An In-Depth Review of Conscientiousness and Educational Issues
Saved in:
| Title: | An In-Depth Review of Conscientiousness and Educational Issues |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Spielmann, Julia (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Psychology Review. Dec 2022 34(4):2745-2781. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 37 |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Descriptors: | Personality Traits, Interpersonal Competence, Definitions, Evaluation, Outcomes of Education, Cultural Differences |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10648-022-09693-2 |
| ISSN: | 1040-726X 1573-336X |
| Abstract: | Why does conscientiousness matter for education? How is conscientiousness conceptualized in the field of research on education? How do socio-emotional (SE) skills relate to conscientiousness? In an effort to help answer these questions, we review the current research on conscientiousness in education. Specifically, we examine (1) how conscientiousness is defined, (2) the assessment of conscientiousness, (3) the relation between conscientiousness and educational outcomes, (4) whether too much conscientiousness may be a bad thing, (5) the relation between conscientiousness and conceptually related educational constructs, (6) the changeability of conscientiousness and the importance of that fact to education, and (7) the challenges of assessing conscientiousness across cultures. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2022 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1360160 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGIfmPkOho8sVRvIhJdDb7wAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJ3FBH-v40KlQg52kAIBEICBm_uyrwFKYoTg5qtRC_oNJjYz7cMGvyi4zZovXAjlqwiq-dzpldMgP5Nt0G-JL9_WQnKSwLIsPcxbN2RH6ag6RN7NS8_zlaiUQ28PdH1uXjIlqqyuc0VTswJLQ09KNvTN7dgvAXZr9rODSZpxOwl8td18j4Athvng2m2KT_Q-EdoX1w18zIBreLqPfNXc0eU5AkFMfKugbC2aXOBn Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0161019773;epv01dec.22;2022Dec29.05:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161019773-1">An In-depth Review of Conscientiousness and Educational Issues </title> <p>Why does conscientiousness matter for education? How is conscientiousness conceptualized in the field of research on education? How do socio-emotional (SE) skills relate to conscientiousness? In an effort to help answer these questions, we review the current research on conscientiousness in education. Specifically, we examine (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) how conscientiousness is defined, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) the assessment of conscientiousness, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) the relation between conscientiousness and educational outcomes, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) whether too much conscientiousness may be a bad thing, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) the relation between conscientiousness and conceptually related educational constructs, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>) the changeability of conscientiousness and the importance of that fact to education, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>) the challenges of assessing conscientiousness across cultures.</p> <p>Keywords: Conscientiousness; SE skills; Personality; Education</p> <p>Julia Spielmann and Hee Jun Roy Yoon contributed equally to this work.</p> <p>It is clear that children, adolescents, and adults alike need more than technical knowledge to function optimally when trying to meet the challenges of the world, such as working effectively in groups, understanding how to achieve one's goals, and contributing to the social fabric of society. The realization that educational systems are also tasked with teaching more than cognitive and informational skills highlights the importance of what have been loosely described as social and emotional skills (SE skills; Duckworth &amp; Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref8">66</reflink>]; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref9">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref10">217</reflink>]). With this realization, many different types of social and emotional skills have been cataloged and put forward as critical to students' eventual success. Of these SE skills, those from the domain associated with self-regulation or conscientiousness appear to be some of the most important skills to foster and develop for success in adulthood (Boekarts et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]; Dumfart &amp; Neubauer, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref12">74</reflink>]; Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref13">80</reflink>]; Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref14">179</reflink>]). For the current review, we focus on conscientiousness, which is one of the strongest psychological predictors of educational outcomes and rivals some of the other established predictors of educational success (e.g., self-efficacy, McAbee &amp; Oswald, [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref15">151</reflink>]; Richardson et al., [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref16">184</reflink>]; Trapmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib233" id="ref17">233</reflink>]; Vedel &amp; Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib247" id="ref18">247</reflink>]). Conscientiousness encompasses several overlapping constructs that describe individual differences in the propensity to be self-controlled, responsible to others, hardworking, orderly, and rule abiding (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref19">194</reflink>]).</p> <p>We seek to address key issues about the role of conscientiousness in educational settings. Specifically, we examine (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) how conscientiousness is defined, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>) the assessment of conscientiousness, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>) the relation between conscientiousness and educational outcomes, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>) whether too much conscientiousness may be a bad thing, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref24">5</reflink>) the relation between conscientiousness and conceptually related educational constructs, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref25">6</reflink>) the changeability of conscientiousness and the importance of that fact to education, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>) the challenges of assessing conscientiousness across cultures.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-2">The Personality Trait of Conscientiousness</hd> <p>Conscientiousness is best thought of as a hierarchical grouping of related higher- and lower-order constructs (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref27">194</reflink>]). The overall construct of conscientiousness itself is broad and encompasses narrower traits. We refer to those narrower traits as facets, which themselves can be further divided into the state-level manifestations in behaviors, thoughts, and feelings related to conscientiousness (Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref28">163</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research has identified between four and ten facets of conscientiousness with the most commonly identified facets being industriousness, orderliness, responsibility, conventionality, and self-control (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref29">194</reflink>]). We outline characteristics for being low and high on the spectrum of the lower-order facets of conscientiousness in Table 1. On the high end, industriousness encompasses the tendencies to work hard, aspire to excellence, and persist in the face of challenges. The lower end of industriousness reflects the tendency to avoid hard work, set easier goals, and prefer a more leisurely approach to life. On the high end, orderliness captures tendencies toward neatness, cleanliness, and planfulness, whereas it captures disorderliness, disorganization, and messiness on the low end of the spectrum. Responsibility captures tendencies to follow through with promises and obligations on the high end of the spectrum, and on the low end, it captures tendencies to be unreliable and break one's promises. At the high end, conventionality describes tendencies to endorse and uphold societal rules and conventions, whereas on the opposite pole, it reflects the tendency to break rules and undermine conventions. Lastly, self-control encompasses tendencies to control and inhibit one's impulses on the high end of the spectrum and tendencies toward impulsiveness, recklessness, and lack of restraint on the low end of the spectrum.</p> <p>Table 1 Facets of conscientiousness and characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Facets&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adjectives for high&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adjectives for low&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Industriousness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hard working&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aspire to excellence&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Persistent despite challenges&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Avoid hard labor&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Setting easier goals&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Preferring a more leisurely approach to life&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Orderliness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Neatness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cleanliness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Planfulness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Disorderliness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Disorganization&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Messiness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Responsibility&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Follow through with promises and obligations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unreliable and break one's promises&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conventionality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Endorse/uphold societal rules and conventions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Break rules and undermine conventions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Self-control&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Control and inhibit one's impulses&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Impulsiveness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recklessness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lack of restraint&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>While a faceted conceptualization of conscientiousness affords researchers the opportunity to pick and choose which aspects to focus on, it also begs the question of what is the shared core of conscientiousness that cuts across these facets. In an exhaustive analysis, Costantini and Perugini ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref30">45</reflink>]) attempted to answer this question. They examined correlations, factor structures, and network structures across a thorough set of conscientiousness measures and found the shared component for all facets was best described as "self-controlled future orientation." For example, in educational settings, when confronted with a self-regulatory choice (e.g., studying for an exam), conscientiousness entails a consideration of the future consequences of that choice (e.g., getting a good grade). The process of considering one's future calls upon students' ability to control impulses long enough to consider the choice and then plan one's actions out depending on what action is entailed. In the case of proactive aspects of conscientiousness, like industriousness, students would consider the benefit of achieving a goal (e.g., a good grade) and then initiate action to achieve it (completing a homework assignment). In the case of inhibitive aspects of conscientiousness, like self-control, a tempting stimulus (e.g., not studying for a test in order to play video games) as well as the negative consequences of the short-term actions (a bad grade) are weighed. Those with more self-control weigh the negative consequence more heavily and by doing so avoid negative consequences.</p> <p>We believe the underlying shared component of conscientiousness is an important factor to consider when discussing the correlates of conscientiousness and the role it plays in educational outcomes. Research suggests that narrower facets predict educational performance better than the big five traits (Briley et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]; Paunonen &amp; Ashton, [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref32">173</reflink>]; Seeboth et al., [<reflink idref="bib207" id="ref33">207</reflink>]; Stewart et al., [<reflink idref="bib222" id="ref34">222</reflink>]). It is not yet clear whether the latent, shared aspect of conscientiousness reflected in "self-controlled future orientation" is the causal factor for educational outcomes, like grade point average (GPA), or whether it is the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components specific to certain facets. Future research testing faceted measures of conscientiousness so as to identify the latent, shared content as well as the specific variance of each facet would go a long way toward identifying potential causal mechanism for the role of conscientiousness in education.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-3">Assessing Conscientiousness</hd> <p>Although the most common approach to measure conscientiousness is through the use of self-reports, different methods to measure conscientiousness have been studied in psychology and education (e.g., other report, Duckworth &amp; Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref35">66</reflink>]; smartphones, Stachl al., [<reflink idref="bib218" id="ref36">218</reflink>]; chatbot, Sun, [<reflink idref="bib225" id="ref37">225</reflink>]). For example, self-reports can be complemented with observer ratings made by knowledgeable friends and family members (Vazire, [<reflink idref="bib242" id="ref38">242</reflink>]). Alternatively, researchers can use more "objective" indices, such as experimentally derived measures, or assess constructs with implicit approaches that are thought to be less susceptible to bias. Additionally, new opportunities arise to collect mass amounts of data that could be linked to personality, such as smartphones (Stachl et al., [<reflink idref="bib218" id="ref39">218</reflink>]) and narrative data obtained via chatbot (Sun, [<reflink idref="bib225" id="ref40">225</reflink>]). For example, using narrative data collected from an interactive AI chatbot, Sun ([<reflink idref="bib225" id="ref41">225</reflink>]) found correlation between textual-derived conscientiousness correlated at 0.12 with self-reported GPA. Unfortunately, research has called into question the validity of both experimental and implicit measures (Duckworth &amp; Kern, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref42">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many measures of conscientiousness exist, ranging from broad omnibus inventories that include facets to brief assessments of a few items designed to assess the broad trait. While the choice of which measure depends upon the researcher's needs and time constraints, we would like to underscore the gains in specificity and reliability when using broad measures. As seen below, some existing measures of conscientiousness do not assess all facets of conscientiousness or weight them equally (see Table 2). The unfortunate result is that measures of conscientiousness cannot be adequately compared with one another. Careful attention to item content of conscientiousness measures is required to adequately compare measures of conscientiousness. Adding to the confusion is that many omnibus measures that include facet measures have names that are specific to the scale, making comparisons across measures difficult.</p> <p>Table 2 Selected measures of conscientiousness</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Author&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Inventory&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Facets measured&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cattell (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30"&gt;1945&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;16-PF&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rule consciousness, perfectionism&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Costa and McCrae (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44"&gt;1992&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;NEO-PI-R&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Competence, orderliness, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;De Young et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59"&gt;2007&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Big Five Aspects Scales&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Industriousness, orderliness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Green et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Chernyshenko Conscientiousness Scales&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;industriousness, orderliness, self-control, traditionalism, responsibility, virtue&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gough (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr96"&gt;1987&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;California Psychological Inventory&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Responsibility, socialization, self-control, good impression, well-being, achievement via conformance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hofstee et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr109"&gt;1992&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;AB5C&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Conscientiousness, efficiency, dutifulness, purposefulness, organization, cautiousness, rationality, perfectionism, orderliness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hogan and Hogan (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr111"&gt;1992&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hogan Personality Inventory&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Moralistic, virtuous, not autonomous, not spontaneous, impulse control, avoids trouble&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jackson (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116"&gt;1994&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Organization, traditional values, responsibility&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jackson et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117"&gt;2009&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Behavioral Indicators of Conscientiousness&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Avoid work, organization, impulsivity, antisocial, cleanliness, industriousness, laziness, appearance, punctuality, formality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lee &amp; Ashton (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr134"&gt;2004&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;HEXACO-PI&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Organization, prudence, diligence, perfectionism&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perugini and Gallucci (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr174"&gt;1997&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hierarchical Multifaceted Five Factor Model&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Reliability, meticulousness, recklessness, inaccuracy, superficiality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Soto and John (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr215"&gt;2017&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;BFI-2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Organization, productiveness, responsibility&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tellegen and Waller (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr230"&gt;2008&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Control, harm avoidance, traditionalism&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>The most commonly used measure of conscientiousness is the 48-item NEO-PI-R and the shorter 12-item version in the NEO-FFI (Costa &amp; McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]). The NEO-PI-R measures six facets, which are labeled as follows: competence (closely related to the facet of industriousness), order (orderliness), dutifulness (responsibility), achievement striving (industriousness), self-discipline (orderliness), and deliberation (self-control). The NEO-FFI was not designed to assess facets, but broadly captures orderliness, industriousness, and responsibility facets (Chapman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]). Facets found within the NEO tend to focus on the industriousness and orderliness facets of conscientiousness (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref45">193</reflink>]) and thus may not necessarily reflect the best assessment for conscientiousness if one is interested in breadth. Similarly, the Abridged Big Five Circumplex (AB5C, Hofstee et al., [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref46">109</reflink>]) includes nine facets of conscientiousness but does not adequately cover the facets of conscientiousness discussed above (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref47">193</reflink>]). Instead, the AB5C facets mainly assess industriousness and orderliness with a single facet measure designed to tap self-control.</p> <p>In contrast, the Chernyshenko Conscientiousness Scales consist of six facets with 10 items per facet (CCS; Hill &amp; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref48">107</reflink>]). The CCS contains five of the six most commonly found facets of conscientiousness (orderliness, self-control, responsibility, traditionalism, and industriousness), making it one of the only measures that adequately covers the broad complement of conscientiousness facets. The sixth facet, virtue, assesses the tendency to be responsible members of the community by being honorable and rule abiding. It shares some overlap with the responsibility facet but is broader in scope and concerns issues of right and wrong rather than the tendency to follow through with personal obligations. Subsequent research with the CCS has shown that, with the exception of the responsibility facet, the scales have good reliability and validity. The responsibility facet, while showing sensible patterns of correlations with outcomes, tends to not cohere in factor analyses of the CCS items (Green et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref49">97</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another facet measure is the 20-item measure from the HEXACO inventory (Lee &amp; Ashton, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref50">135</reflink>]). In this scale, conscientiousness is measured with four facets: organization (orderliness), diligence (self-control/industriousness), perfectionism (orderliness/industriousness), and prudence (self-control). Finally, the Conscientiousness Adjective Checklist (CAC; Jackson et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref51">117</reflink>]) measures most of the identified facets of conscientiousness including orderliness, industriousness, self-control, and responsibility, conventionality and decisiveness (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib191" id="ref52">191</reflink>]).