Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Research Article

Conscientiousness Can Predict Academic Performance – Even in High-Stake Setting

Published Online:November 22, 2023https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000410

Abstract

Abstract: We investigated, to what extent Conscientiousness can predict academic performance in a real application high-stakes setting. N = 267 applicants for a place at a university completed a Conscientiousness questionnaire during the selection process and 6 weeks after they commenced their studies. Students’ academic grades were used as criterion variables. The results suggest that the high-stakes setting increases the level of Conscientiousness reported, that not all applicants change their answers to the same extent and that the high-stakes setting decreases the criterion-related validity, but Conscientiousness remains a useful predictor for academic performance in high-stakes settings.

References

  • Alliger, G. M., & Dwight, S. A. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation of the susceptibility of integrity tests to faking and coaching. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970367 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.261 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bensch, D., Maaß, U., Greiff, S., Horstmann, K., & Ziegler, M. (2019). The nature of faking: A homogeneous and predictable construct? Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000619 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., Davison, H. K., & VanHook, J. B. (2004). Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.150 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Birkeland, S. A., Manson, T. M., Kisamore, J. L., Brannick, M. T., & Smith, M. A. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of job applicant faking on personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(4), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00354.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cham, H., Reshetnyak, E., Rosenfeld, B., & Breitbart, W. (2017). Full information maximum likelihood estimation for latent variable interactions with incomplete indicators. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1245600 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Converse, P. D., Peterson, M. H., & Griffith, R. L. (2009). Faking on personality measures: Implications for selection involving multiple predictors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2009.00450.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Danner, D., & Lechner, C. M. (2023). Supplemental materials to “Conscientiousness can predict academic performance – even in high-stake setting.”. http://osf.io/kusrc First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Deller, J. (2006). Response distortion in personality measurement: Born to deceive, yet capable of providing valid self-assessments? Psychology Science, 48(3), 209–225. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Donovan, J. J., Dwight, S. A., & Schneider, D. (2014). The impact of applicant faking on selection measures, hiring decisions, and employee performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9318-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ellingson, J. E., Sackett, P. R., & Connelly, B. S. (2007). Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: Insights into response distortion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.386 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hossiep, R., & Paschen, M. (2019). Bochumer Inventar zur berufsbezogenen Persönlichkeitsbeschreibung [Business-focused Inventory of Personality] (3rd ed.). Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.581 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hu, J., & Connelly, B. S. (2021). Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta-analysis of within-subject studies. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(3–4), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12338 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. B., & Hammer, B. L. (2003). A field study of frame-of-reference effects on personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.545 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 594–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jeong, Y. R., Christiansen, N. D., Robie, C., Kung, M., & Kinney, T. B. (2017). Comparing applicants and incumbents: Effects of response distortion on mean scores and validity of personality measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(3), 311–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12182 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Krammer, G. (2020). Applicant faking of personality inventories in college admission: Applicants’ shift from honest responses is unsystematic and related to the perceived relevance for the profession. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(6), 758–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1644342 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lee, P., Joo, S.-H., & Fyffe, S. (2019). Investigating faking effects on the construct validity through the Monte Carlo simulation study. Personality and Individual Differences, 150, Article 109491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.07.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Schollaert, E. (2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.268 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mammadov, S. (2022). Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 222–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12663 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 812–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.348 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Subjective career success: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.06.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Niessen, A. S. M., Meijer, R. R., & Tendeiro, J. N. (2017). Measuring non-cognitive predictors in high-stakes contexts: The effect of self-presentation on self-report instruments used in admission to higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.014 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • O’Connell, M. S., Kung, M., & Tristan, E. (2011). Beyond impression management: Evaluating three measures of response distortion and their relationship to job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00563.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11(2–3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.1998.966803 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Paschen, M., & Rust, J. (2008). Business-Focused Inventory of Personality: UK Edition. Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petersen, M. H., Griffith, R. L., Isaacson, J. A., O’Connell, M. S., & Mangos, P. M. (2011). Applicant faking, social desirablility, and the prediction of counterproductive work behaviors. Human Performance, 24, 270–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.580808 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Raymark, P. H., & Tafero, T. L. (2009). Individual differences in the ability to fake on personality measures. Human Performance, 22(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280802541039 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Robie, C., Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., & Zickar, M. J. (2000). Effects of item context specificity on the measurement equivalence of a Personality Inventory. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810034003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sackett, P. R. (2012). Faking in personality assessments: Where do we stand?. In M. ZieglerC. MacCannR. D. RobertsEds., New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 330–344). Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schmitt, N., & Oswald, F. L. (2006). The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.613 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Topping, G. D., & O’Gorman, J. G. (1997). Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(1), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00006-8 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131649921969802 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Schölmerich, F., & Bühner, M. (2010). Predicting academic success with the Big 5 rated from different points of view: Self-rated, other rated and faked. European Journal of Personality, 24(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.753 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., Maaß, U., Griffith, R., & Gammon, A. (2015). What is the nature of faking? Modeling distinct response patterns and quantitative differences in faking at the same time. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 679–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115574518 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar