View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Insights into Academic Performance: Intelligence, Personality, and Their Dynamic Relationship

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Insights into Academic Performance: Intelligence, Personality, and Their Dynamic Relationship
Language: English
Authors: Lukasz Nikel (ORCID 0000-0002-5840-4521)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(10):4012-4022.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Intelligence, Intelligence Quotient, Personality Traits, Scores, Elementary School Students, Correlation, Neurosis, Extraversion Introversion
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23590
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: The role of intelligence and personality traits in explaining school achievement is crucial. However, their mutual impact on academic success remains unclear due to ambiguous results--the synergistic hypothesis versus the compensatory hypothesis. Additionally, there is a lack of research on representative samples, particularly concerning the distribution of results per intelligence quotient (IQ) scores and among children in the lower grades of primary school. The conducted research aimed to address these gaps. A total of 466 students with an IQ score distribution of M = 103.29 and SD = 15.46 were examined. Multisource assessments, including personality traits, fluid intelligence, and school achievement, were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and moderation analysis. The results indicated that intellectual level moderated the relationship between extraversion and school achievement in all participants; neuroticism and school achievement in students with IQ < 114; and openness to experience and school grades in students with IQ between 103 and 114, showing a synergistic effect, and in students with intelligence > 107, displaying a compensatory effect. These findings offer some explanation for the two opposing hypotheses regarding the synergistic and compensatory interaction between intelligence and personality traits in explaining school achievements. They also highlight how "cognitive" and "non-cognitive" factors combined may contribute to overall school success.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483393
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGqZZ2HWPGH1nCCqAsMYtBMAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCpcQaBa5Z2uKlF3tgIBEICBmx8jTdl6YPwh8OEO9e0tKkb4DMEMAoOee63D2qluw5u8DSwbzfsZnH7LG_xWQbdcSI5uFv2eYaTfwvaqB2Lq-vyUEiQ1C6a_PiMmQbOI9a9ghC3dHMOuLjg6aDsOFSiZTZwVTw6BOn3CUYVpOsrghjBihC0jyFH7domA8YCctBYA_LpckPB1jcwT75NCcdMiHmhNZVLIJm6hoOe3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0187949512;pis01oct.25;2025Sep16.03:20;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0187949512-1&quot;&gt;Insights Into Academic Performance: Intelligence, Personality, and Their Dynamic Relationship&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;The role of intelligence and personality traits in explaining school achievement is crucial. However, their mutual impact on academic success remains unclear due to ambiguous results—the synergistic hypothesis versus the compensatory hypothesis. Additionally, there is a lack of research on representative samples, particularly concerning the distribution of results per intelligence quotient (IQ) scores and among children in the lower grades of primary school. The conducted research aimed to address these gaps. A total of 466 students with an IQ score distribution of M = 103.29 and SD = 15.46 were examined. Multisource assessments, including personality traits, fluid intelligence, and school achievement, were analyzed using Pearson&#39;s correlation coefficient and moderation analysis. The results indicated that intellectual level moderated the relationship between extraversion and school achievement in all participants; neuroticism and school achievement in students with IQ &amp;lt; 114; and openness to experience and school grades in students with IQ between 103 and 114, showing a synergistic effect, and in students with intelligence &amp;gt; 107, displaying a compensatory effect. These findings offer some explanation for the two opposing hypotheses regarding the synergistic and compensatory interaction between intelligence and personality traits in explaining school achievements. They also highlight how &quot;cognitive&quot; and &quot;non‐cognitive&quot; factors combined may contribute to overall school success.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Summary: The study emphasizes the importance of considering intellectual levels when assessing the impact of personality on students&#39; academic success.The research suggests that openness to experience is most strongly associated with academic success in students with average intelligence.Extraversion may have a greater impact on academic performance in students with borderline intellectual functioning, while neuroticism may have a greater impact in students with above‐average intelligence.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Keywords: extraversion; intelligence quotient; neuroticism; openness to experience; primary school; school achievement&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-2&quot;&gt;Introduction&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Intelligence and personality traits are crucial indicators of an individual&#39;s success. Both are largely inherited dispositions that influence a person&#39;s behavior (Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Poropat&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Roth et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]). They play a significant role in explaining academic performance, particularly in terms of school grades (Roth et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]). However, the predictive power of intelligence on school achievement undergoes substantial changes throughout a student&#39;s educational stages. It is influenced by factors such as the subject studied, educational level, methods of measuring intelligence, and the characteristics of the sample itself (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Roth et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Similar to intelligence, all five basic personality traits of the Big Five are significantly associated with academic achievements (Israel et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Mammadov&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Poropat&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Conscientiousness and openness to experience, in particular, have emerged as the strongest predictors of school achievement, whereas the relationship between neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and academic performance is not consistently clear and lacks significance in some studies (Israel et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Poropat&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In the educational context, personality traits can manifest as behaviors along a continuum ranging from regulatory to non‐regulatory and dysregulatory. For instance, conscientiousness and extraversion are predictors of regulating positive emotionality and health in students. In contrast, openness to experience is classified as non‐regulatory, while agreeableness and neuroticism are considered dysregulatory, as they are precursors to negative emotionality and poorer health in students (Fuente et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Furthermore, the significance of the correlation between the five personality traits and school achievement varies depending on multiple mediators and moderators, such as the educational stage, gender, testing methods, school involvement, and motivation, among others (Mammadov&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Poropat&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Despite numerous studies independently examining the roles of intelligence and personality traits in elucidating school achievement, limited understanding exists regarding the interaction between these two facets of human personality—namely, the &quot;cognitive&quot; and &quot;non‐cognitive&quot; aspects (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;])—during students&#39; knowledge acquisition, the efficacy of which is measured through academic achievements. Therefore, the study aimed to investigate the relationship between intelligence, personality traits, and school achievement in primary school students, a topic that has been rarely studied. Moreover, it aimed to clarify whether intelligence and personality traits have a synergistic or compensatory impact on academic success.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-3&quot;&gt;The Interaction of Intelligence With Personality Traits&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The thesis regarding the interaction of intelligence with personality traits originates from the assumption that the capacity to act, such as cognitive abilities, does not automatically generate the inclination to act, including aspects like personality, motivation, and adherence to social norms (Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Zhang and Ziegler&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Consequently, these two domains mutually influence each other during the execution of various tasks, such as those related to academic performance. &quot;Non‐cognitive&quot; factors, like personality traits, may dictate how a student translates their cognitive abilities into academic outcomes (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]), while &quot;cognitive factors,&quot; such as the ability to comprehend a task, fluid reasoning, verbal ability, visual processing, numerical ability and so forth. (Lozano et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]) may be a prerequisite for achieving high grades in school, whereas the manner in which a student approaches the task is equally important. For instance, a student may possess the ability to learn complex material but might lack the determination to effectively master it. Conversely, another student may have high determination to learn but insufficient cognitive abilities. The role of &quot;cognitive&quot; and &quot;non‐cognitive&quot; variables in learning is also incorporated into the Utility Model for Stress Management and Academic Well‐being (de la Fuente and Mart&#237;nez‐Vicente&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In this model, intelligence and personality serve as predictors of learning behavior. Intermediary variables of a motivational‐affective nature, such as learning styles or meta‐affective skills, play a significant role. Finally, outcome variables, such as academic results or academic satisfaction, represent the product. This model provides a holistic understanding of academic well‐being and elucidates the interrelationships between these three types of variables.