</p> <p>The most commonly used medium-length measure is the 9-item conscientiousness scale from the Big Five Inventory (BFI, John et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref53">119</reflink>]), which appears to mainly assess the self-control and orderliness components of conscientiousness (Soto &amp; John, [<reflink idref="bib214" id="ref54">214</reflink>]). Recently, the BFI2 was introduced and the facet structure of the Big Five and, in particular, a 3-facet form of the conscientiousness domain was specified (Soto &amp; John, [<reflink idref="bib215" id="ref55">215</reflink>]). In this revision, the conscientiousness domain now consists of twelve items and measures facets described as organization, productiveness (e.g., industriousness), and responsibility. Other medium-length options include ten- and twenty-item IPIP conscientiousness measures (Goldberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref56">92</reflink>]), as well as the 8-item mini-marker scale (Saucier, [<reflink idref="bib204" id="ref57">204</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of short measures, two popular measures are the Ten Item Personality Inventory, consisting of just two items (TIPI, Gosling et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref58">95</reflink>]), and the BFI ten, also with a conscientiousness subscale containing two items (Rammstedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref59">181</reflink>]). Though longer measures are generally preferable (Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref60">49</reflink>]), short measures such as the TIPI and BFI10 can provide adequate assessment of conscientiousness if one is under extreme time constraints.</p> <p>Most, if not all, of these self-report scales can be adapted for observer ratings. And while the assumption is often that self-reports and observer reports should converge, which they do, they do not converge at a magnitude that would lead to the conclusion that they are redundant (Vazire, [<reflink idref="bib243" id="ref61">243</reflink>]). As both self-reports and observer ratings tend to be valid predictors of the outcomes of conscientiousness, such as achievement (Wagerman &amp; Funder, [<reflink idref="bib249" id="ref62">249</reflink>]) and health behaviors (Lodi-Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref63">142</reflink>]), yet only modestly related, they both tend to predict outcomes independent of one another. This means that researchers can maximize their ability to predict important outcomes if they combine self-reports and observer ratings of conscientiousness.</p> <p>Prior reviews were optimistic about the potential for experimental and implicit measures of conscientiousness (e.g., Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref64">194</reflink>]). At the time, however, implicit measures were a mystery as they failed to correlate with self- or observer reports of conscientiousness (e.g., Vianello et al., [<reflink idref="bib248" id="ref65">248</reflink>]), a mystery that still remains (Vecchione et al., [<reflink idref="bib244" id="ref66">244</reflink>]). The fate of experimental approaches, such as techniques to assess executive functioning and inhibitory control, has been called entirely into question (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref67">77</reflink>]). Eisenberg et al. found that measures such as stop signal tasks, flanker tasks, or switching tasks failed to converge with self-reports and also failed to predict outcomes as well as self-reports of conscientiousness. Furthermore, these experimental tasks were shown to lack adequate levels of test–retest reliability (Enkavi et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref68">83</reflink>]). While there are links between things like self-reported conscientiousness and smart phone usage (Stachl et al., [<reflink idref="bib218" id="ref69">218</reflink>]), the magnitude of the associations is too small to use these more objective indices as proxies for conscientiousness. These results hold strong implications for efforts to measure conscientiousness in more "objective" ways or through mediums like computer games. It is clear that performance measures like these are often measuring a different construct. Moreover, they are most likely doing so at such a narrow and episodic way that they do not currently provide a constructive alternative to self-reports or observer ratings of conscientiousness. Hopefully, with the advent of newer technologies and analytical systems, future researchers will be able to develop and validate objective, performance-based measures of conscientiousness which can be used in conjunction with self-report and observer ratings.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-4">What Is the Relation Between Conscientiousness and Educational Outcomes?</hd> <p>Conscientiousness stands as one of the most frequently studied personality or "non-cognitive" factors in education and psychology and is robustly related to educational outcomes (Mammadov et al., [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref70">149</reflink>]; Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref71">179</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref72">180</reflink>]; Richardson et al., [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref73">184</reflink>]; Vedel, [<reflink idref="bib245" id="ref74">245</reflink>]). Cognitive factors include intelligence, problem solving, and decision-making and are factors that affect functions such as attention and memory (Danili &amp; Reid, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref75">54</reflink>]). In contrast, non-cognitive factors include psychological constructs such as personality traits, social and emotional skills, need for cognition, school interest, achievement goal orientation, and growth mindset (Briley et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref76">20</reflink>]; Duckworth &amp; Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref77">66</reflink>]; Hagger &amp; Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref78">98</reflink>]; Morell et al., [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref79">160</reflink>]; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref80">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref81">217</reflink>]; Usher et al., [<reflink idref="bib239" id="ref82">239</reflink>]; Zheng et al., [<reflink idref="bib263" id="ref83">263</reflink>]). In the following section, we review the literature on conscientiousness and educational outcomes. For the scope of this review, we focus on the most commonly researched educational outcomes (Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref84">179</reflink>]), academic achievement, and attendance and subsequently discuss how conscientiousness combines with motivation in educational settings.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-5">Conscientiousness and Academic Achievement</hd> <p>Academic achievement stands as an important academic outcome due to its relation to income level (Morrissey et al., [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref85">161</reflink>]) and subjective well-being (Bücker et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref86">22</reflink>]). In this section, we review past research on how well conscientiousness predicts academic achievement and provide a discussion of potential mechanisms that explain why conscientiousness is associated with academic performance across different grade levels. For the scope of this review, we use grades and GPA as measures of academic achievement.</p> <p>A myriad of empirical studies has demonstrated that conscientiousness is one of the most reliable predictors of scholastic achievement across all grade levels (i.e., primary, secondary, or tertiary; Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref87">179</reflink>]). Several meta-analyses highlight that conscientiousness, largely independent of intelligence, positively relates to academic achievement (Mammadov et al., [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref88">149</reflink>]; Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref89">179</reflink>]; Richardson et al., [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref90">184</reflink>]). For instance, conscientiousness predicts college GPA over and above SAT scores and high school GPA (Noftle &amp; Robins, [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref91">166</reflink>]). Conscientiousness also independently predicts senior GPA after controlling for freshmen GPA (Wagerman &amp; Funder, [<reflink idref="bib249" id="ref92">249</reflink>]). Conscientiousness consistently predicts positive academic performance, regardless of the performance indicators used (e.g., thesis writing, skills training, team projects; Kappe &amp; van der Flier, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref93">120</reflink>]). Furthermore, research indicates that facets of conscientiousness predict academic achievement as well as conscientiousness measured as a global factor (Paunonen &amp; Ashton, [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref94">173</reflink>]). Another more recent meta-analysis found that conscientiousness added incremental validity over and above cognitive ability in predicting academic achievement across different contexts (Mammadov et al., [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref95">149</reflink>]). Strong predictive validity of grit persists for graduate students enrolled in professional degrees (Lievens et al., [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref96">141</reflink>]) and doctoral programs (Cross, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref97">52</reflink>]). Taken together, these findings suggest that high conscientiousness is positively related to increased levels of academic achievement (Galla et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref98">90</reflink>]; Lopes et al., [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref99">143</reflink>]; Mammadov et al., [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref100">149</reflink>]; Mondal &amp; Saha, [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref101">159</reflink>]; Parker, [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref102">171</reflink>]; Reilly, [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref103">182</reflink>]).</p> <p>Conscientiousness is positively associated with academic achievement for students ranging from elementary to graduate school, but there is some evidence of variability across grade levels, albeit mixed in their magnitude. Some research notes a small decline in the relation of conscientiousness and educational achievement with age. Specifically, research examining students' self-reports suggests that students in primary education benefit the most from conscientiousness (<emph>r</emph> = 0.28; <emph>N</emph> = 3196) compared to students in other academic levels (<emph>r</emph> = 0.21; <emph>N</emph> = 31,980 for secondary education; <emph>r</emph> = 0.23; <emph>N</emph> = 32,887 for tertiary education) (Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref104">179</reflink>]). This potential decline in predictive validity of conscientiousness on academic performance could be attributed to several reasons. First, assessment tools for student evaluation are more standardized and uniform for students in primary education than for students in higher education (Tatar, [<reflink idref="bib229" id="ref105">229</reflink>]). The heterogeneity in measures used with older students may contribute to more variability in findings. Second, traits other than conscientiousness might contribute more to academic performance in upper academic levels than in lower ones (Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref106">179</reflink>]). Third, different methods for measuring conscientiousness could influence differential validities across studies. For example, a meta-analysis showed that observer ratings of personality traits predict academic achievement better than self-ratings (Connelly &amp; Ones, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref107">41</reflink>]; Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref108">180</reflink>]). Observer ratings are more commonly used with children (Roberts &amp; DelVecchio, [<reflink idref="bib189" id="ref109">189</reflink>]) since their self-reports are less reliable and this may lead to larger effect sizes with young samples. Lastly, students high in conscientiousness may be more likely to advance to higher education, which could contribute to range restrictions in the data. These range restrictions could help explain attenuations in the relationship between conscientiousness and academic performance at later stages of education (Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref110">179</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain why conscientiousness is linked to academic achievement. For example, students high in conscientiousness are more likely to sustain effort on academic goals and use more effective time management strategies (Caprara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref111">24</reflink>]; Chamorro-Premuzic &amp; Furnham, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref112">31</reflink>]; Corker et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref113">43</reflink>]; Furnham et al., [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref114">89</reflink>]; Usher et al., [<reflink idref="bib239" id="ref115">239</reflink>]). Furthermore, students high in conscientiousness are more likely to adopt strategies that directly and indirectly relate to academic performance, such as better attendance, asking questions, and completing homework (Caprara et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref116">24</reflink>]; Rijavec &amp; Miljkovic, [<reflink idref="bib186" id="ref117">186</reflink>]). Moreover, conscientiousness is positively related to more effective study habits (e.g., frequency of studying sessions) and positive attitudes toward studying (Conrad, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref118">40</reflink>]; Conrad &amp; Patry, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref119">46</reflink>]; Credé &amp; Kuncel, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref120">48</reflink>]; Donche et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref121">62</reflink>]; Trautwein et al., [<reflink idref="bib236" id="ref122">236</reflink>]; Trautwein &amp; Luedtke, [<reflink idref="bib234" id="ref123">234</reflink>]), which are more direct determinants of academic performance. When it comes to making decisions, high levels of conscientiousness may help individuals choose strategies and behaviors that benefit long-term achievement goals rather than short-term impulsive satisfaction. In other words, conscientiousness is related to one's self-controlled future orientation through such underlying mechanisms.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-6">Conscientiousness and Attendance</hd> <p>Class attendance is a key predictor of academic success (Aden et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref124">2</reflink>]; Conard, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref125">40</reflink>]; Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref126">50</reflink>]; Latif &amp; Miles, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref127">131</reflink>]). For example, attendance predicts college performance over and above other predictors, such as intelligence, high school GPA, SAT scores, and study habits (Conard, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref128">40</reflink>]; Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref129">50</reflink>]; Farsides &amp; Woodfield, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref130">85</reflink>]). Not only is attendance associated with academic achievement, but also with conscientiousness. A meta-analytic review suggests a modest relationship between conscientiousness and class attendance (<emph>r</emph> = 0.22; Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref131">50</reflink>]). Students high in conscientiousness are more likely to attend class, and this higher attendance rate is related to better academic performance (Conard, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref132">40</reflink>]; Farsides &amp; Woodfield, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref133">85</reflink>]). A cross-cultural study across 64 different countries also showed that conscientiousness positively predicts attendance rates across cultures (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib261" id="ref134">261</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students skip classes for a variety of reasons, such as personal issues (e.g., family responsibilities), lack of penalties for absences (e.g., attendance is not checked), health issues (e.g., disease-related absences), lecture issues (e.g., boring lecture), and emotional issues (e.g., sleep; Demir &amp; Karabeyoglu, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref135">58</reflink>]; Rijavec &amp; Miljkovic, [<reflink idref="bib186" id="ref136">186</reflink>]). Conscientiousness is negatively related to these broad reasons for missing class (Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref137">50</reflink>]; Rijavec &amp; Miljkovic, [<reflink idref="bib186" id="ref138">186</reflink>]). Furthermore, facet-level analyses provide insight into potential underlying mechanisms for the relationship between conscientiousness and attendance. While all facets of conscientiousness, to varying extent, are negatively related to absence, industriousness predicts absenteeism more strongly than overall conscientiousness (MacCann et al., [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref139">147</reflink>]). As reflected in particular items for industriousness, individuals high in industriousness tend to work harder and make efforts to succeed compared to individuals low in industriousness. In other words, being highly ambitious and hardworking could manifest higher attendance rates among industrious students.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-7">Conscientiousness and Motivation</hd> <p>The role of motivation in the relation between conscientiousness and academic outcomes is not yet clear. One the one hand, motivation is a presumed mechanism linking conscientiousness to educational outcomes. However, conscientiousness has also been considered a "motivational construct" (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref140">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref141">79</reflink>]). The latter is intuitive, given the association of conscientiousness with both achievement and goal setting (e.g., Barrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref142">7</reflink>]; Klein &amp; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref143">128</reflink>]; Sorić et al., [<reflink idref="bib213" id="ref144">213</reflink>]), which in turn is also associated with achievement (Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref145">179</reflink>]). In fact, recent research shows that the goal-setting content of conscientiousness is one of the strongest predictors of goal-directed changes in behavior (Ludwig et al., [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref146">145</reflink>]).</p> <p>The question of whether motivation is an explanatory mechanism or whether conscientiousness is a motivational construct remains unclear, in large part due to the unsystematic nature of both the definitions of motivation and the operationalization of measures of motivation and traits. In particular, when the content of conscientiousness is closely examined, it is clear that the items that make up the typical conscientiousness scale are not motivational in nature (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref147">194</reflink>]), meaning that the questions do not assess one's values, interests, goals, or desires. Rather, the content that is goal related focuses on the trait-like aspects of goal setting, not the content per se (e.g., I tend to set challenging goals vs I want to get an A in this class). Conversely, many goal setting and motivational questions default to a question structure that also fails to tap into what a person desires and instead gets at trait-like general tendencies. Thus, the conclusion that conscientiousness is a motivational construct because of its content or because of correlational patterns is potentially misleading.</p> <p>When measures of motivation, which tap into desires and values that people have, are used in conjunction with traditional trait measures of conscientiousness, both contribute to achievement independently (Trautwein et al., [<reflink idref="bib235" id="ref148">235</reflink>]). However, when examined more closely, the interplay between motivation, conscientiousness, and school achievement was found to be more complex. In particular, the Conscientiousness × Interest Compensation (CONIC) model accounts for the association between conscientiousness and interest and describes how they work together in predicting academic effort (Trautwein et al., [<reflink idref="bib237" id="ref149">237</reflink>]). According to the CONIC model, both conscientiousness and interest uniquely contribute to explaining academic effort when both constructs are simultaneously considered more important; however, the CONIC model also postulates a compensatory mechanism. The compensatory interaction outlines that individual interest can (partly) compensate for low conscientiousness. Thus, individual interest becomes more important for academic effort in students who are low in conscientiousness. Empirical evidence supports the CONIC model in cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental designs (Song et al., [<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref150">212</reflink>]; Trautwein et al., [<reflink idref="bib237" id="ref151">237</reflink>]). For example, the CONIC pattern was found when predicting academic effort in math, German, and English both in cross-sectional and longitudinal designs (Rieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib185" id="ref152">185</reflink>]; Trautwein et al., [<reflink idref="bib237" id="ref153">237</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-8">Summary of Conscientiousness and Educational Outcomes</hd> <p>In sum, conscientiousness is a consistent and reliable predictor of academic performance across different levels of education that provides incremental predictive utility above and beyond background factors like family socio-economic status and cognitive ability. Conscientiousness plays a larger role in predicting academic performance for students in primary school, but its predictive validity endures in magnitude across all grade levels. Many facets of conscientiousness, such as industriousness, are associated with higher attendance rates and academic performance. Finally, conscientiousness is clearly linked to motivational concepts, such as goal setting and confidence, but more research is needed in this domain that clearly articulates what is a trait, a motive, and an outcome. Work like that of the CONIC model is exemplary as it keeps distinctions clearer and thus contributing more nuanced insights on the role of conscientiousness in educational settings.