Furn Ham 2009

Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
769
The
British
Psychological
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2009), 79, 769–782
q 2009 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five

personality traits, approaches to learning
and cognitive ability predictors of academic
performance
Adrian Furnham*, Jeremy Monsen and Gorkan Ahmetoglu

Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK
Background. Both ability (measured by power tests) and non-ability (measured by

preference tests) individual difference measures predict academic school outcomes.
These include fluid as well as crystalized intelligence, personality traits, and learning
styles. This paper examines the incremental validity of five psychometric tests and the
sex and age of pupils to predict their General Certificate in Secondary Education
(GCSE) test results.
Aims. The aim was to determine how much variance ability and non-ability tests can
account for in predicting specific GCSE exam scores.
Sample. The sample comprised 212 British schoolchildren. Of these, 123 were
females. Their mean age was 15.8 years (SD 0.98 years).
Method. Pupils completed three self-report tests: the Neuroticism–Extroversion–
Openness-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) which measures the ‘Big Five’ personality
traits, (Costa & McCrae, 1992); the Typical Intellectual Engagement Scale (Goff &
Ackerman, 1992) and a measure of learning style, the Study Process Questionnaire
(SPQ; Biggs, 1987). They also completed two ability tests: the Wonderlic Personnel Test
(Wonderlic, 1992) a short measure of general intelligence and the General Knowledge
Test (Irving, Cammock, & Lynn, 2001) a measure of crystallized intelligence. Six months
later they took their (10th grade) GCSE exams comprising four ‘core’ compulsory
exams as well as a number of specific elective subjects.
Results. Correlational analysis suggested that intelligence was the best predictors of
school results. Preference test measures accounted for relatively little variance.
Regressions indicated that over 50% of the variance in school exams for English
(Literature and Language) and Maths and Science combined could be accounted for by
these individual difference factors.
Conclusions. Data from less than an hour’s worth of testing pupils could predict
school exam results 6 months later. These tests could, therefore, be used to reliably
inform important decisions about how pupils are taught.
* Correspondence should be addressed to Professer Adrian Furnham, Department of Psychology, University College London,
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK (e-mail: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk).
DOI:10.1348/978185409X412147
770 A. Furnham et al.
This study is concerned with individual difference predictors in school grades. Over
the past few years there has been a flurry of papers concerned with personality, and
ability predictors of academic achievement both at University (Chamorro-Premuzic,
Furnham, & Ackerman, 2006; Farsides & Woodfield, 2006; Martin, Montgomery, &
Saphian, 2006; Thompson & Zamboanga, 2004), as well as among schoolchildren
(Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandes, 2007; Furnham & Monsen, 2009; Heaven,
Ciarrochi, & Vialle, 2007; Landra, Pullman, & Allik, 2007). A very useful review has
recently appeared on Big Five predictors of post-secondary academic performance
(AP) which implicates Conscientiousness as the best trait predictor of exam success
(O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). These studies are essentially concerned about which
factors best predict specific, as well as overall, grades and how much variance they
account for. This study is in that tradition. It focuses on typical intellectual engagement
(TIE) as a predictor of school success. Results in this area have obvious educational
implications for pupil selection and training and the interpretation of the cause of
exam results.
Personality and intelligence as predictors of AP