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Research on the interaction between personality traits and intelligence concerning academic performance has not yet yielded clear conclusions. The observed interaction effects may be either synergistic or compensatory, meaning the relationship between personality traits and academic performance either strengthens or weakens with increasing intelligence, depending on the research results (Sorjonen et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]). For instance, Heaven and Ciarrochi ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]) noted a stronger association between openness to experience and academic performance in students with higher intelligence than in those with lower intelligence. Similar results were found for the interaction of intelligence with conscientiousness (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]) or the interaction of intelligence with impulsivity (Lozano et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Conversely, a compensatory relationship was identified by Zhang and Ziegler ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]), who observed that the positive relationship between openness to experience and academic performance weakens as intelligence levels increase. A similar interaction was noted when language abilities were explored instead of academic performance (Ziegler et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The compensatory interaction was also supported by results from the study by Hufer‐Thamm et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]), where students with low intelligence could achieve higher school grades by compensating for their cognitive deficits with a conscientious work style. In addition to these two observed interaction effects, interesting findings were presented by the study conducted by Brandt and Lechner ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]). They found no interaction effects between fluid intelligence and conscientiousness in students from the younger grades of primary school (grades 4–7), and a small interaction effect was observed in students from grades 7 to 9, which became insignificant when considered in the covariate analysis. In primary school students (from 11 years of age), the interaction effect between fluid intelligence and conscientiousness was also not observed for German language grades in the study by Hufer‐Thamm et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The above studies may suggest that interaction effects (both synergistic and compensatory) may occur more frequently at higher levels of education, in more challenging educational environments where individuals are more intellectually homogeneous, and success is more influenced by personality traits (Mammadov&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Poropat&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results confirming the synergistic relationship between intelligence and personality traits indicate that compensating for a low level of intelligence with a personality trait to enhance academic performance is very challenging. This suggests that a certain minimum level of intelligence is a necessary condition for high school achievements (Sorjonen et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Additionally, personality traits may assist in judiciously channeling above‐average abilities, aiming for long‐term educational effects rather than immediate or short‐term rewards, for example (Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Conversely, results indicating a compensatory relationship suggest that under certain conditions, there may be a specific optimal level of intelligence. Beyond this point, personality traits may not further enhance academic results. This implies that students with high intelligence can effectively tackle challenging school tasks irrespective of their personality traits, such as their working style (Zhang and Ziegler&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Students facing learning difficulties due to lower cognitive abilities, however, can compensate for these challenges with their personality traits, for instance, through persistent work, interest in the topic, etcetera (Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref39&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To summarize the two hypotheses on the interaction of intelligence with personality traits, it can be assumed that under certain conditions of intelligence level, personality traits may enhance the role of intelligence in explaining school achievements. For example, high conscientiousness may assist in channeling intellectual abilities for the benefits of learning. On the other hand, under different conditions of intelligence level, personality traits may compensate for certain cognitive deficits. For instance, conscientiousness may aid in keeping up with more intelligent colleagues (Brandt and Lechner&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-4&quot;&gt;The Methodological Variances in Studies&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;It is worth noting that the above studies examining the interaction of intelligence with personality differ significantly in methodology, which may account for some variations in the obtained results:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ulist&gt; &lt;item&gt; a. In the study by Heaven and Ciarrochi ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]), intelligence was measured in the seventh grade, while academic performance and personality were measured in the 10th grade. Similarly, in the study by Brandt and Lechner ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]), intelligence was measured in the second grade (Study 1) and fifth grade (Study 2), with personality and academic competence measured in grades 4 and 7 (Study 1) and 7 and 9 (Study 2), respectively. Given these discrepancies, it remained uncertain whether and how the current level of intelligence explains current school grades and whether it interacts with personality traits, as these traits may change over the years (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Roth et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/item&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;item&gt; b. The vast majority of studies were conducted in high schools and among university students (e.g., Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Heaven and Ciarrochi&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Lozano et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Zhang and Ziegler&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]), with only two studies focusing on younger primary school students: Hufer‐Thamm et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]), with students of an average age of 11 years (SD = 0.32), and Brandt and Lechner ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]), with students of an average age of 9.29 years (SD = 0.47). In these studies, no statistically significant results were obtained. At each age stage, both the role of intelligence and personality traits in explaining school grades was different (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Roth et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib24&quot; id=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;24&lt;/reflink&gt;]), and the structure of students in terms of intelligence changed; at the beginning of education, it was more diverse, and in higher‐level schools, it was more homogeneous.&lt;/item&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;item&gt; c. There is no clear information on whether raw scores from intelligence tests were transformed into standardized IQ scores (with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15), as recommended in the test manuals (e.g., Lozano et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sorjonen et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Zhang and Ziegler&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]). If studies relied solely on raw scores across broad age groups (e.g., Brandt and Lechner&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]), the prediction of school achievement based on such scores may be inadequate. This is crucial, as intelligence levels vary significantly with age and should therefore be reported accordingly. For example, the same raw score (e.g., 70) may predict different academic outcomes for students aged 11 and 14. A younger student might achieve very good results in Grade 4, while the older student might obtain only average results in Grade 6. When converted to standardized scores, the 11‐year‐old would receive an IQ of 102, whereas the 14‐year‐old would receive an IQ of 91. This helps explain why students with identical raw scores can differ significantly in academic performance depending on their age.&lt;/item&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;item&gt; d. The studies conducted lack information about kurtosis, skewness, and the minimum and maximum score on the cognitive test used (e.g., Heaven and Ciarrochi&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sorjonen et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib25&quot; id=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;25&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This information would allow investigators to assess whether the subjects who participated in the studies reflected the same distribution of intelligence as in the population. For example, in the study by Zhang and Ziegler ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref60&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]), a ceiling effect was observed in the intelligence test (&lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 46.85, SD = 12.15), with a maximum of 60 points on the test. Considering that most of the studies conducted so far have involved high school and university students, excluding respondents in primary school. Because most of the participants came from high schools and university, it can be assumed that the number of participants with intelligence quotient (IQ) scores below 100 may have been underestimated, and the number of students with intelligence above 100 may have been overestimated. This also creates an interpretation problem because it is unclear whether the research participants in a given study, where the results were not transformed, actually have an above‐average level of intelligence according to the IQ scale or just an average or below‐average level. This difficulty makes it challenging to compare effect results between studies because it is uncertain whether (e.g., although Study Y observed a similar interaction effect as Study X) they involved the same level of intelligence, as both studies did not present results transformed to a standardized scale with a mean 100 and a standard deviation 15.&lt;/item&gt; &lt;/ulist&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table&#160;1 summarizes the most important information regarding the effects of the interaction between cognitive ability and personality traits, as well as some methodological differences between studies.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 Table Summary of findings on the relationship between cognitive ability and personality traits.