</p> <p>On another note, student progress is influenced by teacher effectiveness (Rivkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib188" id="ref154">188</reflink>]; Sanders &amp; Rivers, [<reflink idref="bib202" id="ref155">202</reflink>]). Conscientiousness also remains important to the performance of teachers. As key actors in educational systems, effective teachers are often characterized by organization, planning, and being highly responsible (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref156">125</reflink>]; Klassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref157">127</reflink>]). Thus, conscientiousness is related to positive teaching outcomes. For instance, Patrick ([<reflink idref="bib172" id="ref158">172</reflink>]) found that teacher evaluations (i.e., student-reports of instructor personality) are most strongly predicted by conscientiousness. Similarly, research notes a positive correlation between conscientiousness and teacher effectiveness across various measures (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref159">69</reflink>]; Garcia et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref160">91</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref161">125</reflink>]; Robertson-Kraft &amp; Duckworth, [<reflink idref="bib198" id="ref162">198</reflink>]). A recent meta-analytic review of the literature found that conscientiousness is particular important for teacher effectiveness alongside extraversion (<emph>r</emph> = 0.13 and <emph>r</emph> = 0.19, respectively; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref163">125</reflink>]). Highly conscientious instructors are also valued by students (Kim &amp; MacCann, [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref164">123</reflink>]). Interestingly, some research finds that although conscientiousness is related to teacher academic support and student conscientiousness, it does not seem to be decisive for objective student academic achievement (Cheng &amp; Zamarro, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref165">35</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref166">124</reflink>]). Taken together, these findings suggest that conscientiousness not only has a direct link to student academic but may also affect student outcomes indirectly in the form of more conscientious teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-9">Is Conscientiousness Always a Positive Factor in Education?</hd> <p>Conscientiousness is generally viewed as an adaptive trait linearly predicting positive educational outcomes, such that higher levels of conscientious are related to greater academic achievement. In contrast, some researchers have argued that too much (excessive) conscientiousness could have a negative impact on outcomes such as achievement, goal pursuit, and psychological adjustment (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref167">28</reflink>]; Pierce &amp; Aguinis, [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref168">176</reflink>]; Shedler &amp; Block, [<reflink idref="bib208" id="ref169">208</reflink>]). In other words, those with high levels of conscientiousness may persist too long at tasks and goals, which would then lead to higher levels of distress and failure in achievement settings like school (Khan et al., [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref170">122</reflink>]; Lucas et al., [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref171">144</reflink>]). More often than not, the way of testing whether conscientiousness can be too much of a good thing is to test a quadratic or curvilinear function along with the linear function (e.g., Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref172">26</reflink>]; Swanberg and Martinsen, [<reflink idref="bib227" id="ref173">227</reflink>]). This potentially reveals the downturn in the returns on conscientiousness as one gets higher on the scale.</p> <p>A cursory, examination of prior research reveals some reported support for curvilinear associations between conscientiousness and various outcomes. For instance, statistically significant curvilinear effects have been reported for job performance (Carter et al, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref174">26</reflink>]), well-being (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref175">27</reflink>]), and mental health (Shedler &amp; Block, [<reflink idref="bib208" id="ref176">208</reflink>]). Furthermore, studies of clinical issues appear to show a link between high levels of conscientiousness and various forms of psychopathology, such as obsessive–compulsive tendencies and perfectionism (Dunkley et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref177">75</reflink>]; Samuel &amp; Widiger, [<reflink idref="bib201" id="ref178">201</reflink>]; Widiger et al., [<reflink idref="bib256" id="ref179">256</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib257" id="ref180">257</reflink>]).</p> <p>A closer examination of this literature would caution the conclusion that high levels of conscientiousness might be problematic. First, no prior research demonstrating a curvilinear effect has been directly replicated by the original authors of the research. Second, when attempts have been made to do a direct or close replication by other authors, the curvilinear effects fail to emerge. For example, the original study showing a curvilinear effect of self-control and well-being (Shedler &amp; Block, [<reflink idref="bib208" id="ref181">208</reflink>]) failed to replicate in much larger and more thorough examinations of the same effect (Walton &amp; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib250" id="ref182">250</reflink>]). Furthermore, the more current research ostensibly showing a curvilinear relation to measures of well-being (Carter et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref183">26</reflink>]) failed to replicate across 4 separate studies, multiple statistical models, and numerous similar outcomes (Nickel et al., [<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref184">165</reflink>]). Finally, in more recent work, we tested the curvilinear relation between a facet of conscientiousness and math achievement in the PISA 2012 data (Zheng et al., [<reflink idref="bib264" id="ref185">264</reflink>]). Across 64 different countries, a few statistically significant curvilinear effects were detected, but a close examination of the patterns showed no evidence of a robust negative relation between conscientiousness and math achievement at the high end of conscientiousness.</p> <p>Second, when looking closer at the clinical research, what becomes clear is that the findings are problematically confounded with the types of measures used in clinical research. For example, an omnibus measure of perfectionism appears to be positively related to conscientiousness (Dunkley et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref186">75</reflink>]; Stoeber et al., [<reflink idref="bib224" id="ref187">224</reflink>]). A closer read shows that once the perfectionism measure is differentiated between maladaptive and adaptive components, conscientiousness shows negative associations with the maladaptive and positive associations with the adaptive components.</p> <p>Of course, with contradictory findings, it is still possible that there could be negative consequences of high conscientiousness. For example, highly conscientious people also are more likely to react with increased tension to negative feedback (Cianci et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref188">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, in a meta-analytic review of the literature, creative scientists scored high on both positive and negative aspects of conscientiousness (Feist, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref189">86</reflink>]). This could reflect the possibility that creative scientists have to be simultaneously driven and hardworking (e.g., the industriousness facet of conscientiousness) while prone to question norms and be unconventional. We see this pattern in a longitudinal prospective study of creative achievement in women (Helson et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref190">106</reflink>]). Creative achievers were seen by others as persistent and goal oriented and also unconventional. Similarly, research on creative performance in students found an overall null relation to conscientiousness hiding the fact that the achievement component (industriousness) was positively related, while the dependability component was negatively related to creativity (Reiter-Palmon et al., [<reflink idref="bib183" id="ref191">183</reflink>]). Finally, creative populations, such as art students and actors, sometimes score lower on measures of conscientiousness (Dumas et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref192">73</reflink>]; Vedel, [<reflink idref="bib246" id="ref193">246</reflink>]). Given the role of education in fostering creativity (Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref194">36</reflink>]), the potential negative impact facets of conscientiousness may have on creative achievement should be understood better. If educational systems foster conscientiousness in an unthinking fashion, they may inadvertently undermine their students' creativity in the process.</p> <p>Taken together, the research on the potential downsides of conscientiousness is mixed. The evidence for a curvilinear effect, especially on educational outcomes, appears to be weak or non-existent. The remaining negative consequences of conscientiousness appear to be the result of either combining conscientiousness with other negative qualities, like neuroticism, or because of distinct patterns at the facet level of the domain. Well-designed research digging deeper into these issues would be profoundly helpful.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-10">Association of Conscientiousness with Other Socio-emotional Skills</hd> <p>One of the primary reasons for the increasing significance of conscientiousness in educational science is its inclusion in the list of constructs described as socio-emotional skills (SE Skills). Economists, educational scientists, and policy makers began to realize and advocate for a more systematic focus on socio-emotional skills in the last 15 years. Since that time, numerous reports and publications have called for systematic educational efforts focused on developing students' socio-emotional skills (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref195">167</reflink>]). These calls have been motivated, in part, by the realization that socio-emotional skills are "essential" skills, that is, without skills such as being able to work well with supervisors, cooperate on teams, show up to work on time, handle pressure, and learn on the job, workers will find it difficult if not impossible to demonstrate the technical skills that our educational systems so often attempt to impart.</p> <p>Socio-emotional skills play important roles in education due to their high predictive validity for educational outcomes and malleability (Duckworth &amp; Meindl, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref196">64</reflink>]; Duckworth &amp; Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref197">66</reflink>]; Santos et al., [<reflink idref="bib203" id="ref198">203</reflink>]). One of the notable features of the renewed focus on socio-emotional skills has been the inclusive nature of the effort. A wide range of constructs has been listed in initial efforts to identify important SE skills (Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref199">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref200">217</reflink>]). Quite possibly, this inclusiveness may be a source of confusion. For example, it is unclear to what extent the overarching description of the domain as "skills" is best reflected in a construct such as conscientiousness, which is a personality trait, not a skill. On one hand, both skills and traits tap into similar qualities, such as having self-control, being responsible, and hardworking. Furthermore, both skills and traits are thought to be independent from cognitive ability (Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref201">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref202">217</reflink>]). Yet, skills are conceptually something learned and implemented strategically, whereas traits are thought to be invoked automatically and habitually (Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib192" id="ref203">192</reflink>]). This inclusion of conscientiousness in the SE skills domain raises two important questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref204">1</reflink>) whether and to what degree SE skills are separate from conscientiousness, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref205">2</reflink>) whether divergent validity can be established between similar sets of SE skills. In the following section, we review theoretical distinctions between conscientiousness and SE skills, and review many common SE skills that show a strong conceptual if not empirical overlap with conscientiousness. We highlight the most commonly used SE skills, but acknowledge that the list of reviewed SE skills is not exhaustive.</p> <p>Conceptually, the primary distinction between conscientiousness and SE skills resides in the differences between traits and skills. Historically, conscientiousness, a personality trait, has been viewed as a global and stable construct, capturing enduring patterns of thinking, feeling, and behavior across different situations and time (Baumert et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref206">8</reflink>]; McCrae &amp; Costa, [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref207">153</reflink>]; Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib254" id="ref208">254</reflink>]). Consistent with that definition, measures of conscientiousness tend to emphasize stable, internal, generalizable attributions to the self (Soto, et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref209">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref210">217</reflink>]). In contrast, SE skills have often been described as more malleable and responsive to interventions than personality traits (Duckworth &amp; Meindl, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref211">64</reflink>]; Duckworth &amp; Yeager, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref212">66</reflink>]; Santos et al., [<reflink idref="bib203" id="ref213">203</reflink>]). Despite a shared behavioral referent, a trait like conscientiousness and a skill like self-control differ in how they are typically assessed. In particular, a skill-based conceptualization ideally would focus on a person's ability to be self-controlled when called upon to do so. In contrast, a trait version of self-control measures a person's typical performance in that domain, rather than what a person may be capable of doing when asked. Somewhat problematically, the assessment of SE skills has not always reflected this distinction. In fact, a great number of SE skills measures use the same measurement approach used to assess personality traits, such as asking people to indicate how internal, stable, and generalizable their skills are rather than asking what they are capable of doing in specific conditions (e.g., Hogan &amp; Lock, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref214">110</reflink>]; Napolitano et al., [<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref215">164</reflink>]; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref216">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref217">217</reflink>]).</p> <p>The measurement heterogeneity and overlap with personality traits makes for an awkward situation when reviewing the links between conscientiousness and SE skills. In many cases, researchers who are attempting, in good faith, to study what they believe to be SE skills, end up using measures that are indistinguishable from relevant measures of personality traits, such as conscientiousness, whereas, in other situations, SE skills measures are measured in the appropriate and distinct way from personality traits (e.g., Crowder et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref218">53</reflink>]). What emerges is a complex mix of findings. In one line of research, concepts employed as SE skills are barely distinguishable from conscientiousness and its facets. In another line of research, SE skill measures are more appropriately measured. Thus, in the review that follows, one will find both conceptual and empirical relations between SE skills and conscientiousness that at times feel like we are reviewing the facets of conscientiousness.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-11">Grit</hd> <p>One of the best-known SE skills is grit. Grit is defined as one's persistence of effort combined with the passion for a long-term goal (perseverance of effort and consistency of interests; Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref219">3</reflink>]; Christopoulou et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref220">37</reflink>]; Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref221">68</reflink>]). Researchers have argued that grit is distinct from conscientiousness and that perseverance facet in particular predicts educational performance (Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref222">51</reflink>]; Duckworth &amp; Quinn, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref223">65</reflink>]; Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref224">68</reflink>]; Eskreis-Winkler et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref225">84</reflink>]). It has been argued that grit does so (albeit incremental) above and beyond cognitive ability and conscientiousness (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref226">68</reflink>]). Furthermore, a recent meta-analytic review suggests that the positive relation between grit and academic achievement does not differ across cultures (Disabato et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref227">60</reflink>]; Lam &amp; Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref228">130</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref229">138</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, grits' distinctiveness has been called into question (Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref230">51</reflink>]; Ponnock et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref231">178</reflink>]; Rimfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib187" id="ref232">187</reflink>]; Schmidt et al., [<reflink idref="bib205" id="ref233">205</reflink>]). A recent meta-analysis suggests that grit and conscientiousness are almost synonymous, as the two constructs are highly correlated (<emph>r</emph> = 0.84; Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref234">51</reflink>]). For instance, McCann and Roberts ([<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref235">146</reflink>]) suggest that a grit could be viewed as a subset of conscientiousness given the high correlation. Relatedly, Ivcevic and Brackett ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref236">115</reflink>]) found that conscientiousness and emotion regulation ability, but not grit, were predictors of academic achievement in high schoolers after controlling for other personality traits. Furthermore, recent research highlights that the correlation of grit and conscientiousness is largely driven by the same genetic factors (Rimfeld et al., [<reflink idref="bib187" id="ref237">187</reflink>]; Tucker-Drob et al., [<reflink idref="bib238" id="ref238">238</reflink>]). These findings suggest that if grit is an exemplar SE skill, then conscientiousness would be too. As noted above, grit is seldom assessed as a skill, but rather is typically assessed as a trait, which could contribute to the conceptual and empirical overlap. Given the almost one-to-one content and measurement overlap with measures of conscientiousness, it is not surprising that these two constructs correlate highly.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-12">Self-control</hd> <p>There is great variation in the operational definitions of self-control. Drawing from a non-trait perspective, self-control can be defined as the capacity to voluntarily avoid distractions and override impulses for undesired behaviors (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref239">67</reflink>]; Tangney et al., [<reflink idref="bib228" id="ref240">228</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib253" id="ref241">253</reflink>]; Whiteside &amp; Lynam, [<reflink idref="bib255" id="ref242">255</reflink>]). Self-control has attracted substantial attention both within and outside education, because of the ample evidence of its importance. For example, meta-analytic results indicated that individuals who are high in self-control tend to have positive outcomes including academic achievement, physical health, relationships, and well-being (Blair &amp; Razza, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref243">13</reflink>]; De Ridder et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref244">57</reflink>]; Duckworth &amp; Kern, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref245">63</reflink>]; Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref246">71</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref247">67</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref248">70</reflink>]; Kuhnle et al., [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref249">129</reflink>]). In educational settings, students often experience conflict between long-term academic goals (e.g., getting a better GPA) and short-term gratifying non-academic goals (e.g., making more friends; Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref250">70</reflink>]). Self-control plays an important role in helping students control impulses and focus on long-term academic goals (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref251">72</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref252">70</reflink>]; Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref253">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref254">79</reflink>]; Kuhnle et al., [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref255">129</reflink>]).</p> <p>Self-control is also seen as a facet of conscientiousness (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref256">193</reflink>]). Thus, self-control is measured directly across multiple personality inventories, including as discipline in the Big Five Inventory, as self-discipline in the NEO Five Factor Inventory, and as impulse control in the Hogan Personality Inventory. Conceptually, it is considered to lie at the core of conscientiousness (Costantini &amp; Perugini, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref257">45</reflink>]; Schwaba et al., [<reflink idref="bib206" id="ref258">206</reflink>]; Whiteside &amp; Lynam, [<reflink idref="bib255" id="ref259">255</reflink>]). Empirical evidence suggests that self-control is highly correlated with conscientiousness (<emph>r</emph> = 0.64, Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref260">193</reflink>]; MacCann &amp; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref261">146</reflink>]). Thus, like grit, self-control at least as measured using current approaches appears to be synonymous with conscientiousness, a personality trait.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-13">Goal Pursuit</hd> <p>Goal pursuit is the capability to set clear and ambitious goals, where a goal can be defined as a cognitive representation of a future object that the subject is approaching or avoiding (Elliot &amp; Fryer, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref262">82</reflink>]; Wormington &amp; Linnenbrink-Garcia, [<reflink idref="bib258" id="ref263">258</reflink>]). Motivational constructs, such as goal pursuit, have been long considered an integral part of educational psychology. Studies of goal pursuit have mainly focused on the function and process of goals (e.g., goal strategies, commitment, and attainment) and less so on how individual differences in goals are structured and organized (McCabe &amp; Fleeson, [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref264">152</reflink>]; Wormington &amp; Linnenbrick-Garcia, [<reflink idref="bib258" id="ref265">258</reflink>]). Goal pursuit also involves directing a subject toward reaching their desired goal.