Cognitive ability tests were designed specifically to measure innate ability while
achievement tests (e.g. IQ or g) have been specifically designed to predict individual
differences in learning and educational outcomes (Brody, 2000; Harris, 1940). AP has
been used to validate ability tests for over a century and there is longstanding evidence
for the predictive validity of g and IQ in educational settings (Chamorro-Premuzic, &
Furnham, 2005, 2006).
In a study of over 70,000 English schoolchildren Deary et al. (2007) found
intelligence was significantly related to school performance in 25 different subjects at
age 16 years. The overall correlation was r ¼ :81, and despite no difference in general
intelligence girls performed significantly better than boys on all subjects, except
Physics. Correlations between intelligence and art and humanities subjects (e.g. English)
ranged from r ¼ :47 to :67, while for the Sciences (e.g. Mathematics) ranged from
r ¼ :46 to :77.
However, recent research has emphasized the importance of looking at non-
cognitive or non-ability predictors of educational achievement (Chamorro-Premuzic &
Furnham, 2006). Whereas ability tests are useful indicators of what a person can do
(maximal performance), non-cognitive factors may provide useful information about
what a person will do (typical performance; Cronbach, 1949). The most coherent
framework and consistent results have derived from studies on the five-factor model
(FFM) or Big Five personality traits, which asserts individual differences in normal
behaviour should be classified in terms of five orthogonal or independent dimensions,
namely Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. These dimensions reflect individual differences in stable disposi-
tions and preferences that determine each individual’s characteristic patterns of
thought, emotionality and behaviour; they represent aggregated measures of indi-
viduals’ behaviour and can be assessed through self- or other-reports (Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa,
1997). The acceptance of the Big Five as the major taxonomy for classifying individual
differences in personality has made it easier for differential researchers to explore the
correlates or consequential outcomes of personality, including AP, and communicate
findings in the same language (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006).
TIE, learning style and cognitive ability 771
Recent research has suggested that most of the Big Five traits are significantly related
to AP (Farsides & Woodfield, 2006). In particular, Conscientiousness is positively and
consistently correlated with different academic outcomes (e.g. exams, essays,
continuous assessment, and supervised dissertations), possibly due to the motivated,
hard-working, responsible, and achievement-oriented nature of highly conscientious
individuals (Heaven et al., 2007; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007). In addition, Neuroticism
has been found to be a negative predictor of AP in most settings, particularly when
students are assessed via final examinations (as these are more likely than other
assessment methods to elicit arousal and stress; Landra et al., 2007). Openness to
Experience has been significantly associated with academic outcomes in some studies,
but not others (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a,b, 2004, 2005; Furnham &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004). The literature has yielded more ambiguous results in regard
to Extraversion (Wolf & Ackerman, 2005), which seems positively related to AP during
primary school and beginnings of secondary school, but negatively thereafter
(particularly when independent, knowledge-based studying is required).
This pattern of results clearly shows that personality traits, like intelligence, can
significantly affect levels of AP. At higher levels of formal education (undergraduate
degrees onwards) personality traits seem increasingly useful to predict AP because
cognitive ability levels become more homogeneous and restricted in range. This is
particularly noticeable in competitive and highly selective programs, where students
have already been pre-selected on the basis of their intellectual ability and non-cognitive
traits – including those referring to motivational aspects of individual differences – are
more functional explaining future success. Thus, the predictive power of ability tests
tends to drop as students progress and advance to higher levels of formal education,
whereas the opposite occurs with personality measures (Ackerman, 1994; Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Jensen, 1980). This study will look at Big Five trait
correlates of school exam results.
The TIE Scale