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Study&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Sample&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Interaction effect&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Cognitive abilities&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Ziegler et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr31&quot;&amp;gt;2009&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Total sample N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;271, university students; Low performance N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;142; High performance N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;129&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Total sample&amp;amp;#8212;non interaction effect for achievement striving; Low performance&amp;amp;#8212;synergistic interaction for achievement striving; High performance&amp;amp;#8212;compensatory interaction for achievement striving&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Total sample&amp;amp;#8212;intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;116.84, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;18.49; Low performance intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;113.87, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;17.88; High performance M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;120.11, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;18.66&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Heaven and Ciarrochi (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr10&quot;&amp;gt;2012&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;786; high school students&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Synergistic interaction for openness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;88.41, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;6.2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Ziegler et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr30&quot;&amp;gt;2012&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;180; M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;age&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;24&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Compensate interaction for openness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Fluid intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;116.74, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;18.50 (range 0&amp;amp;#8211;180)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Lozano et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr17&quot;&amp;gt;2014&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;174; between 18&amp;amp;#8722;37 years, undergraduates&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Synergistic interaction for impulsivity&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Not available&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Zhang and Ziegler (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr29&quot;&amp;gt;2015&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;836, M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;15.35; secondary school students&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Compensate interaction for openness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Fluid intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;46.85, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;12.15, (range 0&amp;amp;#8211;60)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Strobel et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr27&quot;&amp;gt;2019&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;290; undergraduate students&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Compensate interaction for need for cognition&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Intelligence Quotient M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;117.7; SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;9.1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Bergold and Steinmayr (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr2&quot;&amp;gt;2018&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Study 1: N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;421, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;age&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;16.43, high school students; Study 2: N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;243, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;age&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;16.53, high school student&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Study 1&amp;amp;#8212;synergetic interaction for conscientiousness; Study 2&amp;amp;#8212;synergetic interaction for neuroticism&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Study 1 &amp;amp;#8208; intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;109.90, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;16.93 (range not available); Study 2&amp;amp;#8212;intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;111.7, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;16.43&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Sorjonen et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr25&quot;&amp;gt;2021&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;8984, between 18&amp;amp;#8722;28 years&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Synergistic interaction for personality traits (combination of the Big Five personality traits)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Not available&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Brandt and Lechner (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr3&quot;&amp;gt;2022&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;First sample N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;3778, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;age&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;9.29; Second sample N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;4942, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;age&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;12.49&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Non interaction effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;First sample (grade 2)&amp;amp;#8212;fluid intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;5.53, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;3.65, (range 0&amp;amp;#8722;12); Second sample (grade 5)&amp;amp;#8212;fluid intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;4.53, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;4 (range 0&amp;amp;#8211;12)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Hufer&amp;amp;#8208;Thamm et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr11&quot;&amp;gt;2023&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;1043, between 11&amp;amp;#8722;15 years&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Non interaction effect for German grades, small compensatory interaction for conscientiousness in math grades&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Fluid intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;31.79, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;7.60, (range not available)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Lavrijsen et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr15&quot;&amp;gt;2023&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;3409, M&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;age&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;12.4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Non interaction effect&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Fluid intelligence M&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;103.09, SD&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;14.26&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Meyer et al. (&amp;lt;xref ref-type=&quot;bibr&quot; rid=&quot;bibr20&quot;&amp;gt;2024&amp;lt;/xref&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;amp;#8201;=&amp;amp;#8201;18.637, secondary students;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Synergistic interaction for conscientiousness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Not available&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-5&quot;&gt;The Present Study&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Some of the discrepancies outlined above may contribute to explaining the synergistic and compensatory interaction between intelligence and personality. Indications suggest that studies in which a ceiling result was observed in the measurement of intelligence tended to show a compensatory interaction, as seen in Ziegler et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref61&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;]), Zhang and Ziegler ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref62&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]) or Strobel et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref63&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;], while studies where the majority of participants had average and above‐average intelligence demonstrated a synergistic effect, as seen in Ziegler et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref64&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;]) or Bergold and Steinmayr ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref65&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]). It is likely that different studies obtained the same effects, and significant interactions between intelligence and personality traits on school achievements were probably noted among individuals whose intelligence was above average (around IQ 110–120). In studies with a more representative sample, where IQ was close to 100 with a standard deviation of 15, no interaction effect was observed, as seen in Brandt and Lechner ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref66&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]), Hufer‐Thamm et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref67&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]) or Lavrijsen et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Considering the aforementioned factors, the current study aimed to address the existing research gaps. Consequently, we focused on primary school students aged 8 years and over, a subject that has rarely been studied before, measuring their current intelligence level, personality traits, and current school achievement. Additionally, we transformed the raw results from the intelligence test used into an IQ scale based on norms representative of the population. Given the inconsistencies in previous research findings, two research questions and three hypotheses were formulated:&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;RQ1: Is there an interaction between intelligence and personality traits in predicting school achievement among primary school students?&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-6&quot;&gt;H1.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Intellectual level moderates the relationship between personality traits and school achievement among primary school students.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;RQ2: Can a synergistic effect between intelligence and personality traits be observed for intelligence in the average to above‐average range and a compensatory effect in the above‐average to high range?&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-7&quot;&gt;H2.