</p> <p>Despite these different conceptualizations, conscientiousness and goal pursuit are intrinsically linked. For example, aspects of conscientiousness related to self-regulation are highly related to pursuing attainable goals and giving up unrealistic goals (Carver &amp; Scheier, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref266">29</reflink>]). Also, conscientiousness is positively related to prior goal setting (<emph>r</emph> = 0.39) and goal commitment (<emph>r</emph> = 0.35) among sales representatives (Barrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref267">7</reflink>]) as well as planfulness in undergraduates (<emph>r</emph> = 0.49; Ludwig et al., [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref268">145</reflink>]). As for the predictive validity, goal orientation (i.e., mastery, performance-approach goal orientation) measured using trait-specific conceptualization does not add incremental validity over conscientiousness when predicting academic outcomes (Zheng et al., under review). Like many domains, goal pursuit appears to be both skill and trait. Moreover, the magnitude of the association and meaning of the construct depend greatly on how it is operationalized.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-14">Task Focus</hd> <p>Task focus is the capacity to maintain concentration on a task and to work hard to complete a task or to achieve a goal (Elliot, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref269">81</reflink>]; Middleton &amp; Midgley, [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref270">157</reflink>]). In an educational setting, students high in task focus are more likely to complete an assignment and achieve a long-term goal of high GPAs because they are more likely to continuously exert efforts on tasks until the completion (Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib265" id="ref271">265</reflink>]). The feeling of completing tasks would impart positive emotion, and this will positively reinforce continuous effort for long-term goals (Lam &amp; Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref272">130</reflink>]). Research showed that task focus is highly related (<emph>r</emph> = 0.19) to academic achievement across cultures and grade levels (Hong &amp; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref273">112</reflink>]; Lam &amp; Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref274">130</reflink>]).</p> <p>SE skills that tap into these constructs include persistence (e.g., De Fruyt et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref275">55</reflink>]), primary control (Wrosch et al., [<reflink idref="bib259" id="ref276">259</reflink>]), and the perseverance facet of grit (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref277">68</reflink>]). Among these constructs, the association between conscientiousness and the perseverance facet of grit is more heavily investigated, and the distinction between the two is blurry. Meta-analytic results show that the perseverance facet of grit is strongly correlated with conscientiousness (<emph>r</emph> = 0.83; Credé et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref278">51</reflink>]). A recent study examined the associations between perseverance and conscientiousness at the item level using factor analysis and found substantial overlap between the concepts (Ponnock et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref279">178</reflink>]). Based on this work, and our efforts at developing faceted measures of conscientiousness, it is best to consider task focus as a facet of conscientiousness, at least in the current forms of measurement available to researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-15">Attention to Detail</hd> <p>Attention to detail is defined as one's capacity to do careful and thorough work. Attention to detail is highly related to conscientiousness, and it is an important skill that contributes to academic performance (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref280">32</reflink>]; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib265" id="ref281">265</reflink>]). Attention to detail or detail management is included in the recently introduced BESSI SE skill framework and showed high correlations with conscientiousness (<emph>r</emph> = 0.61; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref282">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref283">217</reflink>]). Students who are high in attention to detail are less likely to make mistakes, more likely to do thorough work, and check their work for mistakes. In teams, team members high in attention to detail tend to have less tolerance towards making mistakes and pay more careful attention to implementing new ideas (Miron-Spektor et al., [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref284">158</reflink>]). These qualities of students high in attention to detail would help them reach their academic goals (Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref285">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref286">217</reflink>]). Attention to detail is an interesting case as it clearly can be operationalized as a skill or a trait and may therefore be an ideal construct to investigate the extent to which the distinction matters.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-16">Self-regulated Learning</hd> <p>Self-regulated learning has been primarily the focus of educational science (Bjork et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref287">12</reflink>]; Broadbent &amp; Poon, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref288">21</reflink>]; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib265" id="ref289">265</reflink>]; Zimmerman &amp; Martinez-Pons, [<reflink idref="bib267" id="ref290">267</reflink>]). Self-regulated learning is an umbrella term that encompasses motivational, affective, behavioral, cognitive, and metacognitive components of learning (Pintrich &amp; De Groot, [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref291">177</reflink>]). It is defined as the capacity to understand and control one's learning environment (Pintrich and Groot, [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref292">177</reflink>], Pintrich [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref293">175</reflink>]; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib265" id="ref294">265</reflink>]). Specifically, individual learners have capacity to monitor and self-evaluate their skills and weaknesses and are able to actively regulate their motivation, affect, behavior, and cognition to fit situational demands. Aspects of self-regulated learning influence the effectiveness of learning in short-term and long-term outcomes, such as performance on quizzes and cumulative GPA (Poropat, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref295">179</reflink>]; Zimmerman &amp; Schunk, [<reflink idref="bib266" id="ref296">266</reflink>]).</p> <p>Bidjerano and Dai ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref297">11</reflink>]) examined the relation between self-regulated learning strategies and the Big Five model of personality. Individuals high in conscientiousness and openness are more likely to be self-regulated learners than those who are low in conscientiousness and openness. Similarly, Eilam et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref298">76</reflink>]) found that conscientiousness is a predictor of self-regulated learning. Moreover, an aspect of self-regulated learning, metacognition, helps learners set realistic and challenging goals and continuously monitor their progress. Conscientiousness and metacognition are significantly correlated (<emph>r</emph> = 0.50; Kelly &amp; Donaldson, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref299">121</reflink>]). Thus, it would appear that self-regulated learning strategies and conscientiousness are associated at magnitudes quite similar to a typical facet of conscientiousness.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-17">Responsibility</hd> <p>Defined as the capacity to manage personal and social obligations, responsibility has been most often conceptualized as a value to be fostered in children, often with a focus on social responsibility (Carpenter &amp; Pease, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref300">25</reflink>]; Lauermann &amp; Karabenick, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref301">132</reflink>]; Mameli et al., [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref302">148</reflink>]; Wentzel, [<reflink idref="bib251" id="ref303">251</reflink>]), and has been highlighted as one of the main goals of education (Gordon et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref304">94</reflink>]; Sternberg, [<reflink idref="bib220" id="ref305">220</reflink>]). Like prior domains of SE skills, the distinction between skill-based conceptualization and the personality trait operationalization of responsibility fades when measurement details are more closely examined. For example, like many SE skill measures, personal and social responsibilities are often measured using the same items and ratings as those used for measuring personality traits (e.g., Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref306">139</reflink>]). Responsibility also has been identified as a facet of conscientiousness (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref307">193</reflink>]) and is directly measured in Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and CCS. Although the skill or capacity of fulfilling personal responsibilities align with the traditional definition of conscientiousness, the idea of responsibility becomes a blend of both high conscientiousness (<emph>r</emph> = 0.60) and high agreeableness (<emph>r</emph> = 0.39) when it touches the realm of fulfilling social obligation (Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref308">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref309">217</reflink>]). Specifically, individuals need the willingness to maintain social harmony as well as the ability to collaborate with other people to fulfill their social obligations. In academic settings, responsibility is associated with attendance and academic achievement, where students go out of their way to manage personal and social obligations as students (Fishman, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref310">87</reflink>]; Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib268" id="ref311">268</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-18">Summary of Conscientiousness and SE Skills</hd> <p>By dint of inclusion in the various lists of SE skills, conscientiousness is clearly an exemplar of a socio-emotional skill. Previous studies have found robust conceptual and theoretical overlap between conscientiousness and SE skills. Future research should endeavor to more carefully distinguish these different conceptualizations by better operationalizing skills as capacities in contrast to traits as proclivities.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-19">Changeability of Conscientiousness</hd> <p>It is clear from our review that conscientiousness predicts many important educational outcomes and that conscientiousness shows strong overlap with SE skills. Nonetheless, for most practitioners, personality traits remain undesirable for educational purposes because they are assumed to be less amenable to change (Baumert et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref312">8</reflink>]; Bleidorn et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref313">15</reflink>]; Whitehurst, [<reflink idref="bib254" id="ref314">254</reflink>]). However, empirical evidence shows that conscientiousness, like all psychosocial constructs, is subject to developmental interplay of continuity and change over time (Roberts &amp; Yoon, [<reflink idref="bib197" id="ref315">197</reflink>]). Empirical evidence suggests that rank-order stability of personality traits, including conscientiousness, increases with age (Roberts &amp; Mroczek, [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref316">190</reflink>]; Roberts &amp; Yoon, [<reflink idref="bib197" id="ref317">197</reflink>]). Specifically, levels of personality traits, including conscientiousness, seem to be most malleable during adolescence. In addition, normative patterns of personality maturation have been documented throughout the lifespan. Specifically, research has shown that conscientiousness and its respective facets increase from young adulthood through midlife (Jackson, et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref318">117</reflink>]; Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib196" id="ref319">196</reflink>]). Furthermore, the ability to engage in self-control processes tends to increase throughout childhood into adolescence (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref320">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref321">79</reflink>]; Van den Akker et al., [<reflink idref="bib241" id="ref322">241</reflink>]).</p> <p>Do individuals differ in the extent to which their personality traits change? Recent findings illustrate that contextual factors and life experiences are associated with changes in personality traits including conscientiousness (Bleidorn et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref323">16</reflink>]). Specifically, achievement experiences like those found in education and in work have been linked to changes in conscientiousness across the life course. Furthermore, researchers argue that early childhood and adolescence are particularly important for personality development and later academic achievement (Conti &amp; Heckman, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref324">42</reflink>]; Shonkoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib209" id="ref325">209</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib210" id="ref326">210</reflink>]). In addition, educational environments provide external factors, such as schedules and increased autonomy of students, that lend themselves well to examine, more specifically to intervene, on conscientiousness (Heckman, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref327">101</reflink>]). Throughout childhood and school attendance, students hone different skills, such as time management, how to create distraction free environments, and gain more independence as well (Berkowitz &amp; Grych, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref328">10</reflink>]). The malleability of conscientiousness during that time allows for targeted interventions. For instance, Bleidorn ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref329">14</reflink>]) found that the amount of effort students put into studying for an exam was proportionate to increases in conscientiousness. Relatedly, children who increased their effort on homework showed commensurate increases in conscientiousness (Göllner et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref330">93</reflink>]). Prospective longitudinal studies suggest that major life experiences, such as transitions to the first job, are associated with changes in conscientiousness (Bleidorn et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref331">16</reflink>]). Furthermore, increasing one's investment and commitment to one's work is associated with increases in conscientiousness (Hudson &amp; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref332">113</reflink>]). Taken together, these findings suggest that conscientiousness is a malleable construct that is influenced by various life experiences, such as school activities.</p> <p>In addition to studies on naturalistic development of personality, another important research paradigm would be interventions to change conscientiousness and its effects on changes in desirable academic outcomes. Initial evidence suggests that targeted interventions can be utilized to change personality traits (e.g., Stieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib223" id="ref333">223</reflink>]). One of the best-known social experiments, the Perry Preschool Program, offered preschool education to disadvantaged Black children and subsequently followed participants through the age of 40. The Perry School intervention improved externalizing behaviors (i.e., skills), which affected student achievement scores (i.e., GPA; Heckman &amp; Karapakula, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref334">102</reflink>]). Life skill interventions are also associated with change in personality traits. Specifically, in educational setting, researchers showed that an intervention to change grit was effective in enhancing grit and was related to positive changes in subsequent GPA (Santos et al., [<reflink idref="bib203" id="ref335">203</reflink>]).</p> <p>The few interventions that have been specifically designed to target conscientiousness suggest that changing conscientiousness is possible. Many people desire to change some aspect of their personality (e.g., to become more organized or be on time more often; Hudson et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref336">114</reflink>]). People with a desire to change their levels of conscientiousness can do so through employing self-directed interventions that involve setting specific, concrete, attainable goals for change (Hudson et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref337">114</reflink>]; Webb et al., [<reflink idref="bib252" id="ref338">252</reflink>]). Similarly, self-directed smartphone-based interventions are effective in increasing conscientiousness over short time periods (Stieger et al., [<reflink idref="bib223" id="ref339">223</reflink>]), and structured face-to-face coaching interventions show evidence for changes in conscientiousness as well (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref340">150</reflink>]). In a meta-analysis (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib195" id="ref341">195</reflink>]), clinical interventions have also shown to associated with changes in conscientiousness (<emph>d</emph> = 0.19). While the initial evidence appears that school-based interventions can work to improve school outcomes, this research idea is at its initial stages and the results are preliminary.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-20">Summary</hd> <p>Given the benefits of greater conscientiousness in educational settings, relative malleability of personality among school-aged children to young adults, and emerging evidence that self-directed and more structured interventions can affect change in conscientiousness, we argue that structuring interventions for conscientiousness in educational settings have the potential to yield desirable results. Evidence of targeted change through interventions presents a fruitful avenue for future research in educational sciences to examine whether these interventions prompt meaningful change in academic outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-21">Assessment of Conscientiousness Within and Across Cultures</hd> <p>The interest in conscientiousness has transcended the typical western, US-focused research and policy world and is quickly becoming a global issue (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref342">167</reflink>]). Given the potential benefit that conscientiousness brings, it is understandable that educational scientists and policy makers in other countries may want to incorporate the assessment of conscientiousness into their educational system (Borghans &amp; Schils, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref343">18</reflink>]). Unfortunately, measuring conscientiousness across countries and distinct cultures poses significant challenges (Church, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref344">38</reflink>]). Cultural norms shape one's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Oyserman et al., [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref345">170</reflink>]) and influence self-perceptions of abilities and academic achievement (Byun &amp; Park, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref346">23</reflink>]; Jerrim, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref347">118</reflink>]; King &amp; McInerney, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref348">126</reflink>]). The overarching assessment question posed by cross-cultural assessments of conscientiousness is whether measures work the same way in different countries and regions of the globe. From many standpoints, the answer to that question is unequivocally yes. It appears that conscientiousness emerges in natural language across most cultures (Ashton et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref349">6</reflink>]; De Raad &amp; Peabody, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref350">56</reflink>]; Lam &amp; Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref351">130</reflink>]). Moreover, the correlates of conscientiousness within cultures appear relatively robust (Rossier et al., [<reflink idref="bib199" id="ref352">199</reflink>]). The inclusion of personality measures in large-scale multinational assessments, such as the <emph>Trends in Mathematics and Science Study</emph> (TIMSS) and the <emph>Programme for International Student Assessment</emph> (PISA), allow for the examination of learning outcome predictors and academic achievement across countries.</p> <p>Researchers have put forth various explanations for cross-cultural discrepancies in conscientiousness (e.g., teaching methods and curriculum, Leung, [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref353">136</reflink>]; tutoring, Bray &amp; Kwok, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref354">19</reflink>]; learning strategies). Most relevant for the current review is the argument based on cultural differences in perseverance and effort (Jerrim, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref355">118</reflink>]). Generally, greater moral value placed on education, learning as duty and obligation, and the importance of perseverance for a students' family and society at large defines collectivist cultures (e.g., East Asian cultures; Francis &amp; Archer, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref356">88</reflink>]; Li, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref357">137</reflink>]). These differences in cultural values are reflected in non-cognitive factors, such that students from East Asian (versus North American) cultures are more likely to persist when confronted with failure (Heine et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref358">104</reflink>]; Zhang &amp; Cross, [<reflink idref="bib262" id="ref359">262</reflink>]) and are more likely to attribute their success to perseverance on a task (Jerrim, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref360">118</reflink>]). Furthermore, a measure of perseverance was included in PISA 2012, which was determined as a good marker of conscientiousness (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib261" id="ref361">261</reflink>]). Xu and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib260" id="ref362">260</reflink>]) investigated the relation between perseverance and academic achievement in PISA and found that perseverance was more strongly related to achievement in East Asian cultures compared to Western cultures. In a recent study, Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib261" id="ref363">261</reflink>]) examined how well perseverance predicted math achievement and truancy, two factors linked to educational success, across 64 different countries in the PISA data. Perseverance was positively associated with math achievement in over 60 of the countries. Similar, albeit less strong, relations were found with truancy in the expected direction. Most disconcertingly, when the perseverance scores were averaged in each country, the patterns of associations were reversed—more persevering countries showed lower levels of math achievement and less persevering countries higher levels of math achievement. These discrepant findings across levels of analysis prompt the question of whether and how one should use conscientiousness measures across different cultures?