Goff and Ackerman (1992) conceptualized TIE as a measure of an individual’s typical
(not maximal) level of intelligence. It is similar but different from other self-report
measures like Openness to Experience (Ferguson & Patterson, 1998; Rocklin,
1994), Locus of Control (Ferguson, 1999), Need for Cognition (Woo, Harms, & Kuncel,
2007), Approach to learning (Furnham, Arleche, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Ackerman, in
press), and General knowledge (Ackerman, 2000). The TIE measures levels of
intellectual investment – an idea previously considered by Cattell (1971). Goff and
Ackerman (1992) posits that an individual’s level of intellectual investment will have
positive developmental effects on the acquisition of adult skills and knowledge. This
implies that typical performance may be as important in determining future intellectual
competence as maximal performance.
Furthermore, TIE may refer to aspects of typical performance not encompassed by
other personality traits learning approaches or cognitive needs. This makes it potentially
valuable for expanding our understanding of individual differences, in particular with
regard to the dispositional or trait determinants of educational achievement. Although,
studies have examined the relationship of TIE with both personality and intelligence
measures (Ackerman & Goff, 1994; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Rocklin, 1994), there seems
no empirical test for the idea that TIE may account for individual differences in
educational achievement beyond established personality and ability constructs.
Woo et al. (2007) have recently demonstrated high positive significant correlations
between TIE, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Need for Cognition.
Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, and Ackerman (2006) looked at the incremental
validity of the TIE over psychometric general intelligence and the Big Five personality
factors in predicting four different measures of university undergraduate performances.
For their final exams intelligence accounted for 6% of the variance, personality, and
additional 7% and TIE additional 9% indicating that these three measures could predict
exam scores 3 years after the tests were administered. Indeed, they found that TIE was a
better predictor of AP than personality and intelligence. This study examines the
predictive power of TIE to account for exam success in schoolchildren.
However, at least three other groups of variables have been linked to academic
success: personality traits, approaches to learning and intelligence. It is the aim of this
study to see whether TIE can account for any unique variance in explaining scholastic
success.
Learning approaches
There are a very large number of concepts and measures that attempt to describe
learning/cognitive style (Furnham, 2002) and strategies (Bidjerano & Dai, 2007). The
study will focus on one measure of this type namely approaches to learning. This
research is based on one measure designed specifically to investigate student
approaches to learning and studying (Biggs, 1993, 1995, 2001). Biggs (1987)
distinguishes between three approaches to learning namely deep, achieving, and
surface. Further, he distinguished between the motive to use one or other approach and
a strategy. Thus his measure, the Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ) is designed to
provide six subscale scores: Surface Motive and Strategy; Deep Motive and Strategy and
Achieving Motive and Strategy which are then combined into three scores in line with
the theory.
There have, over the years, been many studies using the SPQ. Some have looked at its
psychometric properties (Fox, Manus, & Winder, 2001). Others have examined the
concurrent validity and overlap with similar constructs and learning approaches (Duff,
Boyle, Dunleavy, & Ferguson, 2004). Two particular groups of studies are directly
relevant to this paper. The first is studies that examined the relationship between the
SPQ and measures of the Big Five personality traits (FFM). Zhang (2003) reported a study
using Chinese students looking at the NEO and the SPQ. She found personality
accounted for between 14 and 25% of the variance for each of the six strategies.
Specifically, she found surface motive was predicted statistically by high scores on
Neuroticism and Extraversion and low scores on Openness to Experience; deep motive
by high scores on Conscientiousness and Openness; achieving motive by high scores on
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Extraversion but low scores on Agreeableness;
surface strategy by high scores on Neuroticism and Extraversion but low scores on
Openness; deep strategy by high scores on Conscientiousness and Openness but low
scores on Agreeableness; and achieving strategy by high scores on conscientiousness
and Agreeableness. She noted that Conscientiousness and Openness traits contributed
the most in accounting for the differences in students’ learning approaches. Further,
Conscientiousness was a good predictor for both the deep and the achieving
approaches, while Openness significantly predicted the deep approach to learning.
Neuroticism was a good predictor for the surface approach to learning, whereas
Agreeableness predicted a learning approach that is not achieving.
However, and perhaps more importantly, are the studies that sought to determine
whether SPQ dimensions were related to actual academic outcome. Diseth (2003) used
examination grades in a 4 hr essay examination in two groups of Norwegian
undergraduate students: one of Psychology and the other of Philosophy. Participants
also completed the Big Five Personality inventory. They found a significant negative
correlation between surface approach and academic achievement. For the Philosophy
students the achievement approach was positively correlated with Neuroticism,
Openness and the deep approach, and negatively correlated with Agreeableness.
Academic achievement was predicted by approaches to learning. The relationship
between Openness and achievement was mediated by a deep approach to learning. This
study suggested, therefore, that approaches to learning mediate the relationship
between personality variables and academic achievement.
The focus of this study is which of the cognitive and non-cognitive ability tests
predict senior school exam success; how much total and incremental variance they
account for, and whether these relationships differ as a function of the examination
subject (discipline). The central question is the incremental validity of preference tests
over power tests. That is, from the previous literature it is expected that IQ test results
are the best predictors (highest correlates) of school results. This study focuses on the
incremental validity of TIE, the Big Five, and Approaches to Learning above measures of
intelligence.
Method
Sample
A total of 212 secondary schoolchildren from two British selective schools participated
in this study. In all there were 123 females and 89 males. Their mean age was 15.8 years.
There were no significant gender or age differences on any of the measures.
Measures
Academic performance
This was measured by their General certificate in secondary education (10th Grade
scores). This consists of compulsory and elective subjects. There are four compulsory
subjects: English Language, English Literature, Mathematics, and Science. In addition,
they can take a very wide range of subjects from Drama to Art and Design, Biology to
Business, as well as languages. At selective schools pupils may elect to do as many as
10–12 subjects. They receive grades in letter form A to G. For the purpose of this study a
score of seven was give to A, six to B, etc.
The TIE scale

TIE was operationalized and assessed by the original scale of Goff and Ackerman (1992).
It is a 59-item, self-report inventory that requires participants to respond on a six-point
Likert-type scale to a variety of items assessing the extent to which they seek, engage in,
and enjoy, intellectual activities such as reading philosophy, studying, solving difficult
mental problems, and thinking about several aspects of life. Inevitably, it correlates fairly
highly with trait Openess high scores on the TIE scale represent an individual’s
motivation and tendency to engage in intellectual activities (e.g. arts, philosophical
discussions, and problem solving). Whereas there have been isolated attempts to look at
the subfacets or primary components of TIE (Goff & Ackerman, 1992), the vast majority
of studies identified and scored a single, overall, factor of TIE, with a typical internal
consistency of a ¼ :85 (Ackerman, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001;
Ackerman, Kanfer, & Goff, 1995; Ackerman, & Rolfhus, 1999; Beier, & Ackerman, 2001;
Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996; Rolfhus, & Ackerman, 1996; Rolfhus, &
Ackerman, 1999). The only available data on the test – retest reliability of the TIE derives
from two unpublished studies. The first study examined the test–retest reliability of the
TIE over a 1-month period and using a sample of 150 adults (aged between 18 and 30
years); the second involved 223 psychology undergraduates and look at the test–retest
reliability over a 1-year period. Both studies reported an r ¼ :82.
Psychometric intelligence (g)

The Wonderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1992). This 50-item test is administered in
12 min and measures both crystallized and fluid intelligence, providing a quick and
reliable measure of IQ. Scores can range from 0 to 50, and questions include word
and number comparisons, disarranged sentences, serial analysis of geometric figures,
and story problems that require logical solutions. The test has impressive norms and
correlates very highly ðr ¼ :92Þ with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised.
General Knowledge Test (Irving, Cammock, & Lynn, 2001). This is a 72-item
questionnaire that measures knowledge of six different domains, namely literature,
general science, medicine, games, fashion, and finance. It has been reported to correlate
with general intelligence in the order of r ¼ :40 to :60.
Personality traits
Personality traits were assessed through the NEO-FFI personality inventory of Costa and
McCrae (1992). This 60-item scale is a short self-report version of the NEO-Personality
Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and assesses the five major dimensions of personality.
Responses are computed on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’
(4) to ‘strongly disagree’ (0). There is wide agreement among personality researchers
that these five personality factors are representative of cross-cultural individual
differences in normal behaviour and studies have replicated this taxonomy in a diversity
of samples (Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2005; Digman, 1990; Matthews & Deary,
1998). Although, Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003b) found that primary traits
(subfacets) of the NEO, as assessed by the NEO-PI-R, account for more variance (30%)
than the five major dimensions alone (15%), research is yet to identify and replicate a
consistent pattern or combination of primary traits to predict academic outcomes. In
fact, most of the 30 subfacets seem largely unrelated to AP. Accordingly, and because the
main aim of the present study was to examine the incremental validity of the TIE over
and above establish personality traits, the NEO-FFI was deemed appropriate and the
absence of primary trait measures was considered unimportant.
Study process questionnaire (Biggs, 1987)

This is a 42-item questionnaire that yields six scores. There are three approaches
and two components. The first component is learning motive (why students learn):
the second learning strategy (how students learn). The three approaches are surface
(a reproduction of what is taught to meet the minimum requirement), deep (a real
understanding of what is learned), and achieving (designed specifically to maximise
grade). Thus, there are six subscales: surface-motive, surface-strategy, deep-motive,
deep-strategy, achieving-motive, and achieving-strategy; and each subscale has
seven questions relating to it. The questionnaire has been repeatedly shown to have
satisfactory internal reliability, content, construct, and predictive validities (Biggs,
1987; Furnham, Swami, Arteche, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2008). The questionnaire is
frequently still used in many studies in applied, educational, and personality
psychology.
Procedure
Students were tested in class in the presence of their teachers. Tests, with code rather
than names were scored and matched up with test results on nationally set exams
completed some 10 months after the ability and personality tests were completed.
Ethical clearance was gained from the University and the schools involved.
Results
Table 1 shows the correlations between all the independent, predictor variables. The
bigger block shows the correlations between the predictor variables and the smaller
longer block correlations between predictor and criterion variables. The correlatioons
show, of the Big Five, openness was systematically and logically related to all three
learning approaches, as well as the TIE and two measures of cognitive ability.
Conscientiousness is related to all three learning approaches particularly the achieving
approach. The TIE and the three learning approaches were correlated significantly and
logically while the two IQ measures are correlated r ¼ :71. There were few age and sex
differences except to indicate older children had greater TIE and cognitive ability scores.
Females also scored higher than males on both ability tests.
The second block shows correlations between all predictor variables and the
test results for English, Maths, and the two combined. Five things are very clear from
this table. First, there was surprising similarity in the significant results across the
different criterion scores. The size of the correlations for the TIE and the two IQ
tests were remarkably consistent. Equally where the correlations were non-significant
(i.e. as with all Big five variables except Openness) they too were consistent. Second,
only one personality variable, namely Openness was consistently related to test scores,
however, the size of these correlations were effectively only half the size of those for TIE.
Third, of the other two measures SPQ and TIE, only TIE showed highly consistent
results. It appears that this measure alone accounted for a quarter of the variance.
Fourth, both intelligence tests were closely correlated with the scores in the range
r ¼ :60 – :70. Finally, there was a consistent gender effect with males performing less
well than females.
Two sets of regressions were then computed. The first is shown in Table 2 where all
measures scores (nine self-report measures, two ability test measures, and two
demographic variables) were entered as predictor variables with four sets of criteria
scores all based on exam results. The logic was to enter the demographic variables first
to partial out these effects then enter both IQ measures because of their stability and
Table 1. Correlation matrix showing relationship among all the variables, as well as means and SD.
T T