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;A synergistic effect between intelligence and personality traits in predicting school achievement is expected to be observed among students with intelligence in the average to above‐average range.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-8&quot;&gt;H3.&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;A compensatory effect between intelligence and personality traits in predicting school achievement is expected to be observed among students with intelligence in the above‐average to high range.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-9&quot;&gt;Method&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-10&quot;&gt;Participants&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The study employed purposive sampling to select participants. Students were recruited from third‐ and fourth‐grade classes in primary schools in Wrocław, Poland. Those whose parents or the students themselves did not provide consent to participate were excluded from the study.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study involved students from the third grade (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 290) and fourth grade (&lt;emph&gt;n&lt;/emph&gt; = 176) of primary schools. A total of 466 students were examined, with a similar number of girls and boys (48.7% and 51.3%, respectively). The minimum age of the examined individuals was 8 years, and the maximum age was 12 years. Incomplete data occurred in 37 individuals, representing 8% of the entire sample.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-11&quot;&gt;Procedure&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Before the study and during its implementation, care was taken to adhere to all ethical standards associated with conducting social research. Initially, parental consent was obtained. Throughout the study, the children&#39;s consent was also secured, and privacy was ensured during the completion of the questionnaires. Additionally, the anonymity and confidentiality of the conducted research were maintained. The study was conducted during school hours and had a group format. All students completed the Culturally Neutral Cattell Intelligence Test (Version 2) and the Personality Traits Questionnaire, while teachers filled out a school evaluation questionnaire. The planned analysis was registered on the ASPREDICTED website (https://aspredicted.org/Q4T%5fKHW), and a part of the data has already been used and described in Nikel ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]) study, which aimed to explore the role of gender in explaining school achievement using basic personality characteristics. During the preparation and conduct of the study, all principles of the Code of Ethics of the Polish Psychological Association were respected. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants, including providing information on the purpose of the research, as well as ensuring anonymity and confidentiality.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-12&quot;&gt;Measures&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-13&quot;&gt;Measurement of Intelligence&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;This study employed the Culturally Neutral Cattell Intelligence Test, Version 2 (Wei&#223;&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib28&quot; id=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;28&lt;/reflink&gt;]), in the Polish adaptation by Stańczak ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib26&quot; id=&quot;ref71&quot;&gt;26&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This test assesses fluid intelligence and may be one of the predictors of students&#39; academic achievements. Raw scores can be transformed into normalized scores corresponding to the appropriate population by age, expressed on an IQ scale or a percentile scale. In this study, all students&#39; raw scores were transformed into a standardized IQ scale. The reliability of the test in the adaptive study, analyzed using internal consistency depending on age, was not less than 0.80, and in the current sample, it was &lt;emph&gt;α&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.83 and &lt;emph&gt;ω&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.83. The fluid intelligence test demonstrates a consistent confirmatory factor structure: chi‐square = 3.73, df = 2, RMSEA = 0.043, CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.994. The goodness‐of‐fit index values met the recommended criteria (Khairi et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref72&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-14&quot;&gt;Measurement of Personality Traits&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Personality traits were measured using the 45‐item Polish (Oleś&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]) adaptation of The Big Five Personality Inventory for Children (Little and Wanner&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref74&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]) to assess the intensity of personality traits, including neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The answer options ranged from 1 (&lt;emph&gt;definitely untrue&lt;/emph&gt;) to 4 (&lt;emph&gt;definitely true&lt;/emph&gt;). In the Polish adaptation study (Oleś&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref75&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]), the dimensions showed satisfactory measures of reliability (&lt;emph&gt;α&lt;/emph&gt; ≥ 0.74). In the current sample, reliability was also acceptable (&lt;emph&gt;α&lt;/emph&gt; ≥ 0.72 and &lt;emph&gt;ω&lt;/emph&gt; ≥ 0.73). Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted to confirm the factor structure over the 15 facets (three per factor) in the current sample: chi‐square = 351, df = 80, RMSEA = 0.089, CFI = 0.874, TLI = 0.835. The analysis model shows marginal fit values (Khairi et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref76&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-15&quot;&gt;School Achievement&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;School achievements were examined using a teacher evaluation questionnaire. This questionnaire contained two items that related to students&#39; school achievements in Polish and mathematics, the two main subjects in Polish schools. The teacher of each subject assessed the student on a 5‐point scale: 1—&lt;emph&gt;very poor&lt;/emph&gt;, 2—&lt;emph&gt;poor&lt;/emph&gt;, 3—&lt;emph&gt;average&lt;/emph&gt;, 4—&lt;emph&gt;good&lt;/emph&gt;, and 5—&lt;emph&gt;very good&lt;/emph&gt;. The total school achievement score was calculated by summing the two grades.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The study used teacher evaluation questionnaire to measure school achievements instead of objective test because the former are more significantly predicted by personality traits (Brandt and Lechner&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref77&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]) due to the fact that a teacher perception of the given grade includes not only the ability to demonstrate pure school skills, but also other factors such as activity during classes, doing homework, and preparing for lessons, and these depend much more on personality traits. Moreover, the results indicate that teachers&#39; perceptions of students&#39; academic ability are significantly related to objective test performance (e.g., the correlation between teacher‐rated math ability and test math scores: &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.69, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001; teacher‐rated reading ability and test reading scores: &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.48, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001; Hughes and Coplan&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]; or achievement test scores and teacher‐rated achievement: &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.90, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01; Coplan et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref79&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-16&quot;&gt;Statistical Analyses&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;At the outset of the statistical analyses, descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were computed for intelligence, personality traits, and school grades. To control for age‐related differences in intelligence tests, raw test values were transformed into age‐corrected IQ values according to norms provided in the test manual. Following that, a moderation analysis was conducted to test the conceptual model (i.e., the effects of personality traits on school achievement moderated by IQ), using the PROCESS 4.2 macro for SPSS 28 (Hayes&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref80&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]) with mean composite scores on the items for IQ, personality traits, and school achievement. Model 1 was then calculated using PROCESS (Hayes&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref81&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Personality traits were entered as the independent variable, school achievement as the dependent variable, and IQ as the moderator variable. The &lt;emph&gt;F&lt;/emph&gt;‐statistic test was used to assess the overall significance of the model. A significant &lt;emph&gt;F&lt;/emph&gt;‐value (&lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.05) indicates that the model significantly predicts the dependent variable. If the &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;‐value is less than 0.05, the model is considered statistically significant, meaning that the independent and moderator variables together significantly predict the dependent variable. &lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&#178; and adjusted &lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&#178; values were used to indicate model fit. Bootstrapping analysis was performed using 2000 bootstrap samples to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI). In this process, the 95% CI for the interaction term between the independent variable and the moderator did not contain zero, indicating a significant moderating effect. The simple slopes for the association between personality traits and school achievement were tested for low (−1 SD below the mean), moderate (mean) and high (+1 SD above the mean) levels of IQ. To address multiple testing and reduce Type I error, the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure with a false discovery rate of 0.10 was applied to all regression analyses in the moderation models (Benjamini and Hochberg&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref82&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Furthermore, moderation analyses were augmented with Johnson‐Neyman output to identify regions within the range of the moderator variable where the effect of the focal predictor on the outcome is statistically significant or not significant. Missing data were managed using listwise deletion, whereby any cases with missing values were excluded from the analyses.