cognitive ability in found that estimated marginal effects of perseverance (and grit, al-
a synergistic way to increase academic performance—and that these though we did not tabulate those findings) were reduced, as expected,
synergies are realized primarily when it comes to more challenging when Big 5 measures were added to the models—but substantially more
educational milestones, such as earning a bachelor's degree. At the at high levels of ability than at low levels. Even though our Big 5 traits

149
A. Light, P. Nencka
appear to have been mismeasured (as discussed further in Section 4.1),
we provided compelling evidence that the “grit versus conscientious-
ness” debate would benefit from considering relationships between
these (and other) measures at different points in the ability distribution.
4.1. Limitations of our analysis
Large-scale surveys offer numerous advantages for the analysis of
grit's relationship to educational outcomes, but they also impose lim-
itations. Key limitations of the NLSY97 were three-fold. First, the Grit-S
scale was administered when respondents were ages 28–33. While
temporal separation between administration of the grit scale and edu-
cational activities might be advantageous in some respects, the concern
is that self-reported grit at this stage in the lifecycle might be condi-
tioned on earlier educational experiences. Additional evidence on the
extent to which self-reported grit changes over time is needed to de-
termine whether the survey's relatively “late” collection of grit scores
posed problems for our analysis.
Second, measures of the Big 5 personality traits were obtained via
the administration of the Ten Item Personality Inventory when re-
spondents were ages 23–28. These measures are problematic because
(a) the 10-item scale lacks reliability; (b) responses can be conditioned
on completed educational experiences (as with the grit measure); and
(c) the Big 5 and grit scales were not administered contemporaneously.
Both timing issues would affect our analysis if core personality traits
evolve throughout early adulthood. While evidence exists that changes
in personality traits over adulthood are not important enough to affect
research findings (Cobb-Clark & Schurer, 2012) the preponderance of
evidence, as summarized by Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006),
suggested that conscientiousness and other traits can change by sub-
stantial amounts. Overall, the concern is that our analysis misstated
grit's (perseverance's) relationship with each outcome due to an in-
ability to correctly “net out” the independent effects of Big 5 traits.
Third, although NLSY97 data enabled us to define a sequence of
educational outcomes for a large, representative sample, the survey did
not provide details on college engagement and satisfaction, time allo-
cation, institutional support, and other aspects of educational experi-
ences that previous studies (e.g., Bowman et al., 2015; Datu et al., 2016;
Eskreis-Winkler et al., 2014) brought to bear.
We conducted our analysis despite these limitations to provide a
“first look” at whether grit's relationship to educational outcomes varies
across the cognitive ability distribution. No single study can be viewed
Appendix A
Appendix Table A1
Predicted change in the probability of alternative educational outcomes by cognitive ability percentile (Supplement to Tables 2–3).
Predictor All
Outcome: earn high school diploma by age 20 (full sample)
Consistency 0.006
Relative effect: 0.007
Outcome: enroll in college by age 26 (full sample)
Consistency 0.011
Relative effect: 0.017
Outcome: earn any college degree by age 26 (full sample)
Consistency 0.025
Relative effect: 0.070
Outcome: earn bachelor's degree by age 26 (full sample)
Consistency 0.023
Relative effect: 0.083
Outcome: enroll in college by age 26 (high school sample)
Consistency 0.008
Relative effect: 0.011
150
Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154
as definitive, and in this case it is particularly important that additional
research be conducted to confirm or refute our findings.
Additional limitations of our analysis could be addressed in future
NLSY97-based research. The NLSY97 collected high school and college
transcripts for subsets of respondents, so future studies could explore
grit's relationship to grades and test scores, albeit for smaller samples
than the ones used in the current study. The current study did not ex-
plore the extent to which grit-educational relationships depend on in-
dividuals' demographic characteristics, nor did it consider the many
noneducational outcomes reported in the NLSY97 related to family
formation, labor market experiences, asset accumulation, and much
more.
5. Conclusions
In this study, we used data from the 1997 National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth to determine whether grit's marginal effect on educa-
tional attainment varies with cognitive ability. Our analysis had the
following key features: (a) we analyzed a sequence of increasingly
challenging educational outcomes for a large, uniform, representative
sample of individuals; (b) grit's relationship with each outcome was
allowed to differ flexibly across the cognitive ability distribution; and
(c) estimated, marginal effects of grit (as well as perseverance and
consistency) at each ability level were expressed relative to baseline
probabilities of success at those same ability levels.
The finding that grit is positively associated with college-related
outcomes among high-ability students is consistent with the notion that
high-ability students adopt self-regulated learning processes that
leverage their grit. For these students, grit and cognitive ability com-
plement each other in the learning process, especially when tasks are
relatively challenging. The finding that grit is also positively associated
with all educational outcomes at the opposite end of the ability dis-
tribution is perhaps more surprising, and is consistent with the hy-
pothesis that low-ability students substitute grit for ability in the
learning process. This does not imply that grit is as valuable as ability:
relatively few low-ability students succeed in attending college and
earning college degrees, but among those who do attain success, grit
might an important factor. These findings suggest that interventions
designed to augment grit among low-ability students could have sub-
stantial benefits—and that additional evidence on the moderating ef-
fects of cognitive ability is well worth pursuing.
Cognitive ability percentile
10th 50th 90th
0.006 0.005 0.007
0.011 0.005 0.007
0.016 0.001 0.020†
0.056 0.002 0.022
0.025 0.012 0.053‡
0.355‡ 0.038 0.075
0.007 0.011 0.068‡
0.228 0.047 0.108
0.006 0.003 0.016
0.014 0.004 0.017
(continued on next page)
A. Light, P. Nencka Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154