</p> <p>Where things break down is when country level means of conscientiousness and their correlates are considered. Commonly, self- or other-reports of personality are collected from people within each culture and aggregated, to compare mean-level across cultures (Costello et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref364">47</reflink>]). Overall, findings show small but meaningful country-level mean differences in personality traits and facets (Allik &amp; McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref365">4</reflink>]; Allik et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref366">5</reflink>]). Differences in mean-level personality traits are associated with cultural values (Hofstede &amp; McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref367">108</reflink>]), as well as geographic proximity (Allik &amp; McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref368">4</reflink>]). For instance, personality profiles of European and North American countries are more similar in mean-level personality traits than those of Asian and African countries (Allik &amp; McCrae, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref369">4</reflink>]). These findings overall highlight consistent associations of personality traits across geographic regions. However, further examination of intercultural comparisons of conscientiousness suggests a more complex picture. Recent work also indicated that cross-cultural differences are relatively small compared to within sample differences (Allik et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref370">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Inconsistencies in findings have cast doubt and raised suspicion about the validity of mean-level differences across cultures (Heine et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref371">103</reflink>]; Meisenberg, [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref372">155</reflink>]). Specifically, findings regarding conscientiousness and its facets are at times paradoxical and counter-theoretical across cultures. For example, per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is often used as an outcome to be predicted by country-level estimates of conscientiousness. Interestingly and contrary to intuitive assumptions, GDP is higher for countries with low levels of country-level conscientiousness (Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref373">162</reflink>]). Another example of counter-theoretical findings concerns east–west differences in conscientiousness. Compared to North American people, East Asian people are perceived and typically described by others as higher in conscientiousness (Terracciano et al., [<reflink idref="bib231" id="ref374">231</reflink>]) and show greater motivation and achievement (Stevenson &amp; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib221" id="ref375">221</reflink>]). However, East Asian people rate <emph>themselves</emph> as lower on conscientiousness than people from other cultures (Heine et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref376">103</reflink>]; Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref377">162</reflink>]; Oishi &amp; Roth, [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref378">168</reflink>]). These surprising, counter-intuitive, and paradoxical findings have prompted discussion about the validity of country-level, mean estimates derived from self-report measures of personality in cross-cultural comparisons. Furthermore, inconsistencies in findings of mean-level differences in conscientiousness across cultures suggest that the use of self-reports, in particular, might be problematic and not indicative of actual cultural differences (Costello et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref379">47</reflink>]). The lack of predictable associations could be due to artifacts, which casts doubt on the validity of personality measures (Meisenberg, [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref380">155</reflink>]).</p> <p>A common self-reporting bias that distorts and obscures mean-level comparisons across cultures is called the <emph>reference group effect</emph> (RGE, Heine et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref381">105</reflink>]). This effect describes people's tendency to compare themselves or others to norms and standards within their culture when making subjective self-report ratings on Likert scales (Heine et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref382">105</reflink>]). Cultures with similar comparison standards would appear similar in their personality ratings, thus, threatening the validity of cross-cultural comparisons (Heine et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref383">103</reflink>]). Small differences in comparison standards across cultures emerge in self- and other ratings using hypothetical vignettes, but do not shape ratings of conscientiousness when controlled for (Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref384">162</reflink>]). A recent study was unable to establish equivalence of anchoring vignettes, which suggests that comparisons across cultures using this approach may also be limited (He et al., [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref385">100</reflink>]). Taken together, the evidence to date indicates that the reference group effect has a small effect on personality ratings and does not explain the counterintuitive differences found across cultures (Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref386">162</reflink>]).</p> <p>Culture specific differences in <emph>response styles</emph> present another self-reporting bias that challenges the validity of cross-cultural comparisons and potentially mask mean-level differences in ratings (Hamamura et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref387">99</reflink>]; Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref388">162</reflink>]). Response styles describe people's tendencies to systematically respond to scale items independent of the item's content (Baumgartner &amp; Steenkamp, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref389">9</reflink>]), which can systematically differ depending on cultural norms and values (Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib232" id="ref390">232</reflink>]). For instance, people from Europe show more extreme response styles compared to people from East Asia, which could be due to higher cultural values placed on modesty in East Asian countries (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref391">34</reflink>]). Importantly, accounting for response style can enhance cultural comparisons to some degree (Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref392">162</reflink>]). Recent research suggests that utilizing two-alternative forced choice format statements (compared to Likert scale singe statements), when assessing personality, can aid in reducing culture specific differences in response style (Sun and Drasgow, [<reflink idref="bib226" id="ref393">226</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Cultural mindsets</emph> are another methodological threat resulting from self- and other-reports (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref394">34</reflink>]). Cultural mindsets describe common knowledge structures or schemas of goals, belief systems, and concepts that are culturally specific (Oyserman &amp; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref395">169</reflink>]), which in turn activate personality traits perceived as congruent with the context. Thus, cultural mindsets shift and shape self- and other-ratings depending on which cultural mindset has been activated. Findings suggest that cultural differences in personality traits might, in part, be accounted for by changes in salient points of reference (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref396">34</reflink>]). Interestingly, perceived stereotypical ratings of groups are only weakly correlated with aggregate ratings of personality traits of a culture (McCrae et al., [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref397">154</reflink>]). However, it remains unclear which specific aspects of cultural mindsets shape people's ratings.</p> <p>Achieving <emph>measurement invariance</emph> is imperative for cross-cultural comparisons of personality traits (Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib232" id="ref398">232</reflink>]; Van de Vijer &amp; Leung, [<reflink idref="bib240" id="ref399">240</reflink>]). Measurement invariance implies that one position on a construct should translate to the same observed score independent of culture, which demonstrates that the item functions the same way across cultures (Meredith &amp; Millsap, [<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref400">156</reflink>]). Researchers have suggested that mean-level comparisons should only be done if the item intercepts are equal across comparison groups (i.e., scalar invariance; see also Rossier et al., [<reflink idref="bib200" id="ref401">200</reflink>]), which has not yet been consistently demonstrated in cross-cultural comparisons (Church, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref402">38</reflink>]; Dong &amp; Dumas, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref403">61</reflink>]; Rossier et al., [<reflink idref="bib200" id="ref404">200</reflink>]). Importantly, recent research highlights differences in personality nuances (i.e., item-level) might help explain measurement non-invariance found at trait level (Achaa-Amankwaa et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref405">1</reflink>]). Findings show that more meaningful differences across cultures are present at factor facet or nuance level of personality compared to personality traits. Thus, establishing accurate comparisons and rankings of countries on conscientiousness is hindered by methodological issues.</p> <p>In conclusion, while measuring conscientiousness within cultures and countries appears to work like most other constructs in psychology, country-level, mean level comparisons lead to counter-theoretical and paradoxical findings, as well as methodological concerns outlined above. Statistically controlling for methodological issues only has a small impact on the results (Mõttus et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref406">162</reflink>]), which further complicates the issue. Research in education faces a similar debate (Stanat &amp; Lüdtke, [<reflink idref="bib219" id="ref407">219</reflink>]). For instance, student math self-concept is low in some of the best-performing countries in PISA (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref408">133</reflink>]). However, a fairly strong correlation between self-concept and achievement emerged within countries (Stanat &amp; Lüdtke, [<reflink idref="bib219" id="ref409">219</reflink>]). Given the increasing global focus on the role of socio-emotional skills in education, the cross-cultural issues facing researchers attempting to measure constructs like conscientiousness are important to consider. It appears that using measures in educational settings to correlate with or predict outcomes is warranted. But, attempts to draw conclusions about countries or educational policies based on aggregate means in different countries should be avoided until something is done to assure that these measures are conceptually equivalent across countries.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-22">Conclusions and Recommendations</hd> <p>Conscientiousness has emerged in the last few decades as one of the most important individual difference variables in educational settings. Students who are more conscientious tend to do better in school for a variety of reasons. The importance of conscientiousness in educational settings would justify the attempt to understand how it arises and how it might be fostered.</p> <p>While conscientiousness has been included in the broader family of SE skill dimensions (Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref410">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref411">217</reflink>]), its inclusion is controversial because it is typically conceptualized and measured as a trait. In examining the placement and relationship of conscientiousness within SE skills general and education literature, we have identified a number of issues that remain murky and in need of attention. While conscientiousness is typically measured as a trait, ironically, so are many constructs that are measured as skills. We are in need of research that carefully distinguishes and operationalizes trait and skill conceptualizations of conscientiousness to better understand which aspect of the domain is the most important for school outcomes—the habitual patterns of the trait or the capacity to marshal actions in the skill? To more adequately assess SE skills, recent research has introduced a comprehensive tool to conceptualize and measure SE skills via the Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Skills Inventory (BESSI; Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref412">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref413">217</reflink>]). The BESSI provides an opportunity to assess people's capacity to engage in specific behaviors within 32 skill facets. SE skills measured via BESSI provide distinctive information, despite conceptual overlap with personality traits. Thus, we recommend BESSI, when attempting to measure SE skills.</p> <p>Future research should more closely examine the relations between nuances of conscientiousness and different types of educational outcomes, such as absenteeism and bullying behavior. Understanding relations between different levels of conscientiousness and educational outcomes could help researchers and educational practitioners disentangle which specific feelings, behaviors, and thoughts relate to important scholastic outcomes for students. Furthermore, it is yet unclear exactly whether and how SE skills related to conscientiousness and trait conscientiousness differentially predict educational outcomes. While personality traits are about individuals' tendencies to behave across different situations, SE skills are about individuals' maximal capacity to behave upon specific situations (Soto et al., [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref414">216</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib217" id="ref415">217</reflink>]). These distinctions in definition and measurement should relate to differential educational outcomes. Moreover, incremental validity of conscientiousness related SE skills over and beyond trait conscientiousness in predicting educational outcomes should be examined to fully understand what helps students thrive at school. Lastly, more research is needed to disentangle how conscientiousness of teachers predicts academic outcomes of students, as previous research showed promises in this direction of research program (Duckworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref416">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted above, targeted interventions can bring about change in conscientiousness. Future research could more closely examine whether changes in conscientiousness shape changes in educational outcomes. For instance, a study using an implementation intention intervention found that the effectiveness of the intervention was moderated by conscientiousness. Specifically, the intervention was especially impactful on class attendance for students low on conscientious (Webb et al., [<reflink idref="bib252" id="ref417">252</reflink>]). Thus, conscientiousness interventions may be especially useful in improving academic outcomes for specific sub-populations of students. A recent review found that the effectiveness of school-based interventions on non-cognitive outcomes is positive (Siqqiqui &amp; Ventista, [<reflink idref="bib211" id="ref418">211</reflink>]); however, how long these interventions last is less clear. More work is also needed to better understand the changeability of conscientiousness through interventions. Despite the stereotype of being unchanging, measures of trait conscientiousness not only show robust changes across the life course, but also changeability via intervention. The unanswered question is whether a skill-based approach to conscientiousness will show even more change and whether educators and policy makers should aim to change the skill or change the trait.</p> <p>Finally, cross-cultural uses of conscientiousness measures need to be handled with care, especially given their use in multinational surveys (e.g., PISA). While covariances within countries appear to be robust, comparing mean levels across countries appears to be highly problematic, even when measurement equivalence is established. This has important implications for cross country interpretations of conscientiousness and educational policies and approaches. It would be important not to infer, for example, that specific countries would benefit from efforts to bolster conscientiousness based on their relative standing in educational outcomes compared to other countries. Furthermore, more research is needed to investigate cultural nuances in conscientiousness. In particular, future research could more closely examine potential reasons for contradictory findings in cross-cultural research, which may shed light on the implications for educational outcomes across cultures. Different facets of conscientiousness could have different functional utility in educational settings in different countries.</p> <p>In sum, conscientiousness, in all its forms, plays important roles in optimal functioning in educational settings. Going forward, our aspirations are to better detail why, whether, and to what extent we should try and foster qualities associated with educational success in our students.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-23">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161019773-24">Competing Interests</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0161019773-25">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0161019773-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Achaa-Amankwaa, P, Olaru, G, &amp; Schroeders, U. (2020). Coffee or tea? Examining cross-cultural differences in personality nuances across former colonies of the British Empire. European Journal of Personality, 0890207020962327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aden AA, Yahye ZA, Dahir AM. The effect of student's attendance on academic performance: A case study at Simad University Mogadishu. Academic Research International. 2013; 4; 6: 409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Allen RE, Kannangara C, Carson J. True grit: How important is the concept of grit for education? a narrative literature review. International Journal of Educational Psychology: IJEP. 2021; 10; 1: 73-87. 10.17583/ijep.2021.4578</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Allik J, McCrae RR. Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2004; 35; 1: 13-28. 10.1177/0022022103260382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Allik, J, Church, A. T, Ortiz, F. A, Rossier, J, Hřebíčková, M, De Fruyt, F,. &amp; McCrae, R. R. (2017). Mean profiles of the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 402-420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ashton, M. C, Lee, K, Perugini, M, Szarota, P, De Vries, R. E, Di Blas, L,. &amp; De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(2), 356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barrick MR, Mount MK, Strauss JP. Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78; 5: 715-722. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref206" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Baumert, A, Schmitt, M, Perugini, M, Johnson, W, Blum, G, Borkenau, P,. &amp; Mõttus, R. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31(5), 503-528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref389" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JBE. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research. 2001; 38; 2: 143-156. 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkowitz MW, Grych JH. Early character development and education. Early Education and Development. 2000; 11; 1: 55-72. 10.1207/s15566935eed1101_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bidjerano T, Dai DY. The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences. 2007; 17; 1: 69-81. 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bjork RA, Dunlosky J, Kornell N. Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2013; 64: 417-444. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blair C, Razza RP. Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development. 2007; 78; 2: 647-663. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bleidorn W. Hitting the road to adulthood: Short-term personality development during a major life transition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2012; 38; 12: 1594-1608. 10.1177/0146167212456707</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bleidorn, W, Hill, P. L, Back, M. D, Denissen, J. J, Hennecke, M, Hopwood, C. J,. &amp; Roberts, B. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bleidorn W, Hopwood CJ, Lucas RE. Life events and personality trait change. Journal of Personality. 2018; 86; 1: 83-96. 10.1111/jopy.12286</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boekarts M, Pintrich PR, Zeidner M. Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research and applications. 2000; Academic Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borghans, L, &amp; Schils, T. (2015). The leaning tower of PISA. Working Paper. Accessed February 24. http://www. sole-jole. org/13260. pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bray M, Kwok P. Demand for private supplementary tutoring: Conceptual considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Review. 2003; 22; 6: 611-620. 10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briley DA, Domiteaux M, Tucker-Drob EM. Achievement-relevant personality: Relations with the Big Five and validation of an efficient instrument. Learning and Individual Differences. 2014; 32: 26-39. 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broadbent J, Poon WL. Self-regulated learning strategies &amp; academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education. 2015; 27: 1-13. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bücker S, Nuraydin S, Simonsmeier BA, Schneider M, Luhmann M. Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality. 2018; 74: 83-94. 10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byun SY, Park H. The academic success of East Asian American youth: The role of shadow education. Sociology of Education. 2012; 85; 1: 40-60. 10.1177/0038040711417009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caprara GV, Vecchione M, Alessandri G, Gerbino M, Barbaranelli C. The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to academic achievement: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2011; 81; 1: 78-96. 10.1348/2044-8279.002004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter JP, Pease JS. Preparing students to take responsibility for learning: The role of non-curricular learning strategies. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction. 2013; 7; 2: 38-55. 10.3776/joci.2013.v7n2p38-55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter NT, Dalal DK, Boyce AS, O'Connell MS, Kung MC, Delgado KM. Uncovering curvilinear relationships between conscientiousness and job performance: How theoretically appropriate measurement makes an empirical difference. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014; 99; 4: 564. 10.1037/a0034688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter NT, Guan L, Maples JL, Williamson RL, Miller JD. The downsides of extreme conscientiousness for psychological well-being: The role of obsessive compulsive tendencies. Journal of Personality. 2016; 84; 4: 510-522. 10.1111/jopy.12177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter NT, Miller JD, Widiger TA. Extreme personalities at work and in life. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2018; 27; 6: 429-436. 10.1177/0963721418793134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carver CS, Scheier MF. Scaling back goals and recalibration of the affect system are processes in normal adaptive self-regulation: Understanding 'response shift' phenomena. Social Science &amp; Medicine. 2000; 50; 12: 1715-1722. 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00412-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cattell RB. The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology. 