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-17&quot;&gt;Results&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-18&quot;&gt;Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Descriptive statistics for the obtained results are presented in Table&#160;2 and correlation analysis in Table&#160;3. As evident from the study findings, the mean and standard deviation (SD) values from the intelligence test closely mirror the results for the IQ scale, with &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt; = 100 and SD = 15.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;2 Table Descriptive statistics for study variables.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Variable&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Min.&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Max.&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Skew&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Kurtosis&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;School achievement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7.85&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.90&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.78&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.04&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Intelligence quotient&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;56&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;159&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;103.29&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.46&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.25&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Neuroticism&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;22.05&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.93&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.05&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.02&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Extraversion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;29.71&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.64&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;1.01&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.25&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Openness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;28.90&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.68&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.81&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.95&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Agreeableness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;30.49&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.73&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;1.05&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1.65&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Conscientiousness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;9&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;27.69&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.93&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.38&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.13&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;3 Table Correlations for study variables.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Variable&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;6&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1. School achievement&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.48&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.26&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.08&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.17&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.01&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2. Intelligence quotient&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.13&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.06&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.15&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.07&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3. Neuroticism&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.01&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.06&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.14&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.06&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4. Extraversion&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.44&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.55&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.41&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5. Openness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.58&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.60&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6. Agreeableness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.62&amp;lt;ext-link href=&quot;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&amp;amp;#42;&quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7. Conscientiousness&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;1 &lt;emph&gt;Note:&lt;/emph&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ulist&gt; &lt;item&gt;2 ** &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.01&lt;/item&gt; &lt;item&gt;3 *** &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt; &amp;lt; 0.001.&lt;/item&gt; &lt;/ulist&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-19&quot;&gt;Moderator Analysis&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The SPSS macro PROCESS 4.2 (Hayes&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref83&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]) was employed to assess the moderator effect on the path from personality traits to academic achievement. The analysis involved drawing 2,000 bootstrap samples to estimate the 95% CI. The level of intelligence emerged as a significant moderator in the following relationships: between extraversion and school achievement (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.002, SE = 0.001, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −2.25, 95% CI [−0.004, −0.0006])—significant among all participants; between neuroticism and school achievements (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.003, SE = 0.002, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −2.01, 95% CI [−0.006, −0.0001])—significant for participants with IQ &amp;lt; 114; and between openness and school achievements (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.03, SE = 0.01, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = 2.86, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05])—for participants with IQ 103–114 (synergistic interaction) and (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.008, SE = 0.003, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −2.39, 95% CI [−0.013, −0.003]) for participants with IQ &amp;gt; 107 (compensatory interaction). After applying the Benjamini‐Hochberg correction (Benjamini and Hochberg&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref84&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;]) to control for false discovery rates across the four models analyzed, the interaction effects remained significant. The model summary, including &lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&#178; and adjusted &lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&#178; values to indicate model fit, is presented in Table&#160;4.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;4 Table Model summary included independent variable, moderator and interaction term.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Independent variable&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th align=&quot;center&quot;&amp;gt;Dependent variable (school achievement)&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr valign=&quot;bottom&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;R&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#178;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#916;R&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#178;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;F&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;df1&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;df2&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody valign=&quot;top&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Extraversion and intelligence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.24&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;43.45&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;408&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60; 0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Interaction (extraversion &amp;amp;#215; intelligence)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.25&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.01&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.08&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;408&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.02&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Neuroticism and intelligence&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.27&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36.63&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;302&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60; 0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Interaction (neuroticism &amp;amp;#215; intelligence)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.28&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.01&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.04&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;302&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.04&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Openness and intelligence (IQ 103&amp;amp;#8211;114)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.09&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.07&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.34&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;104&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.02&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Interaction (openness &amp;amp;#215; intelligence)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.16&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.19&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;104&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.005&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Openness and intelligence (IQ&amp;amp;#8201;&amp;amp;#62;&amp;amp;#8201;107)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.04&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7.25&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;173&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#60; 0.001&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Interaction (openness &amp;amp;#215; intelligence)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7.60&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;173&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;0.007&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;To examine the interaction effect, a simple slope analysis was conducted. The relationship between: extraversion and school achievements was significant only at the lowest intellectual level (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.05, SE = 0.02, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = 2.37, 95% CI [0.009, 0.099]); neuroticism and school achievements became more strongly associated with increasing intelligence: IQ = 86 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.06, SE = 0.02, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −2.37, 95% CI [−0.10, −0.0095]), IQ = 97 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.09, SE = 0.019, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −4.92, 95% CI [−0.13, −0.05]), and IQ = 108 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.13, SE = 0.03, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −4.74, 95% CI [−0.18, −0.07]); openness and school achievements were not significant at IQ = 105 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.03, SE = 0.04, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.66, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.06]), borderline significant at IQ = 108 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.07, SE = 0.04, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = 1.90, 95% CI [−0.003, 0.14]), and significant at IQ = 111 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.16, SE = 0.05, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = 3.01, 95% CI [0.06, 0.27]); and openness and school achievements were most strongly associated at IQ = 110 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.13, SE = 0.04, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = 3.09, 95% CI [0.05, 0.21]), significant associated at IQ = 118 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = 0.06, SE = 0.03, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = 2.09, 95% CI [0.003, 0.12]), and not significant at IQ = 126 (&lt;emph&gt;B&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.006, SE = 0.04, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt; = −0.15, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.07]). The interaction results are illustrated in Figure&#160;1, and the Johnson‐Neyman output is provided in Supporting Information S1: Table&#160;S1.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/PIS/01oct25/pits23590-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS&quot; alt=&quot;pits23590-fig-0001.jpg&quot; title=&quot;1 Above the line: neuroticism (IQ &amp;lt; 114), extraversion (IQ 56−159), and intelligence quotient predicting school achievement. Below the line: illustration of synergistic (left) and compensatory (right) interaction effects of openness and intelligence quotient on school achievement.&quot; /&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-21&quot;&gt;Discussion&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The result of the moderation analysis conducted in a group of students with an average IQ of 103 and a SD of 15, it was demonstrated that the students&#39; intelligence level acted as a moderator between extraversion and school achievements. However, there was no significant moderation effect for neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Consequently the results partially confirm H1. Extraversion significantly predicted school achievements only in students with borderline intellectual functioning (IQ &amp;lt; 89). This effect diminished as the level of intelligence increased. This indicates that personality traits can interact with intellect and support academic achievement to some extent. The observed interaction was of a compensatory nature, revealing that in students with significantly below‐average intelligence, extraversion can compensate for certain cognitive deficits to achieve higher school grades. The lower the level of intellect, the more prominent a role children&#39;s extraversion plays in explaining school achievement. Higher extraversion may assist the child in collaborating with teachers and peers, managing stress in school situations, and actively participating in the classroom, thereby promoting academic achievements (Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref85&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Additional moderation analyses in the group of students with average and above‐average intelligence revealed that the previously observed synergistic and compensatory effects between openness to experience or conscientiousness and intelligence on school achievements (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref86&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Zhang and Ziegler&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref87&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]) may pertain to the same effect but in different groups of participants with varying intelligence levels. The moderation analysis conducted in the group of students with an IQ above 107 demonstrated a compensatory effect of openness to experience on school achievements (Hypothesis 3). It was found that the lower the IQ level, the more openness to experience predicted school achievements. Conversely, in the group of students with an IQ between 103 and 114, a synergistic effect was observed for openness to experience on school achievements (Hypothesis 2)—the higher the intellectual level, the more strongly openness to experience predicted school achievements. The obtained results may, to some extent, explain why some studies found a synergistic effect of the interaction between personality traits and intelligence (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref88&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref89&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]), while others found a compensatory effect (Zhang and Ziegler&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib29&quot; id=&quot;ref90&quot;&gt;29&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Ziegler et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib30&quot; id=&quot;ref91&quot;&gt;30&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In studies where a synergistic effect was observed, the research group likely involved individuals with average to above‐average intelligence (around 100−120), while in studies where a compensatory effect was observed, the intelligence of the research group may have achieved results above average to high (about &amp;gt; 110). Therefore, studies on more representative samples, where the IQ range was from −3SD to +3 SD, did not show a significant interaction between either a compensatory or synergistic nature for openness to experience or conscientiousness (Brandt and Lechner&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref92&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref93&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results of our moderation analysis also revealed a significant interaction effect between the level of intelligence and neuroticism on school achievements, excluding students with higher‐than‐average intelligence (IQ &amp;gt; 113). It was found that as the level of intelligence increased, neuroticism was more strongly negatively associated with school achievements. The observed interaction was synergistic in nature, as neuroticism most negatively predicted school achievements in students with above‐average intelligence, and weakest but still significant in students with borderline intellectual functioning. A similar interaction effect was obtained in the study by Bergold and Steinmayr ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref94&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]). This result indicates that students with above‐average cognitive abilities may encounter difficulties in translating these abilities into high achievements when experiencing a high level of neuroticism. Conversely, with a low level of intelligence, a higher level of neuroticism will only slightly reduce the already low school achievement (Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref95&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref96&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The obtained results support the thesis that high neuroticism hinders gifted students from utilizing their potential at school and is less influential for less gifted students (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref97&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In summarizing the above results, which indicate significant interactions between personality traits and intelligence in relation to school grades, a degree of caution is warranted. Given the standard error of measurement in the intelligence test and some differences of less than one standard deviation—particularly in the case of the interaction between openness to experience and intelligence—these distinctions may not be meaningful or causal. As such, categorizing intelligence levels too rigidly may result in overinterpretation. Furthermore, it is important to note that student achievement was not directly measured in the present study. Instead, teacher ratings were used as a proxy measure. While informative, these ratings are only moderately correlated with actual academic performance and may be influenced by factors such as perceived effort, classroom behavior, or teacher‐student relationships (Hughes and Coplan&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref98&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Coplan et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref99&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref100&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]). These limitations should be carefully considered to avoid overstating the practical significance of the findings.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The obtained results are consistent with interactive psychoeducational models (de la Fuente‐Arias&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref101&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]), which suggest that metacognition (intelligence) and metamotivation (personality), along with their mutual interaction, play an important role in self‐regulated learning (de la Fuente et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref102&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]). These results may indicate how students actively control and regulate their own learning by using metamotivation (personality traits) and metacognition (fluid intelligence) to achieve specific goals, such as school achievement. However, it should be noted that self‐regulated learning is not only explained in terms of personal characteristics (self‐regulation) but also in terms of contextual predictors (external regulation), which include various family and educational contexts, as well as other situational stimuli that may influence behavior (de la Fuente‐Arias&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref103&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Taking into account the results of the study and other research measuring the interaction of personality with intelligence on school achievement, it can be argued that at the beginning of learning, when the acquired knowledge is elementary and general and students vary widely in terms of intelligence, there exists a lower and upper limit of intelligence within which personality traits can only slightly influence school achievements (Brandt and Lechner&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref104&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref105&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Their role is significant in students with average intelligence (Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref106&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref107&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]). However, over the course of developmental changes, these disparities in intelligence and personality traits may evolve (Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref108&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]). As the educational levels progress, individuals in given classes and fields of study become more homogeneous in the level of intelligence, as well as the specificity of intelligence itself (i.e., students with linguistic abilities choose more humanistic fields, while those with spatial abilities choose technical fields, etc.). Consequently, personality traits may play a more important role in broadly defined achievements, not only academic results. For instance, in students in the initial grades of primary school, intellectual abilities may directly translate into basic skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, which determine school achievement. In contrast, achievements in youth and adulthood depend on specialization in a given field, which is not solely dependent on intellect but also on motivation, perseverance, ability to cooperate, compliance with social norms, and more.