Appendix Table A1 (continued)

Cognitive ability percentile

Predictor All 10th 50th 90th

Outcome: earn any college degree by age 26 (high school sample)

Consistency 0.028 0.033 0.014 0.052†
Relative effect: 0.065 0.279† 0.038 0.072

Outcome: earn bachelor's degree by age 26 (high school sample)

Consistency 0.026 0.009 0.011 0.065‡
Relative effect: 0.077 0.152 0.044 0.100

Note: N = 4448 in the full sample; N = 3632 in the sample of individuals who earn a high school diploma. Estimates in bold are statistically significant at
p < .05. Specifications reported here exclude measures of Big 5 traits. See Tables 2–3 for additional notes and baseline probabilities.
†
p < .20 for two-tailed test of the null hypotheses that the difference between this estimate and the corresponding 50th percentile estimate (in the same row)
is zero.
‡
p < .05 for two-tailed test of the null hypotheses that the difference between this estimate and the corresponding 50th percentile estimate (in the same row)
is zero.

Appendix Table A2
Probit estimates for the “earn high school diploma” outcome used to compute predicted marginal effects in Tables 2 and A1.

—Grit— ——Perseverance—— Consistency

Regressor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

AFQT score (A) 0.582 0.590 0.579 0.583 0.574 0.576 0.581 0.588
(0.031) (0.032) (0.031) (0.032) (0.032) (0.032) (0.031) (0.032)
A 2
−0.051 −0.041 −0.051 −0.041 −0.045 −0.034 −0.056 −0.051
(0.029) (0.030) (0.029) (0.029) (0.030) (0.030) (0.029) (0.030)
Key predictor (P)a 0.058 0.022 0.082 0.023 0.044 −0.028 0.028 0.023
(0.025) (0.038) (0.024) (0.036) (0.025) (0.037) (0.025) (0.039)
P∙A 0.019 0.008 −0.004 0.029
(0.030) (0.027) (0.026) (0.031)
P∙A2 0.046 0.062 0.067 0.018
(0.031) (0.028) (0.027) (0.032)
1 if Male −0.158 −0.156 −0.157 −0.154 −0.141 −0.137 −0.157 −0.155
(0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.049) (0.051) (0.051) (0.049) (0.049)
1 if Black 0.239 0.242 0.238 0.239 0.233 0.233 0.249 0.251
(0.062) (0.062) (0.062) (0.062) (0.063) (0.063) (0.062) (0.062)
1 if Hispanic 0.189 0.189 0.190 0.187 0.180 0.175 0.194 0.196
(0.071) (0.071) (0.071) (0.071) (0.071) (0.071) (0.071) (0.071)
Father's highest grade completed 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.033 0.035 0.035
(0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
Mother's highest grade completed 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040
(0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
Conscientiousness 0.069 0.073
(0.027) (0.027)
Emotional stability 0.102 0.101
(0.027) (0.027)
Agreeableness 0.044 0.046
(0.027) (0.027)
Extraversion 0.064 0.066
(0.026) (0.026)
Openness −0.067 −0.068
(0.027) (0.027)
Constant 0.275 0.272 0.284 0.279 0.285 0.282 0.271 0.267
(0.159) (0.159) (0.159) (0.159) (0.160) (0.160) (0.159) (0.159)

