Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 28 33

www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Personality traits and intelligence predict academic school grades

Adrian Furnham , Jeremy Monsen
Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAP, United Kingdom
Received 22 March 2007; received in revised form 15 January 2008; accepted 3 February 2008

Abstract
This study examines the extent to which personality traits and intelligence scores predict school level academic performance (AP), (British
GCSE: General Certificate of Secondary Education; America Grade 10) in different disciplines. The participant sample consisted of approximately
250 school pupils from three schools in the South East of England. A series of hierarchical regressions were performed with participant disciplinespecific subject grades being the criterion variable and demographic, as well and intelligence and personality test scores, the predictor variables.
For overall grade intelligence accounted for a fifth of the variance and personality an incremental validity of 8%. Whilst a combination of
intelligence, personality and sex accounted for around a quarter of the variance in all four core subjects the pattern was rather different for elected
subjects. The results are discussed in terms of the usefulness of psychometric assessments of candidates at selection.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Personality traits; Intelligence; School grades; Academic performance

1. Introduction
There has been much controversy concerning which individual difference variables can, and should, be used to assess a
person's success or failure in academic performance (AP)
(Gottfredson, 2003; Wolfe, 1972). There is currently ample
evidence that measures of intelligence are effective predictors of
academic performance across educational settings (ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2005). An individual's personality can
also influence how capable they are in accumulating and
processing information (Barratt, 1995; Barrick & Mount, 1996;
Blickle, 1996) which, in turn, predicts how they score on ability
tests.
Recent studies have specifically shown that there may be a
significant relationship between personality and intelligence,
and how they can predict a range of academic outcomes
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a,b, 2004, 2005;
Farsides & Woodfield, 2003). Much of the research has shown
the link between personality and AP in university settings.

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.furnham@ucl.ac.uk (A. Furnham).
1041-6080/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.02.001

Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005) noted IQ scores

predict school success in 6 to 12 year olds around r = .60, but
drop to r = .50 for secondary school (1318yrs), r = .40 for
university undergraduates (1922yr olds) and r = .30 for
postgraduates. The predictive power of cognitive ability test
scores declines as formal education proceeds from primary to
tertiary education, because of range restrictions of IQ scores as
one advances in educational attainment not in the reduced
predictive value of general intelligence in academic attainment.
Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2003a) investigated the
relationship between personality traits and AP in a three year
longitudinal study with two samples of British university
students The results indicated that personality is significantly
related to AP and that the Big Five accounted for approximately
15% of the variance in grades. Farsides and Woodfield (2003) in
another British study, examined 432 university students and
found Openness to Experience and Agreeableness predicted
final grades. They found that verbal intelligence, Openness and
a record of absences could explain over 40% of the variance in
final grade scores. Similarly in a study of 175 American
students examined over a 5year period Lounsbury, Sundstrom,
Loveland and Gibson (2003) found intelligence could account
for 16% of the variance in course grade results, the Big Five

A. Furnham, J. Monsen / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 2833

personality factors an additional 7% and work drive a further

4%.
Some recent studies have looked at school-aged children's
performance and the extent to which personality and intelligence
factors predict academic achievement (Petrides, Frederickson &
Furnham, 2004). Rindermann and Neubauer (2001) found
personality and intelligence both significantly correlated with
processing speed which was in turn strongly related to high
school grades. Furnham, Rinaldelli-Tabaton and ChamorroPremuzic (submitted for publication) examined personality and
intelligence predictors of British students GCSE scores (10th
grade) and found that intelligence was a better predictor than
personality for science subjects but the reverse for languages.
Intelligence accounted for around 10% of the variance
and Conscientiousness a further 13% for overall academic
attainment.
Deary, Strand, Smith and Fernandes (2006) obtained IQ test
scores and GCSE results from over 70,000 scholars and found a
correlation of r = .81 between the overall latent intelligence
and educational achievement scores. Intelligence accounted
for 59% of the variance in Mathematics, 48% in English, 44%
in Geography, 40% in History and 24% in Information
Technology.
This study will examine personality and intelligence test
correlates of GCSE exam (10th grade) performance using a
different IQ test used by Deary et al. (2006). It should be pointed
out that these exams have required and elective components.
All scholars are required to sit four exams: English Language,
English Literature, Maths and Science. They elect to do
additional topics. This study set out to examine a) which,
among the Big Five Factors can predict academic performance
at high-school level (as measured by public examination grades
at 10th grade), b) whether, and to what extent, psychometric
intelligence can predict academic performance, c) whether
personality will show incremental validity in the prediction of
academic performance, over intelligence test scores (and
demographic variables) and d) whether arts or science subjects
show a different pattern of correlates.
H1. Personality traits will be significantly related to academic
performance (see Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a). In
particular it is expected that;
H1a. There will be a significant positive correlation between
Conscientiousness and AP. It is possible that conscientiousness
has a curvilinear relationship with AP (Cucina & Vasilopoulos,
2005; Vasilopoulos, Cucina & Hunter, 2007). Conscientious
students are likely to work hard, complete work, strive to achieve
and have high attendance, which we would expect to help those
students achieve higher academic grades (Chamorro-Premuzic
& Furnham, 2003a; De Raad, 1996).
H1b. There will be a significantly negative correlation between
Extraversion and AP. This would support traits associated with
extraverts, they are more likely to be distracted by others and
therefore spend less time studying. This was found in a study
by Rolfhus and Ackerman (1996) who reported negative
associations between several knowledge tests and extraversion.