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The conducted study has several limitations. The number of individuals examined in the group of students with borderline intellectual functioning and those with high intelligence should be larger, as this may increase the probability of detecting certain statistical effects. Due to the potent dynamics of development and changes in children&#39;s behavior throughout life, it is recommended to conduct future research at different developmental ages, for example, during early adolescence or adolescence. It is also worth noting that some of the students were 12 years old because they had repeated a grade. Although the IQ was adjusted for age, their presence may have skewed the scores on the other tests. Caution should also be exercised when generalizing our results to other student populations, as the surveyed group was not representative, and the selection of participants for the study was purposeful. Future research is recommended in other regions of the country and internationally. Additionally, the study only examined a narrow aspect of children&#39;s school achievements—the teacher&#39;s perception of school grades. Future researchers may consider incorporating other measures of school achievement, such as standardized tests or GPA. In the conducted study, only the role of intelligence and personality traits in school achievement was considered. Moreover, the percentage of explained variance in school achievement was small. Therefore, it should be noted that academic results also depend on other important factors: contextual (e.g., family context), personal (e.g., different learning strategies), and contextual processes (e.g., promoting an appropriate approach to learning) (de la Fuente and Mart&#237;nez‐Vicente&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref109&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Future studies may also focus on these factors and their mutual interactions. Additionally, a potential limitation of this study is the impact of measurement reliability on the observed relationships. Personality traits were measured with relatively lower reliability compared to cognitive abilities, which may have attenuated the correlations found. Lower reliability can lead to underestimating the true strength of associations, potentially obscuring meaningful relationships between personality and school achievement.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Despite its limitations, it should be noted that the conducted study stands out as one of the few carried out among students in the younger grades of primary school. Furthermore, the students were characterized by an intellect close to the normalized IQ distribution with a mean of 100 and a SD (standard deviation) of 15. The measurement concerned their current level of intellect, the current structure of personality traits, and current school achievements. The obtained results have practical value as they provide a hypothesis that may explain the compensatory and synergistic effects between personality traits and intelligence on school achievements. Moreover, the results of the moderation analysis from the present study and earlier studies indicate that while the strongest relationship among personality traits has been observed between conscientiousness and openness to experience and school achievements (Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref110&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Poropat&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref111&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]), this relationship may primarily apply to individuals with average intelligence and be insignificant in individuals with low and high intelligence (e.g., Bergold and Steinmayr&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref112&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Hufer‐Thamm et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref113&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Ziegler et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib31&quot; id=&quot;ref114&quot;&gt;31&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Additionally, other personality traits may also play an important role in explaining school achievements but at different intellectual levels, such as extraversion in individuals with borderline intellectual functioning and neuroticism in individuals with below‐average to average intelligence. This may also help explain the inconsistent research results when using the Big Five traits, such as extraversion, neuroticism, or agreeableness, to explain school achievements (Meyer et al.&#160;[&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref115&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In the school setting, the findings suggest that interventions aimed at improving academic achievement should consider the interaction between personality traits and intelligence. For example, interventions focused on enhancing conscientiousness and openness to experience may be particularly beneficial for students with average intelligence, while interventions addressing extraversion or neuroticism may be more relevant for students with specific intellectual profiles. This underscores the importance of personalized and tailored approaches to intervention design in school settings.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0187949512-22&quot;&gt;Conflicts of Interest&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The author declares no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;GRAPH: Supmat.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0187949512-23&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; References &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; idref=&quot;ref82&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. &quot; Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.&quot; Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 57, no. 1 : 289 – 300.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; idref=&quot;ref5&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Bergold, S., and R. Steinmayr. 2018. &quot; Personality and Intelligence Interact in the Prediction of Academic Achievement.&quot; Journal of Intelligence 6, no. 2 : 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6020027.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; idref=&quot;ref32&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Brandt, N. D., and C. M. Lechner. 2022. &quot; Fluid Intelligence and Competence Development in Secondary Schooling: No Evidence for a Moderating Role of Conscientiousness.&quot; Journal of Intelligence 10, no. 2 : 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10020027.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; idref=&quot;ref79&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Coplan, R. J., J. Liu, J. Cao, X. Chen, and D. Li. 2017. &quot; Shyness and School Adjustment in Chinese Children: The Roles of Teachers and Peers.&quot; School Psychology Quarterly 32, no. 1 : 131 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000179.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; idref=&quot;ref23&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; de la Fuente, J., and J. M. Mart&#237;nez‐Vicente. 2024. &quot; Conceptual Utility Model for the Management of Stress and Psychological Wellbeing, Cmmspw in a University Environment: Theoretical Basis, Structure and Functionality.&quot; Frontiers in Psychology 14 : 1299224. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1299224.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; idref=&quot;ref13&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Fuente, J., P. Sander, A. Garz&#243;n Umerenkova, B. Urien, M. Pach&#243;n‐Basallo, and E. O Luis. 2024. &quot; The Big Five Factors as Differential Predictors of Self‐Regulation, Achievement Emotions, Coping and Health Behavior In Undergraduate Students.&quot; BMC Psychology 12, no. 1 : 267. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01768-9.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; idref=&quot;ref102&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; de la Fuente, J., P. Sander, J. M. Mart&#237;nez‐Vicente, M. Vera, A. Garz&#243;n, and S. Fadda. 2017. &quot; Combined Effect of Levels in Personal Self‐Regulation and Regulatory Teaching on Meta‐Cognitive, on Meta‐Motivational, and on Academic Achievement Variables in Undergraduate Students.&quot; Frontiers in Psychology 8 : 232. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00232.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; idref=&quot;ref101&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; de la Fuente‐Arias, J. 2017. &quot; Theory of Self‐ Vs. Externally‐Regulated Learning: Fundamentals, Evidence, and Applicability.&quot; Frontiers in Psychology 8 : 1675. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01675.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; idref=&quot;ref80&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hayes, A. F. 2022. Process for SPSS and SAS (Version 4.2)[Macro].&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Heaven, P. C. L., and J. Ciarrochi. 2012. &quot; When IQ Is not Everything: Intelligence, Personality and Academic Performance at School.&quot; Personality and Individual Differences 53, no. 4 : 518 – 522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.024.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hufer‐Thamm, A., A. Starr, and R. Steinmayr. 2023. &quot; Is There Evidence for Intelligence‐by‐Conscientiousness Interaction in the Prediction of Change in School Grades From Age 11 to 15 Years? &quot; Journal of Intelligence 11, no. 3 : 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030045.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Hughes, K., and R. J. Coplan. 2010. &quot; Exploring Processes Linking Shyness and Academic Achievement in Childhood.