Note: N = 4448. AFQT, grit (including perseverance and consistency), and Big 5 scores are standardized to have mean = 0 and SD = 1. Standard errors are in
parentheses. Columns 1, 3, 5 and 7 correspond to the “all” estimates and columns 2, 4, 6, and 8 correspond to the remaining (ability-specific) estimates in Tables 2
and A1; columns 5–6, which include Big 5 measures, correspond to the perseverance rows in Table 2 denoted by ‘a.’
a
The key predictor (P) is either grit, perseverance, or consistency as indicated in the column heading.

Appendix Table A3
Probit estimates for the “enroll in college” outcome used to compute predicted marginal effects in Tables 2 and A1.

—Grit— ——Perseverance—— Consistency

Regressor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

AFQT score (A) 0.716 0.723 0.714 0.714 0.704 0.704 0.713 0.722
(0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028)
(continued on next page)

151
A. Light, P. Nencka Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154

Appendix Table A3 (continued)

—Grit— ——Perseverance—— Consistency

Regressor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A 2
−0.065 −0.056 −0.065 −0.063 −0.057 −0.055 −0.071 −0.062
(0.026) (0.027) (0.026) (0.026) (0.026) (0.027) (0.026) (0.026)
a
Key predictor (P) 0.090 0.049 0.139 0.117 0.103 0.079 0.039 0.005
(0.022) (0.032) (0.021) (0.031) (0.023) (0.033) (0.022) (0.032)
P∙A 0.014 −0.008 −0.012 0.031
(0.023) (0.022) (0.022) (0.024)
P∙A2 0.051 0.023 0.025 0.047
(0.026) (0.024) (0.025) (0.026)
1 if Male −0.348 −0.346 −0.348 −0.348 −0.366 −0.365 −0.346 −0.344
(0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.047) (0.047) (0.044) (0.044)
1 if Black 0.366 0.370 0.366 0.366 0.349 0.348 0.380 0.386
(0.057) (0.057) (0.057) (0.057) (0.058) (0.058) (0.057) (0.057)
1 if Hispanic 0.371 0.371 0.374 0.372 0.359 0.357 0.377 0.379
(0.066) (0.067) (0.066) (0.066) (0.067) (0.067) (0.066) (0.066)
Father's highest grade completed 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067
(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
Mother's highest grade completed 0.043 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.041 0.041 0.043 0.043
(0.090) (0.090) (0.090) (0.090) (0.090) (0.090) (0.090) (0.089)
Conscientiousness 0.038 0.040
(0.024) (0.025)
Emotional stability 0.096 0.096
(0.025) (0.025)
Agreeableness −0.009 −0.008
(0.024) (0.024)
Extraversion 0.046 0.047
(0.023) (0.023)
Openness 0.018 0.018
(0.023) (0.023)
Constant −0.771 −0.776 −0.761 −0.761 −0.752 −0.752 −0.772 −0.778
(0.152) (0.152) (0.153) (0.153) (0.153) (0.154) (0.152) (0.152)

Note: N = 4448. AFQT, grit (including perseverance and consistency), and Big 5 scores are standardized to have mean = 0 and SD = 1. Standard errors are in
parentheses. Columns 1, 3, 5 and 7 correspond to the “all” estimates and columns 2, 4, 6, and 8 correspond to the remaining (ability-specific) estimates in Tables 2
and A1; columns 5–6, which include Big 5 measures, correspond to the perseverance rows in Table 2 denoted by ‘a.’
a
The key predictor (P) is either grit, perseverance, or consistency as indicated in the column heading.

Appendix Table A4
Probit estimates for the “earn any college degree” outcome used to compute predicted marginal effects in Tables 2 and A1.

—Grit— ——Perseverance—— Consistency

Regressor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

AFQT score (A) 0.610 0.617 0.606 0.608 0.607 0.609 0.610 0.616
(0.027) (0.027) (0.027) (0.027) (0.028) (0.028) (0.027) (0.027)
A2 −0.005 −0.001 −0.007 −0.006 −0.006 −0.005 −0.008 −0.004
(0.025) (0.026) (0.025) (0.025) (0.026) (0.026) (0.025) (0.026)
Key predictor (P)a 0.120 0.065 0.133 0.097 0.082 0.045 0.086 0.035
(0.021) (0.030) (0.022) (0.032) (0.023) (0.033) (0.022) (0.031)
P∙A −0.010 −0.001 −0.010 −0.001
(0.024) (0.023) (0.023) (0.024)
P∙A2 0.067 0.040 0.044 0.059
(0.025) (0.024) (0.024) (0.025)
1 if Male −0.315 −0.313 −0.313 −0.312 −0.333 −0.332 −0.316 −0.314
(0.043) (0.043) (0.043) (0.044) (0.047) (0.047) (0.043) (0.043)
1 if Black 0.060 0.065 0.068 0.070 0.050 0.051 0.069 0.075
(0.058) (0.058) (0.058) (0.058) (0.059) (0.059) (0.058) (0.058)
1 if Hispanic 0.046 0.045 0.051 0.051 0.050 0.049 0.050 0.050
(0.064) (0.064) (0.064) (0.064) (0.065) (0.065) (0.064) (0.064)
Father's highest grade completed 0.069 0.069 0.068 0.069 0.070 0.070 0.068 0.069
(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)
Mother's highest grade completed 0.043 0.043 0.042 0.042 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043
(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.011) (0.011) (0.010) (0.010)
Conscientiousness (0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.093) (0.092)
0.122 0.122
Emotional stability (0.025) (0.025)
0.081 0.082
Agreeableness (0.025) (0.025)
−0.026 −0.025
Extraversion (0.023) (0.023)
0.017 0.017
(continued on next page)

152
A. Light, P. Nencka Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154

Appendix Table A4 (continued)

—Grit— ——Perseverance—— Consistency

Regressor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Openness (0.022) (0.022)

−0.018 −0.018
Constant (0.023) (0.023)
−1.731 −1.738 −1.716 −1.723 −1.740 −1.746 −1.729 −1.734

Note: N = 4448. AFQT, grit (including perseverance and consistency), and Big 5 scores are standardized to have mean = 0 and SD = 1. Standard errors are in
parentheses. Columns 1, 3, 5 and 7 correspond to the “all” estimates and columns 2, 4, 6, and 8 correspond to the remaining (ability-specific) estimates in Tables 2
and A1; columns 5–6, which include Big 5 measures, correspond to the perseverance rows in Table 2 denoted by ‘a.’
a
The key predictor (P) is either grit, perseverance, or consistency as indicated in the column heading.

Appendix Table A5
Probit estimates for the “earn bachelor's degree” outcome used to compute predicted marginal effects in Tables 2 and A1.

—Grit— ——Perseverance—— Consistency

Regressor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

AFQT score (A) 0.684 0.687 0.680 0.684 0.690 0.695 0.682 0.685
(0.031) (0.030) (0.030) (0.031) (0.032) (0.032) (0.031) (0.030)
A2 −0.004 0.003 −0.006 −0.007 −0.003 −0.005 −0.008 0.002
(0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.028) (0.029) (0.028) (0.028)
Key predictor (P)a 0.131 0.075 0.147 0.114 0.081 0.048 0.094 0.039
(0.023) (0.032) (0.024) (0.034) (0.025) (0.035) (0.023) (0.032)
P∙A 0.020 −0.010 −0.022 0.041
(0.027) (0.028) (0.029) (0.026)
P∙A2 0.053 0.040 0.045 0.046
(0.027) (0.027) (0.027) (0.027)
1 if Male −0.322 −0.318 −0.320 −0.319 −0.317 −0.316 −0.323 −0.319
(0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.050) (0.050) (0.046) (0.046)
1 if Black 0.084 0.093 0.094 0.096 0.095 0.096 0.092 0.103
(0.063) (0.063) (0.063) (0.063) (0.064) (0.064) (0.063) (0.063)
1 if Hispanic 0.076 0.078 0.083 0.082 0.095 0.093 0.079 0.081
(0.070) (0.070) (0.070) (0.070) (0.072) (0.072) (0.070) (0.070)
Father's highest grade completed 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.081 0.082 0.080 0.080
(0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)
Mother's highest grade completed 0.059 0.059 0.057 0.057 0.059 0.059 0.059 0.059
(0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012)
Conscientiousness 0.166 0.167
(0.027) (0.027)
Emotional stability 0.067 0.067
(0.026) (0.026)
Agreeableness 0.003 0.003
(0.025) (0.025)
Extraversion 0.035 0.034
(0.024) (0.024)
Openness −0.054 −0.053
(0.025) (0.025)
Constant −2.414 −2.427 −2.398 −2.403 −2.464 −2.468 −2.408 −2.419
(0.177) (0.178) (0.177) (0.177) (0.179) (0.180) (0.177) (0.177)