29

H1c. There will be a significant negative correlation between

Neuroticism and AP. This is based on the understanding that
those who are neurotic have low emotion stability, which will
lead them to feel stressed and anxious during periods of
examination and this will inadvertently affect their academic
performance (Furnham & Mitchell, 1991; Zeidner & Matthews,
2000).
H1d. There will be a significant positive correlation between
Openness to Experience and AP. This is based on findings,
which have shown that those who have open characteristics
will a higher degree of creativity and intellectual ability (Goff
& Ackerman, 1992), which can assist performance (Ackerman
& Heggestad, 1997).
H2. There will be a significant correlation between psychometric intelligence scores and AP. This would support findings,
which demonstrate cognitive intelligence testing being the
main predictive variable for AP (Gottfredson, 2003; Wolfe,
1972).
H3. Personality traits will show incremental validity in the
prediction of AP. This is based on research, which has shown
that personality measures can account for an ample amount of
variance for AP above psychometric intelligence (ChamorroPremuzic & Furnham, 2003a,b; Petrides et al., 2004).
H4. Intelligence test scores will be strongest predictors of
results in sciences (maths, science) while personality trait
factors will be strongest predictors is arts subjects particularly
languages. This is based on the recent work of Furnham,
Rinaldelli-Tabaton and Chamorro-Premuzic (submitted for
publication) who argued logical analysis is important in the
sciences but social confidence (i.e. stable extraversion)
particularly useful in arts subjects particularly the learning of
languages.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample was composed of 334 (58.7% males and 41.3%
females) students from three secondary schools in the South
East of England: two selective and one non-selective in their
admissions policy. A Boys Grammar School N = 163; Girls
Grammar School N = 103; Mixed Comprehensive N = 68. Of
these 37.7% were 15years old and 62.3% were 16years old. The
GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) requirements for A-Level entry are A to G grades. Grades are based
on groups A = over 80%, B between 70 and 79, C between 60
and 69, etc. All students who participated were in their 10th
grade. All students were fluent English speakers.
2.2. Measures
1. Academic performance: Schools provided scholars' GCSE
results, which are graded from A to G. These were done for
all subjects/disciplines entered by the pupils. These were
then assigned numerical ratings from 1 to 7 with a 7

30

A. Furnham, J. Monsen / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 2833

Table 1
Distribution of results for each subject (grades A to F)

the region of r = .50 to r = .60 (Furnham et al., 2003;

Furnham & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2004).