N E O A C SPQS SPQD SPQA TIE GK W Age Gen Maths Eng (M þ E) (all) Mean SD
N 25.7 7.5
E 2.41** 31.2 6.0
O .15 2.04 28.9 5.7
A 2.14* .12 2.05 27.7 5.7
C 2.15* .05 2.13 .13 29.2 6.0
SPQS .15* 2.07 .30** .01 .24** 46.4 6.8
SPQD .05 .03 .20** .02 .28** .19** 43.1 7.9
SPQA 2.13 .04 2.18** .05 .52** .44* .56 45.7 7.8
TIE 2.04 .01 .51** .08 .13 2.19** .51** .27** 224.2 30.8
GK 2.08 2.02 .40** .04 .00 2.11 .13 .00 .50** 24.9 10.2
W .00 2.02 .30** .04 2.06 2.05 .11 .04 .46** .71 22. 7.6
Age 2.07 .09 .20** .11 2.03 2.08 .07 2.04 .15* .29** .21** 15.8 0.4
Gen 2.07 2.03 .08 2.03 .00 .06 .04 2.03 .06 .31** .22** .20* 0.4 0.5
Maths 2.02 2.00 .20** .09 .08 .05 .16* .18** .42** .68** .66** .23** .37** 3.5 1.4
English 2.02 .02 .28** .06 .08 .02 .15* .15* .42** .67** .68** .23** .28** .84** 3.2 1.5
Total .01 .01 .18** .06 .09 .07 .22** .23** .43** .52** .49** .17* .22** .73** .75** 6.0 2.6
(M þ E)
Total (all) 2.01 2.01 .18** .07 .12 .06 .22** .21** .41** .46** .49** .14* .15* .64** .69** .93** 28.0 10.7
Note. N, Neuroticism; E, Extraversion; O, Openness; A, Agreeableness; C, Conscientious; TIE, Typical intellectual engagement; GK, General Knowledge;
W, Wonderlic; Gen, Gender; Eng, English.
*p , :05; **p , :01; N ¼ 212.
Table 2. Hierarchical regression of the Big Five personality traits, four intelligence measures, three
learning styles, TIE, gender, and age, on the exam scores.
Maths Total
English (þ Literature) (þ Science) (Maths þ English) Total (all)
Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t
Age .18 2.66** .13 2.06* .13 1.85 .11 1.62

Gender .25 3.73** .35 5.47** .19 2.82** .12 21.78
F (2, 212) ¼ 13.02** (2, 212) ¼ 20.16** (2, 212) ¼ 7.02** (2, 212) ¼ 3.62*
Adj R2 .10 .15 .05 .02
WPT .37 5.57** .41 6.24** .35 4.25** .22 2.65**
GK .39 5.60** .31 4.43** .21 2.53* .34 3.81**
F (4, 212) ¼ 61.23** (4, 212) ¼ 63.26** (4, 212) ¼ 22.79** (4, 212) ¼ 18.7**
Adj R2 .53 .54 .29 .25
TIE .07 1.27 .09 1.61 .21 3.15** .19 2.74**
F (5, 212) ¼ 49.45** (5, 212) ¼ 51.51** (5, 212) ¼ 21.01** (5, 212) ¼ 16.95**
Adj R2 .53 .55 .32 .27
N .06 1.00 .08 1.44 .08 1.39 .07 1.09
E .05 .97 .03 .66 .04 .61 .02 .32
O 2.03 2.47 2.11 21.92 2.12 21.63 2.10 21.34
A .04 .73 .05 1.11 .02 .29 .03 .43
C .07 1.60 .07 1.54 .07 1.21 .10 1.63
F (10, 212) ¼ 25.28** (10, 212) ¼ 27.44** (10, 212) ¼ 11.19** (10, 212) ¼ 9.17**
Adj R2 .54 .56 .33 .28
SPQS .07 1.22 .01 .17 .05 .76 .05 .66
SPQD 2.09 21.41 2.09 1.40 2.07 2.82 2.02 2.20
SPQA .15 2.01* .18 2.54* .19 2.20* .12 1.37
F (13, 212) ¼ 20.54** (13, 212) ¼ 22.20** (13, 212) ¼ 9.43** (13, 212) ¼ 7.41**
Adj R2 .55 .57 .34 .28
Note. N, Neuroticism; E, Extraversion; O, Openness; A, Agreeableness; C, Conscientious; TIE, Typical