Note: N = 4448. AFQT, grit (including perseverance and consistency), and Big 5 scores are standardized to have mean = 0 and SD = 1. Standard errors are in
parentheses. Columns 1, 3, 5 and 7 correspond to the “all” estimates and columns 2, 4, 6, and 8 correspond to the remaining (ability-specific) estimates in Tables 2
and A1; columns 5–6, which include Big 5 measures, correspond to the perseverance rows in Table 2 denoted by ‘a.’
a
The key predictor (P) is either grit, perseverance, or consistency as indicated in the column heading.

References
Abuhassàn, A., & Bates, T. (2015). Distinguishing effortful persistence from con-
scientiousness. Journal of Individual Differences, 36, 205–214.
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011). Personality psychology
and economics. In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of
the economics of education. 4. Handbook of the economics of education (pp. 1–181).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Altonji, J., Bharadwaj, P., & Lange, F. (2012). Changes in the characteristics of American
youth: Implications for adult outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 30, 783–828.
Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and
psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 972–1059.
Borghans, L., Golsteyn, B. H. H., Heckman, J. J., & Humphries, J. J. (2016). What grades
and achievement tests measure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 113, 13354–13359.
Bowman, N. A., Hill, P. N., Denson, N., & Bronkema, R. (2015). Keep on truckin’ or stay
the course? Exploring grit dimensions as differential predictors of educational
achievement, satisfaction, and intentions. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
6, 639–645.
Cascio, E., & Lewis, E. (2006). Schooling and the armed forces qualifying test: Evidence
from school-entry laws. Journal of Human Resources, 41, 294–318.
Cobb-Clark, D., & Schurer, S. (2012). The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics
Letters, 115, 11–15.
Cohen, M. T. (2012). The importance of self-regulation for college student learning.
College Student Journal, 46, 892–902.
Conard, M. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict
academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 339–346.
Credé, M. (2018). What shall we do about grit? A critical review of what we know and
what we don't know. Educational Researcher, 20, 1–6.
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3,

153
A. Light, P. Nencka
425–453.
Credé, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 337–346.
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic
synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113,
492–511.
Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. J. (2008). Formulating, identifying, and estimating the tech-
nology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Journal of Human Resources, 43,
738–782.
Damian, R. I., Su, R., Shanahan, M., Trautwein, U., & Roberts, B. W. (2015). Can per-
sonality traits and intelligence compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting
status attainment in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109,
473–489.
Datu, J. A. D., & Fong, R. W. (2018). Examining the association of grit with test emotions
among Hong Kong Chinese primary school students. School Psychology International.
Advance online publicationhttps://doi.org/10.1177%2F0143034318793468.
Datu, J. A. D., Valdez, J. P. M., & King, R. B. (2016). Perseverance counts but consistency
does not! Validating the short grit scale in a collectivist setting. Current Psychology,
35, 21–30.
Datu, J. A. D., Yuen, M., & Chen, G. (2018). The triarchic model of grit is linked to
academic success and well-being among Filipino high school students. School
Psychology Quarterly, 33, 428–438.
Duckworth, A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control and grit: Related but separable de-
terminants of success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 319–325.
Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2011).
Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the national
spelling bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 174–181.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelley, D. R. (2007). Grit:
Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 1087–1101.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit
scale (Grit-S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166–714.
Einhorn, H. J. (1970). The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making.
Psychological Bulletin, 73, 221–230.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberative practice
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363.
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect:
Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school, and marriage. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5, 1–12.
Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic
success: The roles of personality, intelligence, and application. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 1225–1243.
Galton, F. (1892). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London:
Macmillan.
Ganzach, Y. (2000). Parents' education, cognitive ability, educational expectations, and
educational attainment: Interactive effects. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
70, 419–441.
Ganzach, Y. (2014). Adolescents' intelligence is related to family income. Personality and
Individual Differences, 59, 112–115.
Ganzach, Y., & Czaczkes, B. (1995). On detecting nonlinear noncompensatory judgment
strategies: Comparison of alternative regression models. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 61, 168–176.
Ganzach, Y., Saporta, I., & Weber, Y. (2000). Interaction in linear versus logistic models:
A substantive illustration using the relationship between motivation, ability, and
performance. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 237–253.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big
five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. (2014). Predicting school success: Comparing conscientious-
ness, grit, and emotional regulation ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 52,
29–36.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.). Handbook of per-
sonality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2016). Income inequality, social mobility, and the de-
cision to drop out of high school. Brookings papers on economic activity (pp. 333–380).
Spring.
Logan, J. W., Lundberg, O. H., Roth, L., & Walsh, K. R. (2017). The effect of individual
motivation and cognitive ability on student performance outcomes in a distance
education environment. International Journal of the Academic Business World, 13,
83–91.
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2010). Do time management, grit, and self-control relate
154
Learning and Individual Differences 70 (2019) 142–154
to academic achievement independently of conscientiousness? In R. Hicks (Ed.).
Personality and individual differences: Current directions (pp. 79–90). Queensland,
Australia: Australian Academic Press.
MacNamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberative practice and
performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Science, 25, 1608–1618.
Maddala, G. S. (1986). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maier, N. R. F. (1955). Psychology in industry (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Marks, G. N. (2016). The relative effects of socio-economic, demographic, non-cognitive,
and cognitive influences on student achievement in Australia. Learning and Individual
Differences, 49, 1–10.
Mendolia, S., & Walker, I. (2015). Youth unemployment and personality traits. IZA
Journal of Labor Economics, 4, 1–26.
Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-
Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016.
(NCES 2016-007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics.
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,
116–130.
Nonis, S. A., & Wright, D. (2003). Moderating effects of achievement striving and situa-
tional optimism on the relationship between ability and performance outcomes of
college students. Research in Higher Education, 44, 327–346.
O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-
secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and aca-
demic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338.
Reed, J., Pritschet, B. L., & Cutton, D. M. (2012). Grit, conscientiousness, and the trans-
theoretical model of change for exercise behavior. Journal of Health Psychology, 18,
612–619.
Rimfeld, K., Kovas, Y., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2016). True grit and genetics: Predicting
academic achievement from personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
111, 780–789.
Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J., & Hill, P. L. (2014). What is
conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50,
1315–1330.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.
Schmidt, F. T. C., Fleckenstein, J., Retelsdorf, J., Eskreis-Winkler, L., & Möller, J. (2017).
Measuring grit: A german validation and a domain-specific approach to grit. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication https://econtent.
hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1015-5759/a000407.
Shanahan, M. J., Bauldry, S., Roberts, B. W., Macmillan, R., & Russo, R. (2014).
Personality and the reproduction of social class. Social Forces, 93, 209–240.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2014). What role does grit play in the academic success of black male
collegians at predominantly white institutions? Journal of African American Studies,
18, 1–10.
Sturman, E. D., & Zappala-Piemme, K. (2017). Development of the grit scale for children
and adults and its relationship to student efficacy, test anxiety, and academic per-
formance. Learning and Individual Differences, 59, 1–10.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
West, M. R., Kraft, M. A., Finn, A. S., Martin, R. E., Duckworth, A. L., Gabrieli, C. F. O., &
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2016). Promise and paradox: Measuring students' non-cognitive
skills and the impact of schooling. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38,
148–170.
Winne, P. H. (2013). Learning strategies, study skills, and self-regulated learning in post-
secondary education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (pp. 337–403). Netherlands: Springer.
Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 177–185.
Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relation with college
students' self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and
Learning, 10, 293–311.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1986). Becoming a self-regulated learner: Which are the key sub-
processes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 307–313.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An over-
view. Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.