Subject

English Language
English Literature
French
Geography
German
History
IT
Maths
Religion
Science

265
264
169
109
105
128
214
266
144
264

6.0
21.9
16.5
8.2
19.0
14.8
10.2
18.7
6.9
13.2

40.2
36.2
29.4
40.0
28.1
43.0
27.0
32.6
34.0
25.3

38.7
25.3
36.5
40.0
27.6
28.9
37.2
37.8
31.9
25.7

14.7
13.6
16.5
11.8
12.4
10.2
19.5
10.1
20.8
27.5

0.4
3.0
1.2
0
2.9
2.3
4.7
0.4
5.6
7.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.4
0.4
0.7
0.4

representing the highest score. In Great Britain the primary

purpose of GCSEs is to assess pupil's attainment at the end
of compulsory Secondary education. GCSEs are exams
usually a combination of coursework and a final external
examination, which are often studied through a two-year
period and assessed in the final year.
2. Personality: Personality was assessed using the NEO FiveFactor Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae,
1992). The NEO-PI-R is a well established 60-item questionnaire which measures the Big Five personality factors:
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
3. Cognitive ability:
A. The Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT; Wonderlic, 1992)
was used to measure cognitive ability. This psychometric
test consists of 50 questions based on general knowledge
and is a reliable measure of general cognitive ability. The
test takes 12min and scores can range from 0 to 50. The
WPT manual demonstrates ample evidence of concurrent
validity, as well as reliability. The WPT correlates with
the WAIS-R, r = 0.92.
B. The Baddeley Reasoning Test (Baddeley, 1960). This is a
3-minute 60 item test of fluid intelligence. Each item is
presented in the form of a grammatical transformation
(A precedes B: BA or A does not follow B: AB) which
has to be answered either true or false. It has been shown
to correlate highly with much longer intelligence tests in

2.3. Procedure
The study was conducted under the supervision of teachers.
Participants completed personality and intelligence tests
approximately 4months before their exams. Participants were
subjected to a briefing prior to, and after, testing. This included
offering assurances about confidentiality and requesting their
participation. Data were matched up to school records of exams
by use of codes seen only by an Educational Psychologist.
Schools and pupils were later debriefed.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
Preliminary analysis showed that the results from the nonselective school were very different from those of the selective
schools on nearly all criteria. Given the size of this sample they
were dropped from further analyses. Thus the N for most
analyses were around 250 but varied with missing data. Thus
only schools with a selective admission policy were retained
hence there may have been a range restriction in ability which
could possibly lead to an overstatement of the effects of
personality should they appear.
First, the distribution of personality and intelligence scores
were examined against population norms and seemed fine The
score for the Baddeley Reasoning Test was less normally
distributed with 40 students scoring very highly so that the
mean was over two standard deviations above the norm.
Because of this, limited use of the Baddeley test results was
made.
Table 1 shows the results from each subject specifying the
percentages of participants getting each of the various grades.
Participant grades were then intercorrelated (see Table 2).
English Language and Literature were highly significant r = .69
(N = 264, p b .001); and Maths and Science similarly (r = .68,
N = 265, p b .001). English Language was correlated r = .45

Table 2
Means, SDs and correlations between the major variables

Sex (S)
Wonderlic (W)
Baddeley (B)
Neuroticism (N)
Extraversion (E)
Openness (O)
Agreeableness (A)
Conscientiousness (C)
English Language (L)
English Literature (Lit)
Maths (M)
Science (Sc)

SD

Lit

25.50
36.89
35.01
40.72
35.09
37.67
39.11
5.36
5.60
5.57
5.21

5.81
7.78
6.79
4.72
5.40
5.24
4.16
0.82
1.06
0.98
1.18

.27
.46
.04
.12
.09
.11
.01
.44
.40
.17
.26

.45
.00
.17
.08
.16
.02
.41
.32
.41
.39

.00
.04
.01
.12
.02
.35
.34
.23
.32

.03
.00
.09
.13
.10
.12
.27
.18

.06
.07
.17
.24
.17
.17
.18

.04
.14
.01
.00
.07
.04

.03
.09
.02
.06
.09

.12
.17
.12
.16

.69
.45
.55

.39
.52

.68

Correlations were two tailed. Correlations N.12 were p b .05, those r N.17, p b 001.

A. Furnham, J. Monsen / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 2833

31

Table 3
Regression results for the compulsory subjects (N = 240)
English Language

English Literature

Maths

Beta

Beta

Beta

Wonderlic
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Sex

.25
.08
.18
.00
.05
.13
.35

4.34
1.42
3.25
0.11
0.83
2.38
6.60

.18
.08
.14
.04
.03
.20
.34

2.89
1.31
2.40
0.64
0.43
3.36
5.64

Model

Adj. R2

Adj. R2

Wonderlic (IQ)
IQ + Personality
IQ + P + Sex

46.08
11.14
16.26

24.71
7.13
11.48

.16
.20
.30

Total

Beta

Beta

.39
.26
.14
.08
.03
.11
.04

6.53
4.53
2.36
1.34
0.53
1.87
0.60

.32
.14
.13
.01
.05
.19
.16

5.24
2.52
2.22
0.28
0.87
3.15
2.72

.34
.17
.18
.01
.04
.19
.25

5.99
3.21
3.26
0.23
0.80
3.43
4.53

Adj. R2

Adj. R2

Adj. R2

54.49
15.85
13.60

.09
.13
.24

Science

45.92
12.04
11.67

.18
.27
.27

62.12
17.19
18.94

.16
.22
.24

.21
.29
.35

p b .001 p b .01 p b .05 (two tailed).

+ Males = 1; Females = 2.

(N = 266, p b .001) with Maths and r = .55 (N = 264, p b .001)

with Science. Correlation between English Literature and Maths
was r = .39 (N = 265, p b .001) and Science r = .52 (N = 263,
p b .001).
In order to test for sex difference a series of t-tests were
computed. Boys scored significantly higher on both intelligence
tests than girls (Wonderlic: Males X = 26.80, (SD = 5.99);
Females X = 23.58, (SD = 4.98)(t(1,271) = 24.64, p b .001).
Baddeley Reasoning Test: Males M = 43.65 (SD = 17.20);
Females M = 27.06 (SD = 13.51); (t(1,269) = 8.47, p b .001).
There was no sex difference on any of the five personality
scores.
Sex (1 = Female, 2 = Male) was correlated with both
intelligence tests (Wonderlic r = .21, Baddeley r = .40)
which were themselves intercorrelated (r = .49). Contrary to
previous studies results neither Openness (r = .08 and r = .01)
nor Conscientiousness (r = .02 and r = .01) were correlated
with either intelligence test. The Wonderlic Test score correlated
r = .17, p b .01 with Neuroticism, and r = .16 with Agreeableness and positively correlated with all GCSE grades the

highest being Maths (r = .41, p b .001) and English Language

(r = .46) and the lowest being English Literature (r = .32, p b .001).
Boys did significantly better than girls on all required
subjects, English Language (M = 5.65 vs 4.92) (F(1,264) = 7.84,
p b .001), English Literature (M = 5.93 vs 5.07) (F(1,263) =
49.01, p b .001); Maths (M = 5.70 vs 5.36) (t(1,265) = 2.76, p b
.01; and Science (M = 5.32 vs X = 4.68) (t(1,264) = 4.37, p b
.001). On the other hand girls did better than boys on two
elective subjects: History (M = 5.29 vs 6.07, t (1,127) = 4.24, p b
.001); Information Technology (M = 4.81 vs 6.15, F(1,213) =
8.94, p b .001). Boys did better than girls or religion (M = 5.58 vs
4.96, (t(1,143) = 3.33, p b .01).
A series of hierarchical regressions were performed on both
compulsory and elective subjects using subjects where the N
was around or more than 100 and which was completed by both
males and females. First, intelligence (Wonderlic) was entered,
then the Big Five, then sex.
Table 3 shows the results of the four compulsory subjects
individually and the totaled overall grade. IQ (the Wonderlic
score) is consistently significant in all five accounting for

Table 4
Regression results for the elective subjects
French (N = 150)

History (N = 114)

Religion (N = 153)

Geography (N = 96)

German (N = 96)

Beta

Beta

Beta

Beta

Beta

Wonderlic
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Sex

.27
.07
.15
.08
.08
.16
.05

3.13
0.83
1.86
0.97
1.00
1.98
0.58

.17
.31
.20
.01
.02
.23
.40

1.94
3.92
2.37
0.16
0.27
2.77
4.76

.12
.04
.21
.03
.01
.21
.21

1.40
0.45
2.49
0.37
0.15
2.46
2.39

.20
.12
.13
.02
.01
.32
.91

1.90
1.22
1.29
0.19
0.11
2.92
0.83

.21
.00
.09
.16
.07
.17
.13

1.92
0.01
0.82
1.52
0.68
1.53
1.30

Model

Adj. R2

Adj. R2

Adj. R2

Adj. R2

Adj. R2

Wonderlic (IQ)
IQ + Personality (P)
IQ + P + Sex

14.65
3.89
3.37

p b .001 p b .01 p b .05 (two tailed).