1945; 58: 69-90. 10.2307/1417576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A. Personality predicts academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality. 2003; 37; 4: 319-338. 10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chamorro-Premuzic T, Arteche A, Bremner AJ, Greven C, Furnham A. Soft skills in higher education: Importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual differences and academic performance. Educational Psychology. 2010; 30; 2: 221-241. 10.1080/01443410903560278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman BP. Bandwidth and fidelity on the NEO-five factor inventory: Replicability and reliability of item cluster subcomponents. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2007; 88; 2: 220-234. 10.1080/00223890701268082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen SX, Lam BC, Buchtel EE, Bond MH. The conscientiousness paradox: Cultural mindset shapes competence perception. European Journal of Personality. 2014; 28; 5: 425-436. 10.1002/per.1923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng, A, &amp; Zamarro, G. (2016). Measuring teacher conscientiousness and its impact on students: Insight from the measures of effective teaching longitudinal database.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, H, Pemberton, C. L, &amp; Ray, B. (2017). An exploration of the existence, value and importance of creativity education. Current Issues in Education, 20(1).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christopoulou M, Lakioti A, Pezirkianidis C, Karakasidou E, Stalikas A. The role of grit in education: A systematic review. Psychology. 2018; 9; 15: 2951-2971. 10.4236/psych.2018.915171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Church AT. Personality traits across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2016; 8: 22-30. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cianci AM, Klein HJ, Seijts GH. The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: The main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010; 95; 4: 618. 10.1037/a0019130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conard MA. Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality. 2006; 40; 3: 339-346. 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connelly BS, Ones DS. An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin. 2010; 136; 6: 1092. 10.1037/a0021212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conti, G, &amp; Heckman, J. J. (2012). The economics of child well-being (no. w18466). National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corker KS, Oswald FL, Donnellan MB. Conscientiousness in the classroom: A process explanation. Journal of Personality. 2012; 80; 4: 995-1028. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00750.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costa PT, McCrae RR. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment. 1992; 4; 1: 5-13. 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costantini G, Perugini M. The network of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality. 2016; 65: 68-88. 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conrad, N, &amp; Patry, M. W. (2012). Conscientiousness and academic performance: A mediational analysis. International Journalfor the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,6(1), n1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costello CK, Wood D, Tov W. Revealed traits: A novel method for estimating cross-cultural similarities and differences in personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2018; 49; 4: 554-586. 10.1177/0022022118757914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Credé M, Kuncel NR. Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008; 3; 6: 425-453. 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00089.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Credé M, Harms P, Niehorster S, Gaye-Valentine A. An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2012; 102; 4: 874. 10.1037/a0027403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Credé M, Roch SG, Kieszczynka UM. Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research. 2010; 80; 2: 272-295. 10.3102/0034654310362998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Credé M, Tynan MC, Harms PD. Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017; 113; 3: 492-511. 10.1037/pspp0000102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross, T, M. (2014). The gritty: grit and non-traditional doctoral student success. Journal of Educators Online, 11(3), n3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crowder, M. K, Gordon, R. A, Brown, R. D, Davidson, L. A, &amp; Domitrovich, C. E. (2019). Linking social and emotional learning standards to the WCSD Social–Emotional Competency Assessment: A Rasch approach. School Psychology, 34(3).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Danili E, Reid N. Cognitive factors that can potentially affect pupils' test performance. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2006; 7; 2: 64-83. 10.1039/B5RP90016F</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Fruyt F, Mervielde I, Hoekstra HA, Rolland JP. Assessing adolescents' personality with the NEO PI-R. Assessment. 2000; 7; 4: 329-345. 10.1177/107319110000700403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Raad B, Peabody D. Cross-culturally recurrent personality factors: Analyses of three factors. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology. 2005; 19; 6: 451-474. 10.1002/per.550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Ridder DT, Lensvelt-Mulders G, Finkenauer C, Stok FM, Baumeister RF. Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2012; 16; 1: 76. 10.1177/1088868311418749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demir, K, &amp; Karabeyoglu, Y. A. (2015). Factors associated with absenteeism in high schools. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(62).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeYoung CG, Quilty LC, Peterson JB. Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 93; 5: 880. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Disabato DJ, Goodman FR, Kashdan TB. Is grit relevant to well-being and strengths? Evidence across the globe for separating perseverance of effort and consistency of interests. Journal of Personality. 2019; 87; 2: 194-211. 10.1111/jopy.12382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dong Y, Dumas D. Are personality measures valid for different populations? A systematic review of measurement invariance across cultures, gender, and age. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020; 160: 109956. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109956</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donche V, De Maeyer S, Coertjens L, Van Daal T, Van Petegem P. Differential use of learning strategies in first-year higher education: The impact of personality, academic motivation, and teaching strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 83; 2: 238-251. 10.1111/bjep.12016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Kern ML. A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. Journal of Research in Personality. 2011; 45; 3: 259-268. 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Meindl P. Clarifying character education. Journal of Character Education. 2018; 14; 2: 37-39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Quinn PD. Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (GRIT–S). Journal of Personality Assessment. 2009; 91; 2: 166-174. 10.1080/00223890802634290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Yeager DS. Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher. 2015; 44; 4: 237-251. 10.3102/0013189X15584327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Gendler TS, Gross JJ. Self-control in school-age children. Educational Psychologist. 2014; 49; 3: 199-217. 10.1080/00461520.2014.926225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD, Kelly DR. Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 92; 6: 1087-1101. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Quinn PD, Seligman ME. Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 2009; 4; 6: 540-547. 10.1080/17439760903157232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Taxer JL, Eskreis-Winkler L, Galla BM, Gross JJ. Self-control and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology. 2019; 70: 373-399. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, Tsukayama E, Kirby TA. Is it really self-control? Examining the predictive power of the delay of gratification task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2013; 39; 7: 843-855. 10.1177/0146167213482589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duckworth AL, White RE, Matteucci AJ, Shearer A, Gross JJ. A stitch in time: Strategic self-control in high school and college students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016; 108; 3: 329. 10.1037/edu0000062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dumas D, Doherty M, Organisciak P. The psychology of professional and student actors: Creativity, personality, and motivation. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15; 10: e0240728. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240728</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dumfart, B, &amp; Neubauer, A. C. (2016). Conscientiousness is the most powerful noncognitive predictor of school achievement in adolescents. Journal of individual Differences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunkley DM, Blankstein KR, Zuroff DC, Lecce S, Hui D. Self-critical and personal standards factors of perfectionism located within the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006; 40; 3: 409-420. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eilam B, Zeidner M, Aharon I. Student conscientiousness, self-regulated learning, and science achievement: An explorative field study. Psychology in the Schools. 2009; 46; 5: 420-432. 10.1002/pits.20387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg IW, Bissett PG, Enkavi AZ, Li J, MacKinnon DP, Marsch LA, Poldrack RA. Uncovering the structure of self-regulation through data-driven ontology discovery. Nature Communications. 2019; 10; 1: 1-13. 10.1038/s41467-019-10301-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg ME, Toumbourou JW, Catalano RF, Hemphill SA. Social norms in the development of adolescent substance use: A longitudinal analysis of the International Youth Development Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2014; 43; 9: 1486-1497. 10.1007/s10964-014-0111-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N, Duckworth AL, Spinrad TL, Valiente C. Conscientiousness: Origins in childhood?. Developmental Psychology. 2014; 50; 5: 1331. 10.1037/a0030977</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg N, Valiente C, Eggum ND. Self-regulation and school readiness. Early Education and Development. 2010; 21; 5: 681-698. 10.1080/10409289.2010.497451</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot AJ. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist. 1999; 34; 3: 169-189. 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot AJ, Fryer JWShah J, Gardner W. The goal concept in psychology. Handbook of motivational science. 2008; Guilford Press: 235-250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enkavi AZ, Eisenberg IW, Bissett PG, Mazza GL, MacKinnon DP, Marsch LA, Poldrack RA. Large-scale analysis of test–retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019; 116; 12: 5472-5477. 10.1073/pnas.1818430116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eskreis-Winkler L, Duckworth AL, Shulman EP, Beal S. The grit effect: Predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5: 36. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farsides T, Woodfield R. Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: The roles of personality, intelligence, and application. Personality and Individual Differences. 2003; 34; 7: 1225-1243. 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00111-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feist GJ. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1998; 2; 4: 290-309. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishman EJ. With great control comes great responsibility: The relationship between perceived academic control, student responsibility, and self-regulation. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 84; 4: 685-702. 10.1111/bjep.12057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis B, Archer L. British-Chinese pupils' and parents' constructions of the value of education. British Educational Research Journal. 2005; 31; 1: 89-108. 10.1080/0141192052000310047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furnham A, Chamorro-Premuzic T, McDougall F. Personality, cognitive ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences. 2003; 14; 1: 47-64. 10.1016/j.lindif.2003.08.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galla, B. M, Shulman, E. P, Plummer, B. D, Gardner, M, Hutt, S. J, Goyer, J. P,. &amp; Duckworth, A. L. (2019). Why high school grades are better predictors of on-time college graduation than are admissions test scores: The roles of self-regulation and cognitive ability. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2077-2115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia PLS, Kupczynski L, Holland G. The impact of teacher personality styles on academic excellence of secondary students. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal. 2011; 21: 1-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger CR, Gough HG. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality. 2006; 40; 1: 84-96. 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Göllner R, Damian RI, Rose N, Spengler M, Trautwein U, Nagengast B, Roberts BW. Is doing your homework associated with becoming more conscientious?. Journal of Research in Personality. 2017; 71: 1-12. 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.08.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gordon, J, Halász, G, Krawczyk, M, Leney, T, Michel, A, Pepper, D,. &amp; Wiśniewski, J. (2009). Key competences in Europe: Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teacher education. CASE network Reports, (87).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB Jr. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality. 2003; 37; 6: 504-528. 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough HG. California psychological inventory: Administrator's guide. 1987; Consulting Psychologists Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green JA, O'Connor DB, Gartland N, Roberts BW. The Chernyshenko conscientiousness scales: A new facet measure of conscientiousness. Assessment. 2016; 23; 3: 374-385. 10.1177/1073191115580639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagger MS, Hamilton K. Grit and self-discipline as predictors of effort and academic attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 89; 2: 324-342. 10.1111/bjep.12241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamamura T, Heine SJ, Paulhus DL. Cultural differences in response styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008; 44; 4: 932-942. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, J, Van de Vijver, F. J, Fetvadjiev, V. H, de Carmen Dominguez Espinosa, A, Adams, B, Alonso–Arbiol, I,. &amp; Mõttus, R. (2017). On enhancing the cross-cultural comparability of Likert-scale personality and value measures: A comparison of common procedures. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 642-657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman JJFalk B. The case for investing in young children. Defending childhood: Keeping the promise of early education. 2012; Teachers College Press: 235-242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman, J. J, &amp; Karapakula, G. (2019). Intergenerational and intragenerational externalities of the Perry Preschool Project (No. w25889). National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heine SJ, Buchtel EE, Norenzayan A. What do cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us?. The Case of Conscientiousness. Psychological Science. 2008; 19; 4: 309-313. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02085.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heine SJ, Kitayama S, Lehman DR, Takata T, Ide E, Leung C, Matsumoto H. Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 81; 4: 599. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heine SJ, Lehman DR, Peng K, Greenholtz J. What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 82; 6: 903. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helson R, Roberts B, Agronick G. Enduringness and change in creative personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69; 6: 1173. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill PL, Roberts BW. The role of adherence in the relationship between conscientiousness and perceived health. Health Psychology. 2011; 30; 6: 797-804. 10.1037/a0023860</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstede G, McCrae RR. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research. 2004; 38; 1: 52-88. 10.1177/1069397103259443</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hofstee WK, De Raad B, Goldberg LR. Integration of the big five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992; 63; 1: 146. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, J, &amp; Lock, J. (1995, May). A taxonomy of interpersonal skills for business interactions. In 10th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogan, R, &amp; Hogan, J. (1992). Hogan Personality Inventory manual (2nd ed.). Tulsa, OK Hogan Assessment Systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong M, Lee S. Effects of grit and conscientiousness on academic performance: The mediation effects of self-determination motivation. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society. 2019; 10; 10: 143-151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hudson NW, Roberts BW. Goals to change personality traits: Concurrent links between personality traits, daily behavior, and goals to change oneself. Journal of Research in Personality. 2014; 53: 68-83. 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hudson NW, Fraley RC, Chopik WJ, Briley DA. Change goals robustly predict trait growth: A mega-analysis of a dozen intensive longitudinal studies examining volitional change. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2020; 11; 6: 723-732. 10.1177/1948550619878423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ivcevic Z, Brackett M. Predicting school success: Comparing conscientiousness, grit, and emotion regulation ability. Journal of Research in Personality. 2014; 52: 29-36. 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson DN. The jackson personality inventory-revised manual. 1994: Port Huron; Sigma Assessment Systems</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, J. J, Bogg, T, Walton, K. E, Wood, D, Harms, P. D, Lodi-Smith, J,. &amp; Roberts, B. W. (2009). Not all conscientiousness scales change alike: A multimethod, multisample study of age differences in the facets of conscientiousness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(2), 446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerrim J. Why do East Asian children perform so well in PISA? An investigation of Western-born children of East Asian descent. Oxford Review of Education. 2015; 41; 3: 310-333. 10.1080/03054985.2015.1028525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> John, O. P, Donahue, E. M, &amp; Kentle, R. L. (1991). Big Five Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kappe R, van der Flier H. Using multiple and specific criteria to assess the predictive validity of the Big Five personality factors on academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality. 2010; 44; 1: 142-145. 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly D, Donaldson D. Investigating the complexities of academic success: Personality constrains the effects of metacognition. Psychology of Education Review. 2016; 40; 2: 17-24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khan R, Neveu JP, Murtaza G. Is grit hurting you? The dark side of psychological resources in goal pursuit. Applied Psychology. 2021; 70; 3: 1323-1344. 10.1111/apps.12279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim LE, MacCann C. What is students' ideal university instructor personality? An investigation of absolute and relative personality preferences. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016; 102: 190-203. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim LE, Dar-Nimrod I, MacCann C. Teacher personality and teacher effectiveness in secondary school: Personality predicts teacher support and student self-efficacy but not academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 110; 3: 309. 10.1037/edu0000217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim LE, Jörg V, Klassen RM. A meta-analysis of the effects of teacher personality on teacher effectiveness and burnout. Educational Psychology Review. 2019; 31; 1: 163-195. 10.1007/s10648-018-9458-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King RB, McInerney DM. Culture's consequences on student motivation: Capturing cross-cultural universality and variability through personal investment theory. Educational Psychologist. 2014; 49; 3: 175-198. 10.1080/00461520.2014.926813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen RM, Durksen TL, Patterson F, Rowett E, Warwick J, Warwick P, Wolpert MA. Developing a proof-of-concept selection test for entry into primary teacher education programs. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. 2017; 4; 2: 96-114. 10.21449/ijate.275772</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein HJ, Lee S. The effects of personality on learning: The mediating role of goal setting. Human Performance. 2006; 19; 1: 43-66. 10.1207/s15327043hup1901_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhnle C, Hofer M, Kilian B. Self-control as predictor of school grades, life balance, and flow in adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 82; 4: 533-548. 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02042.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, K. K. L, &amp; Zhou, M. (2022). Grit and academic achievement: A comparative cross-cultural meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,114(3), 597.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latif E, Miles S. Class attendance and academic performance: A panel data analysis. Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy. 2013; 32; 4: 470-476. 10.1111/1759-3441.12054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lauermann F, Karabenick SA. Taking teacher responsibility into account (ability): Explicating its multiple components and theoretical status. Educational Psychologist. 2011; 46; 2: 122-140. 10.1080/00461520.2011.558818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J. Universals and specifics of math self-concept, math self-efficacy, and math anxiety across 41 PISA 2003 participating countries. Learning and Individual Differences. 2009; 19; 3: 355-365. 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee K, Ashton MC. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004; 39; 2: 329-358. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee K, Ashton MC. The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality. 2008; 76; 5: 1001-1054. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00512.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leung, K. S. F. (2006). Mathematics education in East Asia and the West: Does culture matter?. In Mathematics education in different cultural traditions-A comparative study of East Asia and the West (pp. 21–46). Springer, Boston, MA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li J. A cultural model of learning: Chinese "heart and mind for wanting to learn". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2002; 33; 3: 248-269. 