intellectual engagement; GK, General Knowledge.
*p , :05; **p , :0; N ¼ 212.
known relationships with exam success. Then, the three preference measure blocks
were entered: first TIE because it was the focus of this paper then, the Big Five, then
approaches to learning. The results are consistent. The IQ results provide significant
incremental variance over the demographic variables from 25 (for total scores) to 43%
for English. However, none of the three additional steps provide much evidence of
incremental validity. TIE did show incremental validity over IQ for the total scores but
only addition 2–3% incremental variance. Thus, once ability (power test) results are
taken into consideration preference test scores appear to add little extra variance in
explaining exam marks
Thus, the results for the two core subjects (Language vs. Science) were remarkably
similar. In both 55–57% of the variance was accounted for. Three individual difference
variables were significant predictors: both intelligence test scores and the achieving
learning style. For Maths and Science gender was also a significant predictor: females did
better. The pattern of results was predictably similar for the totalled score on the four
core subjects. The pattern was the same but only a third of the variance accounted for.
The final regression on to the total score for each candidate taking in all core and
elective exam scores showed there were three significant predictor variables that
accounted for just over a quarter of the variance.
But out of interest different regressions were run but this time changing the order
(see Table 3). For instance another set were run with the Big Five as the first block, then
TIE and approaches to learning together, then IQ, and finally demography. Again the
pattern was fairly consistent for the first block of the Big Five. In each analysis, the
regression was marginally significant and in each openness was a significant predictor. It
was strongest for the English papers where it accounted for 9% of the variance. For the
total score both openness and conscientiousness were positive predictors but together
they only accounted for three percentage of the common variance.
Table 3. Hierarchical regression of the Big Five personality traits, four intelligence measures, three
learning styles, TIE, gender, and age, on the exam scores.
English (þ Literature) Maths (þ Science) Total (Maths þ English) Total (all)
Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t
N 2.04 2.51 2.03 2.43 .01 .15 2.00 2.06

E 2.01 2.07 2.02 2.24 .01 .09 2.01 2.14
O .29 4.29** .22 3.22* .20 2.86** .20 2.90**
A .07 1.03 .08 1.20 .05 .77 .06 .87
C .08 1.22 .09 1.27 .11 1.53 .14 1.97*
F (5, 212) ¼ 4.05** (5, 212) ¼ 2.58* (5, 212) ¼ 2.10* (5, 212) ¼ 2.45*
Adj R2 .07 .04 .03 .03
SPQS .18 2.41 .15 1.95* .13 1.75 .11 1.45
SPQD 2.21 22.45** 2.19 22.21* 2.14 21.62 2.10 21.08
SPQA .12 1.26 .13 1.39 .17 1.80 .11 1.15
TIE .46 5.32** .48 5.51** .48 5.43** .43 4.84**
F (9, 212)) ¼ 6.86** (9, 212) ¼ 6.17** (9, 212) ¼ 6.46** (5, 212) ¼ 5.34**
Adj R2 .20 .18 .19 .16
WPT .34 5.04** .29 5.70** .50 3.48** .18 2.07*
GK .42 5.90** .22 5.64** .37 2.60* .31 3.48**
F (11, 212) ¼ 23.76** (11, 212) ¼ 23.47** (11, 212) ¼ 10.80** (5, 212) ¼ 8.83**
Adj R2 .54 .54 .34 .29
Age .03 .51 .03 .56 .05 .48 .01 .08
Gender .09 1.74 .10 4.14** .11 1.63 .01 .21
F (13, 212) ¼ 20.54** (13, 212) ¼ 22.94** (13, 212) ¼ 9.43** (5, 212) ¼ 7.41**
Adj R2 .57 .57 .34 .28
Note. N, Neuroticism; E, Extraversion; O, Openness; A, Agreeableness; C, Conscientious; TIE, Typical

intellectual engagement; GK, General Knowledge.
*p , :05; **p , :01; N ¼ 212.
The second block contained four scores: the three learning approaches and the TIE.
Again results were consistent. The TIE consistently predicted significantly all four-
criterion scores. In all analyses the Deep learning approach was significantly negatively
associated with better scores, twice reaching significance. This analysis revealed that
these two measures led to a 13–16% increase in the variance. The third block included
the two cognitive ability tests. In each case both tests had significant b and they
accounted for an incremental validity of between 13 and 34%. The fourth block
containing sex and age showed little effect. Sex was a significant predictor for Maths and
Science scores and this added an additional three percentage of the variance.
Discussion
There were a number of interesting and potentially important findings from this study.
First, it in part replicated previous studies. Thus in accordance with the results of
Deary et al. (2007) results demonstrated correlations between intelligence test scores
r ¼ :60 to :70 with exam results. Whilst that, and this study, used differently intelligence
test scores the results were remarkably similar. They underlie the seemingly obvious fact
that intelligence tests taken many months, or indeed, years before high school
examinations can predict them very well. Indeed, the final regressional results (see
Table 2) suggested that once intelligence was controlled for personality and approaches
to learning factors had little impact on results.
This study focused on TIE. The correlational results showed TIE highly correlated
with Openness ðr ¼ :51Þ, Deep Approaches to Learning ðr ¼ :31Þ, General Knowledge
ðr ¼ :50Þ, and all exam results ð:43 , r . :41Þ. However, in the regression it had little
impact on the results over intelligence. It should be pointed out though it did show
some incremental variance for total scores which the Big Five and the approaches to
learning did not. Also in the second ‘alternative order’ regression (see Table 3) it showed
an incremental variance of between 13 and 16% over the Big Five in predicting the two
totalled scores
This study supported previous studies that showed that Openness to Experience
was a consistent significant, albeit relatively small, contributor to the variance
accounted for by exam grades. Previous work, mainly done with post secondary
scholars seemed to suggest that Conscientiousness was the best predictor of exam
success. However, many studies have shown that Openness is correlated with
cognitive ability and hence it may be presumed that this is acting more like a
self-report ability measure (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Furnham et al.,
2008). However, the correlation between Openness and Tie is large ðr ¼ :51Þ in this
study and when the two are put in regressions it seems TIE accounts for more of the
variance (see Tables 2 and 3).
Other studies have looked at the combined effect of non-cognitive (primarily Big Five
or Gigantic three traits) and cognitive trait scores of academic success (Furnham &
Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004). These studies have used different measures of the predictor
variables and different criteria and used widely different groups to test hypotheses.
Hence there is no clear pattern in the results with some suggesting that cognitive ability
predicts more of the variance and some suggesting non-cognitive ability predicts more
of the variance. Different results are also a result of the regression model proposed.
Thus, comparing Tables 2 and 3 it is clear that whilst intelligence accounts for most of
the variance the order of the variables can increase or decrease the role of particular
preference variables like the Big Five personality traits
This study went further than those studies by investigating two factors in addition to
the traditional Big Five trait measures and standard IQ test scores. Approaches to
learning have attracted interest over the years but have used various very different tests.
Duff et al. (2004) found deep learning approaches negatively correlated with academic
success in social science undergraduates but that overall approaches to learning were
only very weakly related to AP. Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham, and Lewis (2007) in a
study of 158 graduates found Deep learning positively correlated with exam results and
could account for nearly 18% of the variance.
This study showed that the Deep and Achieving approaches to learning were
correlated with exam success. Interestingly, the Deep learning was negatively associated
with exam success (in Languages and Science) in the final hierarchical regression. This
suggests pragmatic students do well rather than those intrinsically motivated to learn
and fully understand issues.
This study did show the predictive validity of the TIE instrument. Chamorro-
Premuzic et al. (2006) also noted the predictive validity of TIE in accounting for AP in
university students. In that study they found TIE accounted for about five to ten
percentage of incremental variance through result did vary according to which exam
was being used. TIE may be considered a self-report measure of learning interest and
ability. It is highly correlated with similar measures like Openness (in this study r ¼ :51)
and need for cognition (Woo et al., 2007). It appears therefore, to be a very useful and
efficient measure for understanding and predicting academic success in schoolchildren
and university students.
Success in school exams is a function of many things including scholar individual
differences, teaching style and quality, and home factors. This study has shown that
personality trait difference factors can account for a quarter of the variance in outcome
in core subjects for 10th Grade pupils. Whilst cognitive ability is no doubt the biggest
contributor to academic outcomes this study has shown that trait and style measures
can contribute significantly to these outcomes.
References
Ackerman, P. L. (1994). Intelligence, attention, and learning: Maximal and typical performance. In
D. K. Detterman (Ed.), Current topics in human intelligence: Theories of intelligence
(pp. 1–27). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ackerman, P. L. (2000). Domain-specific knowledge as the ‘dark matter’ of adult intelligence:
Gf/gc, personality and interest correlates. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences
and Social Services, 55, 69–84.
Ackerman, P. L., & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement and personality: Reply to
Rocklin (1994). Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 150–153.
Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfhus, E. L. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence: Knowledge, abilities, and
non-ability traits. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314–330.
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. B., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual
differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
797–825.
Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive determinants and
consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1,
270–304.
Arteche, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ackerman, P. & Furnham, A. (2009). Typical intellectual
engagement as a by product of openness, learning approaches and self-assessed intelligence.
Educational Psychology, 29, 357–367.
Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2001). Current events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age,
intelligence and non-ability determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16, 615–628.
Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-
regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 69–81.
Biggs, J. (1987). The study process questionnaire manual. Hawthorn: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 3–19.
Biggs, J. (1995). Learning in the classroom. In J. Biggs & D. Watkins (Eds.), Classroom learning:
Educational psychology for the Asian teacher (pp. 147–166). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Biggs, J. (2001). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang
(Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brody, N. (2000). History of theories and measurements of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of intelligence (pp. 16–33). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal studies on British University students. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 319–338.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality traits and academic exam
performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237–250.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model to understand the personality-
intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent
personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10,
251–267.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Ackerman, P. (2006). The incremental validity of the
typical intellectual engagement scale as predictor of different academic performance
measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 261–264.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Lewis, M. (2007). Personality and approaches to learning
predict preference for different teaching methods. Learning and Individual Differences, 17,
241–250.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO
five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Halpern.
Deary, I., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational achievement.
Intelligence, 35, 13–21.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Diseth, A. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement.
European Journal of Personality, 17, 143–155.
Duff, A., Boyle, E., Dunleavy, K., & Ferguson, J. (2004). The relationship between personality,
approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1907–1920.
Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2006). Individual and gender differences in ‘good’ and ‘first class’
undergraduate degree performance. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 467–483.
Ferguson, A. (1999). A facet and factor analysis of typical intellectual engagement. Social
Behaviour and Personality, 27, 545–562.
Ferguson, A., & Patterson, F. (1998). The five factor model of personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 24, 789–796.
Fox, R., McManus, I., & Winder, B. (2001). The shortened study process questionnaire. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 511–530.
Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, style preference and individual development. In M. Pearn (Ed.),
Individual differences and development in organisations (pp. 89–105). London: Wiley.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of

statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022.
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Moutafi, J. (2005). Personality and intelligence: gender,
the Big Five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 13, 11–24.
Furnham, A., & Monsen, J. (2009). Personality traits and intelligence predict academic school
grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 28–33.
Furnham, A., Swami, V., Aertche, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2008). Cognitive ability, learning
approaches and personality correlates of general knowledge. Educational Psychology, 28,
427–437.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality–intelligence relations: Assessment of typical
intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–553.
Harris, D. (1940). Factors affecting college grades: A review of the literature, 1930–1937.
Psychological Bulletin, 37, 125–166.
Heaven, P., Ciarrochi, J., & Vialle, W. (2007). Conscientiousness and eysenckian psychoticism as
predictors of school grades. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 535–546.
Irving, P., Cammock, T., & Lynn, R. (2001). Some evidence for the existence of a general factor of
semantic memory and its components. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 857–871.
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Uses of sibling data in educational and psychological research. American
Educational Research Journal, 17, 153–170.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivational skills and self-regulation for
learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 185–209.
Landra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allick, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic
achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 441–451.
Martin, J., Montgomery, R., & Saphian, D. (2006). Personality, achievement test scores and high
school percentiles as predictors of academic performance across four years of coursework.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 424–431.
Matthews, G., & Deary, I. J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American
Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
O’Connor, M., & Paunonen, S. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic
performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes.
Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 81–821.
Rocklin, T. (1994). Relation between typical intellectual engagement and openness: Comment on
Goff and Ackerman. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 145–149.
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Self-report knowledge: At the crossroads of ability,
interest, and personality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 174–188.
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Assessing individual differences in knowledge:
Knowledge structures and traits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 511–526.
Thompson, R., & Zamboanga, B. (2004). Academic aptitude and prior knowledge as predictors of
student achievement in introduction to psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,
778–784.
Wolf, M., & Ackerman, P. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 531–542.
Wonderlic, E. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test. Illinois: Libertyville Press.
Woo, S., Harms, P., & Kuncel, N. (2007). Integrating personality and intelligence: Typical
intellectual engagement and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 43,
1635–1639.
Zhang, L. F. (2003). Does the big five predict learning approach? Personality and Individual
Differences, 34, 1431–1446.
Received 15 January 2008; revised version received 5 January 2009

Furn Ham 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Furn Ham 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five

Adrian Furnham*, Jeremy Monsen and Gorkan Ahmetoglu

Background. Both ability (measured by power tests) and non-ability (measured by

770 A. Furnham et al.

Personality and intelligence as predictors of AP

TIE, learning style and cognitive ability 771

The TIE Scale

772 A. Furnham et al.

TIE, learning style and cognitive ability 773

The TIE scale

774 A. Furnham et al.

Psychometric intelligence (g)

Study process questionnaire (Biggs, 1987)

TIE, learning style and cognitive ability 775

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

TIE, learning style and cognitive ability 777

Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t

Age .18 2.66** .13 2.06* .13 1.85 .11 1.62

Note. N, Neuroticism; E, Extraversion; O, Openness; A, Agreeableness; C, Conscientious; TIE, Typical

778 A. Furnham et al.

English (þ Literature) Maths (þ Science) Total (Maths þ English) Total (all)

Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t Std. B t

N 2.04 2.51 2.03 2.43 .01 .15 2.00 2.06

Note. N, Neuroticism; E, Extraversion; O, Openness; A, Agreeableness; C, Conscientious; TIE, Typical

TIE, learning style and cognitive ability 779

780 A. Furnham et al.

TIE, learning style and cognitive ability 781

782 A. Furnham et al.

Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as predictors of

Received 15 January 2008; revised version received 5 January 2009

You might also like