.08
.10
.10

1.47
4.83
8.23

.00
.17
.31

6.57
3.38
3.83

.04
.10
.13

6.64
3.63
3.08

.06
.14
.13

2.55
1.37
1.42

.02
.02
.03

32

A. Furnham, J. Monsen / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 2833

between 9% (English Literature) and 21% (totaled) score of

the variance. Neuroticism was always a negative predictor
but significant in only three analyses. Introverts did better on
all five measures and Conscientious participants on four of
the five. The incremental validity of personality over
intelligence varied from 4% (English Language) to 9%
(Maths). As Deary et al. (2006) found females did better than
males.
Regressions were also calculated with the four compulsory
subjects as criteria variable but this time including both
Wonderlic and Baddeley test as the first block in the predictor
variable. The aim was to see how much more variance in total
could be accounted for and whether personality variables were
still able to account for incremental validity. For English
Language the addition of the Baddeley meant intelligence
accounted for 21% of the variance and the Big Five an
additional 6% (F(8,237) = 14.81, p b .001, Adj. R2 = .32). For
English Literature the two intelligence tests accounted for 15%
of the variance and the Big Five an additional 7% (F(8,236) =
11.24, p b .001, Adj. R2). For Maths the two intelligence tests
together accounted for 19% of the variance and the Big five and
additional 8% (F(8,238) = 12.20, p b .001; Adj. R2 = .27) and
for Science the two intelligence tests accounted for 18% of the
variance and the Big Five an additional 6% (F(8,237) = 10.81,
p b .001; Adj. R2 = .25).
Table 4 shows similar regressional analysis for five of the
elective subjects chosen because they were amongst the most
popular at both schools and where the Ns were around or above
100. Intelligence was significant in four of the five subjects (not
Geography) but never accounted for more than 8% of the
variance (French). Personality and sex added very little
additional variance in French and German. Conscientious,
Stable Introverts did better in History and these factors added
17% of the explained variance. Conscientious, Introverts did
better at Religious Studies and Personality accounted for an
additional 6% of the variance. Conscientiousness was the bet
predictor of overall grade in Geography.
4. Discussion
The results showed that the scores in different exams were
positively correlated. These correlational results are similar to
those reported by Deary et al. (2006) in that very much larger
sample. Further as Deary et al. (2006) found girls out performed
boys on nearly all exams despite in this study having lower
scores on the intelligence measure. This cannot be accounted
for in terms of conscientiousness as females were no more
conscientious than males.
The results for the science subjects indicated the importance
of intelligence, as measured by the Wonderlic Personnel Test.
The personality results were also very consistent. Phlegmatic
(i.e. Stable Introverts) Conscientious students did best at
Science. With respect to English language and literature only,
results were broadly similar but there was a stronger effect for
sex. Further Neuroticism did not act as a significant predictor.
Second intelligence tests did not account for as much of the
variance as in Science subjects. Third, for foreign languages (in

this instance French and German), only intelligence and to a

lesser extent Conscientiousness played any part in test scores.
The overall total score regression (for the compulsory
subjects) in Table 3 can be used to discuss the various
hypotheses set out in the introduction. Hypotheses 1a, 1b and 1c
were confirmed. However,1d was not: in none of the regressions
was Open-to-Experience a significant predictor. It may be that
this factor only becomes significant at the tertiary education
level or else of the issue discussed above.
H2 was confirmed in most regressions: that is intelligence
test scores were logically and positively related to secondary
school exam results. Intelligence test scores could account for as
much as 20% of the variance. H3 was also confirmed:
personality test results did show incremental validity above
both demographic and cognitive ability variables. Finally, H4
was confirmed with intelligence accounting for more of the
variance in science compared to arts subjects.
There were somewhat different predictors the compulsory
versus the elective subjects. Thus Extraversion is a significant
negative predictor of all compulsory tests but only two in five of
the elective subjects. This suggests that extraverts are more
successful when they are more interested in their studies and/or
have a sense of greater autonomy and freedom. Equally
Neuroticism seems a less inhibitory trait in the electives vs
the compulsory subjects. Most notably, intelligence is a much
stronger predictor of compulsory than elective exam scores.
Second, the intelligence tests used in this study were
inevitably brief measures. Whilst both had good psychometric
qualities and have been used in many previous studies
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a,b) it would have
been preferable to use a more robust measure like the WISC
such that one could compare verbal and performance subcomponents of the test (Johnson & Bouchard, 2005).
Third, we recognize that this was a one-shot study without
controls. It did not allow for an exploration into understanding
the process of how personality and intelligence factors interact
with teaching experience and exam taking factors to produce the
results they do. However these results do fit in both with
theoretical predictions and previous studies in the area.
However, what this data could not address was the effect of
teaching. Hence it could be argued that if intelligence is
confounded with teaching style (and facilities) it may be that it
is much the latter as the former that relate to AP.
The use of personality tests is both less common and less
controversial though it remains much less clear as to the
educational implications of these findings. One implication may
be to offer special help to anxious, neurotic pupils whose
personality (rather than ability) may negatively affect their
performance. Equally it may be useful to target pupils with low
Conscientiousness scores and help them develop more diligent
study habits.
Acknowledgement
The first author is very grateful to the Nuffield Foundation
for a grant under the Social Sciences small grants scheme (SGS/
0117/A) to support this research.

A. Furnham, J. Monsen / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 2833

References
Ackerman, P., & Heggestad, E. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests:
Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219245.
Baddeley, A. (1960). A 3 min reasoning test based on grammatical
transformation. Psychonomic Science, 10, 341342.
Barratt, E. (1995). History of personality and intelligence theory and research:
The challenge. In D. Saklofske, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International
handbook of personality and intelligencePerspectives on individual
differences. (pp. 313) New York: Plenum.
Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1996). Effects of impression management and selfdeception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 261272.
Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance.
European Journal of Personality, 10, 337352.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A. (2003a). Personality traits and academic
performance. European Journal of Personality, 237250
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A. (2003b). Personality predicts academic
performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal
of Research in Personality, 37, 319338
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for
understanding the personalityintelligence interface. British Journal of
Psychology, 95, 249264.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and Intellectual
Competence. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its
relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6,
343359.
Cucina, J. M., & Vasilopoulos, N. L. (2005). Nonlinear personality
performance relationships and the spurious moderating effects of traitedness.
Journal of Personality, 73, 227259.
Deary, I., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2006). Intelligence and
Educational Achievement. Intelligence, 35, 1321.
De-Raad, B. (1996). Personality traits in learning and education. European
Journal of Personality, 10, 185200.
Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate
academic success: The roles of personality, intelligence and application.
Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 12251243.
Furnham, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2004). Personality and intelligence as
predictors of statistics examination grades. Personality and Individual
Differences, 35, 943955.

33

Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2003). Personality,

cognitive ability, on behalf about intelligence as predictors of academic
performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 4764.
Furnham, A., & Mitchell, J. (1991). Personality, needs, social skills and
academic achievement. A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 10671073.
Furnham, A., Rinaldelli-Tabaton, E., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (submitted for
publication). Personality and intelligence predict academic performance at
school level. Paper under review.
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. (1992). Personalityintelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
84, 537552.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). g, jobs and life. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific
study of general intelligence (pp. 295342). New York: Pergamon.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. (2005). The structure of Human Intelligence.
Intelligence, 33, 393416.
Lounsbury, J., Sundstrom, E., Loveland, J., & Gibson, L. (2003). Intelligence,
Big Five personality traits, and work drive as predictors of course grade.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 12311239.
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait
emotional intelligence in academic performance and deviant behaviour at
school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277293.
Rindermann, H., & Neubauer, A. (2001). The influence of personality on three
aspects of cognitive performance: Processing speed, intelligence and school
performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 829842.
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Self-report knowledge: At the
crossroads of ability, interest and personality. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, 174188.
Vasilopoulos, N. L., Cucina, J. M., & Hunter, A. E. (2007). Personality and
training proficiency: Issues of bandwidth-fidelity and curvilinearity. Journal
of Organisational and Occupational Psychology, 80, 109131.
Wolfe, R. (1972). Perceived locus of control and prediction of own academic
performance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 8083.
Wonderlic, E. (1992). Wonderlic Personnel Test. IL: Libertyville.
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581610). New York, NY,
US: Cambridge University Press.