10.1177/0022022102033003003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li J, Zhao Y, Kong F, Du S, Yang S, Wang S. Psychometric assessment of the Short Grit Scale among Chinese adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2018; 36; 3: 291-296. 10.1177/0734282916674858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li W, Wright PM, Rukavina PB, Pickering M. Measuring students' perceptions of personal and social responsibility and the relationship to intrinsic motivation in urban physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2008; 27; 2: 167-178. 10.1123/jtpe.27.2.167</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lievens F, Ones DS, Dilchert S. Personality scale validities increase throughout medical school. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009; 94; 6: 1514-1535. 10.1037/a0016137</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lievens F, Coetsier P, De Fruyt F, De Maeseneer J. Medical students' personality characteristics and academic performance: A five-factor model perspective. Medical Education. 2002; 36; 11: 1050-1056. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01328.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodi-Smith J, Jackson J, Bogg T, Walton K, Wood D, Harms P, Roberts BW. Mechanisms of health: Education and health-related behaviours partially mediate the relationship between conscientiousness and self-reported physical health. Psychology and Health. 2010; 25; 3: 305-319. 10.1080/08870440902736964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopes PN, Mestre JM, Guil R, Kremenitzer JP, Salovey P. The role of knowledge and skills for managing emotions in adaptation to school: Social behavior and misconduct in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal. 2012; 49; 4: 710-742. 10.3102/0002831212443077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucas GM, Gratch J, Cheng L, Marsella S. When the going gets tough: Grit predicts costly perseverance. Journal of Research in Personality. 2015; 59: 15-22. 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.08.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ludwig RM, Srivastava S, Berkman ET. Predicting exercise with a personality facet: Planfulness and goal achievement. Psychological Science. 2019; 30; 10: 1510-1521. 10.1177/0956797619868812</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacCann C, Roberts RDHicks R. Do time management, grit, and self-control relate to academic achievement independently of conscientiousness?. Personality and individual differences: Current directions. 2010; Australian Academic Press: 79-90</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacCann C, Duckworth AL, Roberts RD. Empirical identification of the major facets of conscientiousness. Learning and Individual Differences. 2009; 19; 4: 451. 10.1016/j.lindif.2009.03.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mameli C, Molinari L, Passini S. Agency and responsibility in adolescent students: A challenge for the societies of tomorrow. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 89; 1: 41-56. 10.1111/bjep.12215</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mammadov S, Cross TL, Olszewski-Kubilius P. A look beyond aptitude: The relationship between personality traits, autonomous motivation, and academic achievement in gifted students. Roeper Review. 2021; 43; 3: 161-172. 10.1080/02783193.2021.1923595</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin LS, Oades LG, Caputi P. Intentional personality change coaching: A randomised controlled trial of participant selected personality facet change using the Five-Factor Model of Personality. International Coaching Psychology Review. 2014; 9; 2: 196-209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAbee ST, Oswald FL. The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment. 2013; 25; 2: 532. 10.1037/a0031748</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCabe KO, Fleeson W. Are traits useful? Explaining trait manifestations as tools in the pursuit of goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2016; 110; 2: 287. 10.1037/a0039490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrae RR, Costa PT JrJohn OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA. The five-factor theory of personality. Handbook of personality theory and research. 2008; Guilford Press: 159-181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCrae, R. R, Chan, W, Jussim, L, De Fruyt, F, Löckenhoff, C. E, De Bolle, M,. &amp; Terracciano, A. (2013). The inaccuracy of national character stereotypes. Journal of research in personality, 47(6), 831-842</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meisenberg G. Do we have valid country-level measures of personality?. Mankind Quarterly. 2015; 55; 4: 360. 10.46469/mq.2015.55.4.7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meredith W, Millsap RE. On the misuse of manifest variables in the detection of measurement bias. Psychometrika. 1992; 57; 2: 289-311. 10.1007/BF02294510</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Middleton MJ, Midgley C. Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89; 4: 710. 10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.710</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miron-Spektor E, Erez M, Naveh E. The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal. 2011; 54; 4: 740-760. 10.5465/amj.2011.64870100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mondal A, Saha B. Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers in relation to personality and emotional intelligence. American Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 5; 10: 1097-1101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morell, M, Yang, J. S, Gladstone, J. R, Turci Faust, L, Ponnock, A. R, Lim, H. J, &amp; Wigfield, A. (2020). Grit: The long and short of it. Journal of Educational Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrissey TW, Hutchison L, Winsler A. Family income, school attendance, and academic achievement in elementary school. Developmental Psychology. 2014; 50; 3: 741. 10.1037/a0033848</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mõttus, R, Allik, J, Realo, A, Pullmann, H, Rossier, J, Zecca, G,. &amp; Ng Tseung, C. (2012). Comparability of self‐reported conscientiousness across 21 countries. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 303-317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mõttus R, Kandler C, Bleidorn W, Riemann R, McCrae RR. Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017; 112; 3: 474. 10.1037/pspp0000100</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Napolitano, C. M, Sewell, M. N, Yoon, H. J, Soto, C. J, &amp; Roberts, B. (2021, June). Social, emotional, and behavioral skills: An integrative model of the skills associated with success during adolescence and across the life span. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p. 234). Frontiers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nickel LB, Roberts BW, Chernyshenko OS. No evidence of a curvilinear relation between conscientiousness and relationship, work, and health outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2019; 116; 2: 296. 10.1037/pspp0000176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noftle EE, Robins RW. Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big Five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 93; 1: 116-130. 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD (2021). Survey on social and emotional skills. Last retrieved March, 24 2022: https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/social-emotional-skills-study/">www.oecd.org/education/ceri/social-emotional-skills-study/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oishi S, Roth DP. The role of self-reports in culture and personality research: It is too early to give up on self-reports. Journal of Research in Personality. 2009; 43; 1: 107. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oyserman D, Lee SW. Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin. 2008; 134; 2: 311. 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oyserman D, Coon HM, Kemmelmeier M. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin. 2002; 128; 1: 3. 10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker WD. An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children. American Educational Research Journal. 1997; 34; 3: 545-562. 10.3102/00028312034003545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patrick CL. Student evaluations of teaching: Effects of the Big Five personality traits, grades and the validity hypothesis. Assessment &amp; Evaluation in Higher Education. 2011; 36; 2: 239-249. 10.1080/02602930903308258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paunonen SV, Ashton MC. Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 81; 3: 524-539. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perugini M, Gallucci M. A hierarchical faceted model of the Big Five. European Journal of Personality. 1997; 11; 4: 279-301. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199711)11:4&lt;279:AID-PER282&gt;3.0.CO;2-F</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pierce JR, Aguinis H. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management. 2013; 39; 2: 313-338. 10.1177/0149206311410060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich PR, De Groot EV. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1990; 82; 1: 33. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ponnock A, Muenks K, Morell M, Yang JS, Gladstone JR, Wigfield A. Grit and conscientiousness: Another jangle fallacy. Journal of Research in Personality. 2020; 89: 104021. 10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poropat AE. A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin. 2009; 135; 2: 322-338. 10.1037/a0014996</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poropat AE. A meta-analysis of adult-rated child personality and academic performance in primary education. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014; 84; 2: 239-252. 10.1111/bjep.12019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rammstedt B, Kemper CJ, Klein MC, Beierlein C, Kovaleva A. A short scale for assessing the big five dimensions of personality: 10 item big five inventory (BFI-10). Methods, data, analyses. 2013; 7; 2: 17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reilly RR. Factors in graduate student performance. American Educational Research Journal. 1976; 13; 2: 125-138. 10.3102/00028312013002125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiter-Palmon R, Illies JJ, Kobe-Cross LM. Conscientiousness is not always a good predictor of performance: The case of creativity. The International Journal of Creativity &amp; Problem Solving. 2009; 19; 2: 27</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson M, Abraham C, Bond R. Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2012; 138; 2: 353-387. 10.1037/a0026838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rieger, S. Gölner, R, Spengler, M, Trautwein, U. Nagengast, B, &amp; Roberts, B.W. (in press). The persistence of students' academic effort: The unique and combined effects of conscientiousness and individual interest. Learning and Instruction.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rijavec M, Miljkovic D. Reasons for missing classes in college; the role of personality traits. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 205: 480-484. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.09.046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rimfeld K, Kovas Y, Dale PS, Plomin R. True grit and genetics: Predicting academic achievement from personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2016; 111; 5: 780. 10.1037/pspp0000089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivkin SG, Hanushek EA, Kain JF. Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica. 2005; 73; 2: 417-458. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2000; 126; 1: 3. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW, Mroczek D. Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2008; 17; 1: 31-35. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW, Bogg T, Walton KE, Chernyshenko OS, Stark SE. A lexical investigation of the lower-order structure of conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality. 2004; 38; 2: 164-178. 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00065-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW. Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of Research in Personality. 2009; 43; 2: 137-145. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW, Chernyshenko OS, Stark S, Goldberg LR. The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology. 2005; 58; 1: 103-139. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW, Lejuez C, Krueger RF, Richards JM, Hill PL. What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed?. Developmental Psychology. 2014; 50; 5: 1315. 10.1037/a0031109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin. 2017; 143; 2: 117. 10.1037/bul0000088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts BW, Walton K, Bogg T, Caspi A. De-investment in work and non-normative personality trait change in young adulthood. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology. 2006; 20; 6: 461-474. 10.1002/per.607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, B.W, &amp; Yoon, H.J. (2021). Personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 73https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson-Kraft, C, &amp; Duckworth, A. L. (2014). True grit: Trait-level perseverance and passion for long-term goals predicts effectiveness and retention among novice teachers. Teachers College Record, 116(3), 1–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossier, J, Aluja, A, Blanch, A, Barry, O, Hansenne, M, Carvalho, A. F,. &amp; Karagonlar, G. (2016). Cross‐cultural generalizability of the alternative five‐factor model using the Zuckerman–Kuhlman–Aluja personality questionnaire. European Journal of Personality, 30(2), 139-157</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rossier J, Dahourou D, McCrae RR. Structural and mean-level analyses of the five-factor model and locus of control: Further evidence from Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2005; 36; 2: 227-246. 10.1177/0022022104272903</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Samuel DB, Widiger TA. Conscientiousness and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 2011; 2; 3: 161. 10.1037/a0021216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders, W. L, &amp; Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, I, Petroska-Beska, V, Carneiro, P, Eskreis-Winkler, L, Munoz Boudet, A. M, Berniell, I,. &amp; Duckworth, A. (2021). Can grit be taught? Lessons from a nationwide field experiment with middle-school students.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saucier G. Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1994; 63; 3: 506-516. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt FT, Nagy G, Fleckenstein J, Möller J, Retelsdorf JAN. Same same, but different? Relations between facets of conscientiousness and grit. European Journal of Personality. 2018; 32; 6: 705-720. 10.1002/per.2171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwaba T, Rhemtulla M, Hopwood CJ, Bleidorn W. A facet atlas: Visualizing networks that describe the blends, cores, and peripheries of personality structure. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15; 7: e0236893. 10.1371/journal.pone.0236893</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seeboth A, Mõttus R, Kandler C. Successful explanations start with accurate descriptions: Questionnaire items as personality markers for more accurate predictions. European Journal of Personality. 2018; 32; 3: 186-201. 10.1002/per.2147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shedler J, Block J. Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist. 1990; 45; 5: 612. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.5.612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shonkoff, J. P, Garner, A. S, Siegel, B. S, Dobbins, M. I, Earls, M. F, McGuinn, L,. &amp; Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care. (2012a). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, 129(1), e232-e246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shonkoff JP, Richter L, van der Gaag J, Bhutta ZA. An integrated scientific framework for child survival and early childhood development. Pediatrics. 2012; 129; 2: e460-e472. 10.1542/peds.2011-0366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siddiqui N, Ventista OM. A review of school-based interventions for the improvement of social emotional skills and wider outcomes of education. International Journal of Educational Research. 2018; 90: 117-132. 10.1016/j.ijer.2018.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song J, Gaspard H, Nagengast B, Trautwein U. The Conscientiousness× Interest Compensation (CONIC) model: Generalizability across domains, outcomes, and predictors. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 112; 2: 271. 10.1037/edu0000379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorić I, Penezić Z, Burić I. The Big Five personality traits, goal orientations, and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences. 2017; 54: 126-134. 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto CJ, John OP. Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality. 2009; 43; 1: 84-90. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto CJ, John OP. The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017; 113; 1: 117. 10.1037/pspp0000096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto CJ, Napolitano CM, Roberts BW. Taking skills seriously: Toward an integrative model and agenda for social, emotional, and behavioral skills. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2021; 30; 1: 26-33. 10.1177/0963721420978613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soto, C. J, Napolitano, C, Sewell, M, Yoon, H. R, &amp; Roberts, B. (2021b). An integrative framework for conceptualizing and assessing social, emotional, and behavioral skills: The BESSI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stachl, C, Au, Q, Schoedel, R, Gosling, S. D, Harari, G. M, Buschek, D,. &amp; Bühner, M. (2020). Predicting personality from patterns of behavior collected with smartphones. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(30), 17680-17687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanat, P, &amp; Lüdtke, O. (2008). Multilevel issues in international large-scale assessment studies on student performance. Multilevel analysis of individuals and cultures, 315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg RJ. Minutes of the Presidential task force on psychology and education. 2002; American Psychological Association</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson, H. W, &amp; Lee, S. Y. (1996). The academic achievement of Chinese students.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart RD, Mõttus R, Seeboth A, Soto CJ, Johnson W. The finer details? The predictability of life outcomes from Big Five domains, facets, and nuances. Journal of Personality. 2022; 90; 2: 167-182. 10.1111/jopy.12660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stieger, M, Flückiger, C, Rüegger, D, Kowatsch, T, Roberts, B. W, &amp; Allemand, M. (2021). Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(8).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoeber J, Otto K, Dalbert C. Perfectionism and the Big Five: Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences. 2009; 47; 4: 363-368. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, T. (2021). Artificial intelligence powered personality assessment: A multidimensional psychometric natural language processing perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, T, &amp; Drasgow, F. (n.d). Forced choice to overcome the cross-cultural response style bias problem.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanberg AB, Martinsen ØL. Personality, approaches to learning and achievement. Educational Psychology. 2010; 30; 1: 75-88. 10.1080/01443410903410474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality. 2004; 72; 2: 271-324. 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tatar M. Primary and secondary school teachers' perceptions and actions regarding their pupils' emotional lives. School Psychology International. 1998; 19; 2: 151-168. 10.1177/0143034398192004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tellegen A, Waller NG. Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment. 2008; 2: 261-292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Terracciano, A, Abdel-Khalek, A. M, Adam, N, Adamovová, L, Ahn, C. K, Ahn, H. N,. &amp; McCrae, R. R. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310(5745), 96–100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas TD, Abts K, Vander Weyden P. Measurement invariance, response styles, and rural–urban measurement comparability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2014; 45; 7: 1011-1027. 10.1177/0022022114532359</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trapmann S, Hell B, Hirn JOW, Schuler H. Meta-analysis of the relationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/journal of Psychology. 2007; 215; 2: 132-151. 10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trautwein U, Lüdtke O. Students' self-reported effort and time on homework in six school subjects: Between-students differences and within-student variation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99; 2: 432. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trautwein U, Lüdtke O, Roberts BW, Schnyder I, Niggli A. Different forces, same consequence: Conscientiousness and competence beliefs are independent predictors of academic effort and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97; 6: 1115. 10.1037/a0017048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trautwein U, Lüdtke O, Schnyder I, Niggli A. Predicting homework effort: Support for a domain-specific, multilevel homework model. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98; 2: 438. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trautwein, U, Nagengast, B, Roberts, B, &amp; Lüdtke, O. (2019). Predicting academic effort: The Conscientiousness x Interest Compensation (CONIC) model. In The Cambridge handbook of motivation and learning (pp. 353–372). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tucker-Drob EM, Briley DA, Engelhardt LE, Mann FD, Harden KP. Genetically-mediated associations between measures of childhood character and academic achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2016; 111; 5: 790. 10.1037/pspp0000098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Usher EL, Li CR, Butz AR, Rojas JP. Perseverant grit and self-efficacy: Are both essential for children's academic success?. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 111; 5: 877. 10.1037/edu0000324</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van de Vijver F, Leung K. Methods and data analysis of comparative research. 1997; Allyn &amp; Bacon</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Akker AL, Deković M, Asscher J, Prinzie P. Mean-level personality development across childhood and adolescence: A temporary defiance of the maturity principle and bidirectional associations with parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014; 107; 4: 736. 10.1037/a0037248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vazire S. Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality. 2006; 40; 5: 472-481. 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vazire S. Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2010; 98; 2: 281. 10.1037/a0017908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vecchione M, Dentale F, Alessandri G, Barbaranelli C. Fakability of implicit and explicit measures of the Big Five: Research findings from organizational settings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 2014; 22; 2: 211-218. 