&quot; School Psychology Quarterly 25, no. 4 : 213 – 222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022070.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Israel, A., O. L&#252;dtke, and J. Wagner. 2019. &quot; The Longitudinal Association Between Personality and Achievement in Adolescence: Differential Effects Across All Big Five Traits and Four Achievement Indicators.&quot; Learning and Individual Differences 72 : 80 – 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.03.001.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Khairi, M. I., D. Susanti, and S. Sukono. 2021. &quot; Study on Structural Equation Modeling for Analyzing Data.&quot; International Journal of Ethno‐Sciences and Education Research 1, no. 3 : 52 – 60. https://doi.org/10.46336/ijeer.v1i3.295.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lavrijsen, J., F. Preckel, and K. Verschueren. 2023. &quot; Seeking, Mastering, and Enjoying Cognitive Effort: Scrutinizing the Role of Need for Cognition in Academic Achievement.&quot; Learning and Individual Differences 107 : 102363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102363.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Little, T. D., and B. Wanner. 1998. Validity of a Big‐Five Personality Inventory for Children (B5P‐C). Poster Presented at the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development Meeting.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lozano, J. H., F. Gordillo, and M. A. P&#233;rez. 2014. &quot; Impulsivity, Intelligence, and Academic Performance: Testing the Interaction Hypothesis.&quot; Personality and Individual Differences 61–62 : 63 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.013.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Mammadov, S. 2022. &quot; Big Five Personality Traits and Academic Performance: A Meta‐Analysis.&quot; Journal of Personality 90, no. 2 : 222 – 255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12663.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Meyer, J., J. Fleckenstein, J. Retelsdorf, and O. K&#246;ller. 2019. &quot; The Relationship of Personality Traits and Different Measures of Domain‐Specific Achievement in Upper Secondary Education.&quot; Learning and Individual Differences 69 : 45 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.005.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Meyer, J., O. L&#252;dtke, F. T. C. Schmidt, J. Fleckenstein, U. Trautwein, and O. K&#246;ller. 2024. &quot; Conscientiousness and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Academic Achievement: Evidence of Synergistic Effects From Integrative Data Analysis.&quot; European Journal of Personality 38, no. 1 : 36 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221127065.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Nikel, Ł. 2023. &quot; The Big Five Personality Traits and School Achievements of Children: The Role of Gender.&quot; Psychologia Rozwojowa 27, no. 4 : 71 – 84. https://doi.org/10.4467/20843879pr.22.025.18084.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Oleś, M. 2010. Jakość Życia Młodzieży W Zdrowiu I W Chorobie [Quality of Young People&#39;s Life In Good And Ill Health]. Wydawnictwo KUL.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Poropat, A. E. 2009. &quot; A Meta‐Analysis of the Five‐Factor Model of Personality and Academic Performance.&quot; Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 2 : 322 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Roth, B., N. Becker, S. Romeyke, S. Sch&#228;fer, F. Domnick, and F. M. Spinath. 2015. &quot; Intelligence and School Grades: A Meta‐Analysis.&quot; Intelligence 53 : 118 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sorjonen, K., A. S. Wallin, D. Falkstedt, and B. Melin. 2021. &quot; Personality Trait by Intelligence Interaction Effects on Grades Tend to be Synergistic.&quot; BMC Psychology 9, no. 1 : 202. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00708-1.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Stańczak, J. 2013. CFT 20‐R Neutralny Kulturowo Test Inteligencji Cattella—Wersja 2 Zrewidowana Przez R. H. Weiβa We Wsp&#243;łpracy Z B.Weiβem. Pracownia Test&#243;w Psychologicznych PTP.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Strobel, A., A. Behnke, A. G&#228;rtner, and A. Strobel. 2019. &quot; The Interplay of Intelligence and Need for Cognition in Predicting School Grades: A Retrospective Study.&quot; Personality and Individual Differences 144 : 147 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.041.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Wei&#223;, R. H. 2006. &quot; CFT 20‐R.&quot; In Grundintelligenztest Skala 2—Revision. Hogrefe.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Zhang, J., and M. Ziegler. 2015. &quot; Interaction Effects Between Openness and Fluid Intelligence Predicting Scholastic Performance.&quot; Journal of Intelligence 3, no. 3 : 91 – 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3030091.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ziegler, M., E. Danay, M. Heene, J. Asendorpf, and M. B&#252;hner. 2012. &quot; Openness, Fluid Intelligence, and Crystallized Intelligence: Toward an Integrative Model.&quot; Journal of Research in Personality 46, no. 2 : 173 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.002.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Ziegler, M., M. Knogler, and M. B&#252;hner. 2009. &quot; Conscientiousness, Achievement Striving, and Intelligence as Performance Predictors in a Sample of German Psychology Students: Always a Linear Relationship? &quot; Learning and Individual Differences 19, no. 2 : 288 – 292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.02.001.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Łukasz Nikel&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib23&quot; firstref=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib24&quot; firstref=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib18&quot; firstref=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib20&quot; firstref=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib29&quot; firstref=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib25&quot; firstref=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib30&quot; firstref=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib31&quot; firstref=&quot;ref61&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib27&quot; firstref=&quot;ref63&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref68&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl16&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref69&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl17&quot; bibid=&quot;bib28&quot; firstref=&quot;ref70&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl18&quot; bibid=&quot;bib26&quot; firstref=&quot;ref71&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl19&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref72&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl20&quot; bibid=&quot;bib22&quot; firstref=&quot;ref73&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl21&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref74&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl22&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref78&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483393
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Insights into Academic Performance: Intelligence, Personality, and Their Dynamic Relationship
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Lukasz+Nikel%22&quot;&gt;Lukasz Nikel&lt;/searchLink&gt; (ORCID &lt;externalLink term=&quot;https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5840-4521&quot;&gt;0000-0002-5840-4521&lt;/externalLink&gt;)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Psychology in the Schools&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. 2025 62(10):4012-4022.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Elementary+Education%22&quot;&gt;Elementary Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Academic+Achievement%22&quot;&gt;Academic Achievement&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Intelligence%22&quot;&gt;Intelligence&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Intelligence+Quotient%22&quot;&gt;Intelligence Quotient&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Personality+Traits%22&quot;&gt;Personality Traits&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Scores%22&quot;&gt;Scores&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Elementary+School+Students%22&quot;&gt;Elementary School Students&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Correlation%22&quot;&gt;Correlation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Neurosis%22&quot;&gt;Neurosis&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Extraversion+Introversion%22&quot;&gt;Extraversion Introversion&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23590
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085&lt;br /&gt;1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The role of intelligence and personality traits in explaining school achievement is crucial. However, their mutual impact on academic success remains unclear due to ambiguous results--the synergistic hypothesis versus the compensatory hypothesis. Additionally, there is a lack of research on representative samples, particularly concerning the distribution of results per intelligence quotient (IQ) scores and among children in the lower grades of primary school. The conducted research aimed to address these gaps. A total of 466 students with an IQ score distribution of M = 103.29 and SD = 15.46 were examined. Multisource assessments, including personality traits, fluid intelligence, and school achievement, were analyzed using Pearson&#39;s correlation coefficient and moderation analysis. The results indicated that intellectual level moderated the relationship between extraversion and school achievement in all participants; neuroticism and school achievement in students with IQ &lt; 114; and openness to experience and school grades in students with IQ between 103 and 114, showing a synergistic effect, and in students with intelligence &gt; 107, displaying a compensatory effect. These findings offer some explanation for the two opposing hypotheses regarding the synergistic and compensatory interaction between intelligence and personality traits in explaining school achievements. They also highlight how &quot;cognitive&quot; and &quot;non-cognitive&quot; factors combined may contribute to overall school success.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483393
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483393
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23590
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 4012
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence Quotient
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Traits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neurosis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Extraversion Introversion
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Insights into Academic Performance: Intelligence, Personality, and Their Dynamic Relationship
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lukasz Nikel
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 10
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1