10.1111/ijsa.12070</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vedel A. The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2014; 71: 66-76. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vedel A. Big Five personality group differences across academic majors: A systematic review. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016; 92: 1-10. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vedel, A, &amp; Poropat, A. E. (2017). Personality and academic performance. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences, 1–9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vianello M, Robusto E, Anselmi P. Implicit conscientiousness predicts academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010; 48; 4: 452-457. 10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagerman SA, Funder DC. Acquaintance reports of personality and academic achievement: A case for conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality. 2007; 41; 1: 221-229. 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton KE, Roberts BW. On the relationship between substance use and personality traits: Abstainers are not maladjusted. Journal of Research in Personality. 2004; 38; 6: 515-535. 10.1016/j.jrp.2004.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wentzel KR. Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research. 1991; 61; 1: 1-24. 10.3102/00346543061001001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb TL, Christian J, Armitage CJ. Helping students turn up for class: Does personality moderate the effectiveness of an implementation intention intervention?. Learning and individual differences. 2007; 17; 4: 316-327. 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White JL, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Bartusch DJ, Needles DJ, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1994; 103; 2: 192. 10.1037/0021-843X.103.2.192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehurst, G. J. (2016). Hard Thinking on Soft Skills. Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol 1,14. Center on Children and Families at Brookings.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whiteside SP, Lynam DR. The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences. 2001; 30; 4: 669-689. 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Widiger, T. A, Costa Jr, P. T, &amp; McCrae, R. R. (2002a). A proposal for Axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the five-factor model.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Widiger, T. A, Trull, T. J, Clarkin, J. F, Sanderson, C, &amp; Costa Jr, P. T. (2002b). A description of the DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wormington SV, Linnenbrink-Garcia L. A new look at multiple goal pursuit: The promise of a person-centered approach. Educational Psychology Review. 2017; 29; 3: 407-445. 10.1007/s10648-016-9358-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wrosch C, Heckhausen J, Lachman ME. Primary and secondary control strategies for managing health and financial stress across adulthood. Psychology and Aging. 2000; 15; 3: 387-399. 10.1037/0882-7974.15.3.387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, K. M, Cunha-Harvey, A. R, King, R. B, de Koning, B. B, Paas, F, Baars, M,. &amp; de Groot, R. (2021). A cross-cultural investigation on perseverance, self-regulated learning, motivation, and achievement. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, L, Yoon, HR, Roberts, BW (2022). Perseverance, a measure of conscientiousness, is a valid predictor of achievement and truancy across the globe.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang M, Cross SE. Emotions in memories of success and failure: A cultural perspective. Emotion. 2011; 11; 4: 866. 10.1037/a0024025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng A, Briley D, Jacobucci R. Incremental validity of character measures over the Big Five and fluid intelligence in predicting academic achievement. PsyArXiv. 2020. 10.31234/osf.io/652qz</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng, A, Briley, D, Jacobucci, R, Harden, K. P, &amp; Tucker-Drob, E. (n.d). Incremental validity of character measures over the Big Five and fluid intelligence in predicting academic achievement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman BJ. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist. 1990; 25; 1: 3-17. 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Enhancing students' academic responsibility and achievement: A Socialcognitive self-regulatory account. In R. J. Sternberg, &amp; R. Subotnik (Eds.), Optimizing student success in school with the other three Rs: Reasoning, resilience, and responsibility (pp. 179–197). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J, &amp; Martinez-Pons, M. (1988). Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J, &amp; Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 1–12.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Julia Spielmann; Hee Jun Roy Yoon; Mona Ayoub; Yueyang Chen; Nathaniel S. Eckland; Ulrich Trautwein; Anqing Zheng and Brent W. Roberts</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib216" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib217" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib179" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib184" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib233" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib247" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib194" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib173" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib207" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib222" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib218" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib225" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib242" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib193" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib191" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib214" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib215" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib204" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib181" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib243" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib249" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib248" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib244" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib149" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib180" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib245" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib239" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib263" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib161" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib166" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib159" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib171" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib182" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib229" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib189" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib186" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib236" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib234" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib261" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib213" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib235" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib237" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib212" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib185" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib188" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib202" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib172" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib198" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib176" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib208" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib227" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib201" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib256" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib257" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib250" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib165" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib264" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib224" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib183" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref192"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib246" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib167" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib203" firstref="ref198"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib192" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib254" firstref="ref208"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref227"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref228"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref229"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib178" firstref="ref231"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib187" firstref="ref232"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl148" bibid="bib205" firstref="ref233"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl149" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref235"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl150" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref236"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl151" bibid="bib238" firstref="ref238"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl152" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref239"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl153" bibid="bib228" firstref="ref240"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl154" bibid="bib253" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl155" bibid="bib255" firstref="ref242"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl156" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl157" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref244"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl158" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref246"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl159" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref248"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl160" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref249"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl161" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref251"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl162" bibid="bib206" firstref="ref258"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl163" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref262"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl164" bibid="bib258" firstref="ref263"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl165" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref264"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl166" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref266"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl167" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref269"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl168" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref270"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl169" bibid="bib265" firstref="ref271"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl170" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref273"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl171" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref275"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl172" bibid="bib259" firstref="ref276"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl173" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref280"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl174" bibid="bib158" firstref="ref284"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl175" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref287"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl176" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref288"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl177" bibid="bib267" firstref="ref290"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl178" bibid="bib177" firstref="ref291"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl179" bibid="bib175" firstref="ref293"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl180" bibid="bib266" firstref="ref296"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl181" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref297"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl182" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref298"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl183" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref299"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl184" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref300"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl185" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref301"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl186" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref302"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl187" bibid="bib251" firstref="ref303"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl188" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref304"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl189" bibid="bib220" firstref="ref305"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl190" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref306"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl191" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref310"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl192" bibid="bib268" firstref="ref311"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl193" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref313"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl194" bibid="bib197" firstref="ref315"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl195" bibid="bib190" firstref="ref316"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl196" bibid="bib196" firstref="ref319"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl197" bibid="bib241" firstref="ref322"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl198" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref323"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl199" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref324"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl200" bibid="bib209" firstref="ref325"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl201" bibid="bib210" firstref="ref326"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl202" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref327"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl203" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref328"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl204" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref329"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl205" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref330"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl206" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref332"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl207" bibid="bib223" firstref="ref333"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl208" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref334"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl209" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref336"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl210" bibid="bib252" firstref="ref338"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl211" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref340"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl212" bibid="bib195" firstref="ref341"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl213" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref343"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl214" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref344"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl215" bibid="bib170" firstref="ref345"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl216" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref346"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl217" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref347"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl218" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref348"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl219" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref350"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl220" bibid="bib199" firstref="ref352"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl221" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref353"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl222" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref354"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl223" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref356"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl224" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref357"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl225" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref358"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl226" bibid="bib262" firstref="ref359"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl227" bibid="bib260" firstref="ref362"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl228" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref364"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl229" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref367"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl230" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref371"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl231" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref372"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl232" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref373"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl233" bibid="bib231" firstref="ref374"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl234" bibid="bib221" firstref="ref375"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl235" bibid="bib168" firstref="ref378"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl236" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref381"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl237" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref385"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl238" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref387"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl239" bibid="bib232" firstref="ref390"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl240" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref391"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl241" bibid="bib226" firstref="ref393"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl242" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref395"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl243" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref397"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl244" bibid="bib240" firstref="ref399"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl245" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref400"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl246" bibid="bib200" firstref="ref401"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl247" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref403"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl248" bibid="bib219" firstref="ref407"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl249" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref408"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl250" bibid="bib211" firstref="ref418"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1360160 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: An In-Depth Review of Conscientiousness and Educational Issues – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Spielmann%2C+Julia%22">Spielmann, Julia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5502-454X">0000-0002-5502-454X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yoon%2C+Hee+Jun+Roy%22">Yoon, Hee Jun Roy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ayoub%2C+Mona%22">Ayoub, Mona</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chen%2C+Yueyang%22">Chen, Yueyang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eckland%2C+Nathaniel+S%2E%22">Eckland, Nathaniel S.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Trautwein%2C+Ulrich%22">Trautwein, Ulrich</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zheng%2C+Anqing%22">Zheng, Anqing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Roberts%2C+Brent+W%2E%22">Roberts, Brent W.</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychology+Review%22"><i>Educational Psychology Review</i></searchLink>. Dec 2022 34(4):2745-2781. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 37 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Definitions%22">Definitions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation%22">Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Education%22">Outcomes of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Differences%22">Cultural Differences</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10648-022-09693-2 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1040-726X<br />1573-336X – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Why does conscientiousness matter for education? How is conscientiousness conceptualized in the field of research on education? How do socio-emotional (SE) skills relate to conscientiousness? In an effort to help answer these questions, we review the current research on conscientiousness in education. Specifically, we examine (1) how conscientiousness is defined, (2) the assessment of conscientiousness, (3) the relation between conscientiousness and educational outcomes, (4) whether too much conscientiousness may be a bad thing, (5) the relation between conscientiousness and conceptually related educational constructs, (6) the changeability of conscientiousness and the importance of that fact to education, and (7) the challenges of assessing conscientiousness across cultures. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1360160 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1360160 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10648-022-09693-2 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 37 StartPage: 2745 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Personality Traits Type: general – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence Type: general – SubjectFull: Definitions Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Cultural Differences Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: An In-Depth Review of Conscientiousness and Educational Issues Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Spielmann, Julia – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Yoon, Hee Jun Roy – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ayoub, Mona – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Chen, Yueyang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Eckland, Nathaniel S. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Trautwein, Ulrich – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Zheng, Anqing – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Roberts, Brent W. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 12 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1040-726X – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-336X Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 34 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Psychology Review Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
