Big Five Personality Traits and Academic Performance: What Research Shows

6 days ago

18 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy

The Big Five personality traits are associated with academic performance, but the strength and direction of those associations depend on the trait, the age and educational setting, the subject being studied, and the way achievement is measured. Across large meta-analyses, conscientiousness has the most consistent positive relationship with grades and other indicators of educational achievement. Openness to experience and agreeableness generally have smaller positive average associations, while findings for extraversion and neuroticism are more dependent on the specific study and analytic model. These are population-level statistical patterns, not judgments about any student's character, intelligence, ability, or future.

Research on academic outcomes provides one of the clearest examples of why the Big Five should be understood as five continuous trait dimensions and why a personality score requires context. A student can be less organized and earn excellent grades, highly conscientious and struggle academically, curious and disengaged with a particular syllabus, or anxious and exceptionally prepared for an exam. A group-level association cannot determine what will happen to an individual.

At a Glance: What Does the Evidence Say?

A 2022 meta-analysis by Mammadov synthesized 267 independent samples involving 413,074 participants in 228 studies. It found conscientiousness to be a substantial and robust correlate of academic performance even after accounting for cognitive ability. An earlier meta-analysis by Poropat found positive average associations for conscientiousness, openness, and agreeableness, with important moderation by educational level and age.

In university populations, a 2025 meta-analysis by Chen, Cheung, and Zeng synthesized 84 studies and 46,729 students. The reported zero-order correlations were approximately r = .206 for conscientiousness, r = .082 for agreeableness, and r = .081 for openness. The small correlations for agreeableness and openness mean that knowing those trait scores provides limited information about an individual student's academic performance.

A 2026 reanalysis by Gul-E-Zahra and colleagues examined 84 university studies using one-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling, with an analytic sample of 45,477 students. After modeling overlap among the five traits, conscientiousness showed the largest positive standardized association (β = .199). The reported unique coefficients were smaller for openness (β = .060) and agreeableness (β = .034), negative for extraversion (β = −.062), and statistically nonsignificant for neuroticism (β = −.006). These are adjusted statistical associations, not effects produced by changing a trait, and they should not be compared mechanically with unadjusted correlation coefficients.

The central conclusion is stable across reviews: conscientiousness is the most reproducible Big Five correlate of academic achievement; the other four domains demand closer attention to measurement and context.

What Counts as Academic Performance?

Academic performance is an umbrella term encompassing grades, grade point average (GPA), course assessments, standardized achievement tests, examination scores, subject-specific attainment, and sometimes educational persistence or completion. Researchers also study behavior related to achievement, including homework completion, class engagement, attendance, and study effort. Those behaviors are analytically distinct from the final academic outcome.

GPA combines multiple classroom judgments and assignments across time. A standardized achievement test samples performance under a comparatively uniform testing procedure. A student may perform differently on these two outcomes because they reward partially different combinations of learned knowledge, applied reasoning, repeated work, classroom participation, and examination performance.

A major 2023 school-level meta-analysis by Meyer and colleagues examined 78 studies, 110 samples, 1,491 effect sizes, and approximately 500,218 students from elementary through high school. It found that both the achievement measure and the subject domain moderated the associations involving all five personality traits. Accordingly, statements such as “the Big Five predict grades” should specify which grades, which ages, and which instruments.

An academic outcome is also shaped by instructional quality, school resources, social support, opportunity, disability accommodations, language of instruction, health, family circumstances, and evaluation practices. These influences matter for interpretation even when a personality–achievement correlation is statistically significant.

The Big Five Framework Used in Education Research

The Big Five organizes individual differences into five broad dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Instruments such as the Big Five Inventory, BFI-2, NEO family, and IPIP-based scales operationalize these constructs with different item pools and different lower-level structures. Some BFI-2 reports use the label Negative Emotionality for the domain traditionally described as neuroticism; instrument labels should be preserved when discussing scores.

These are dimensions, so higher and lower scores represent relative positions on scales, not membership in five fixed personality types. A domain score is a summary of tendencies across situations. A student's behavior on a particular afternoon is a temporary state affected by circumstances, and it cannot be read directly as a stable trait.

For an introduction to the model, see Big Five personality traits and the OCEAN framework. For the distinction between domains, aspects, and instrument-specific facets, use the dedicated hierarchy guide. Neither a personality inventory nor this article diagnoses a clinical disorder or establishes a student's aptitude.

Conscientiousness: The Strongest and Most Consistent Association

Conscientiousness encompasses broad tendencies toward organization, dependability, persistence, goal-directed behavior, and regulating behavior in pursuit of commitments. These tendencies can be expressed through getting started on assignments, returning to difficult work, remembering obligations, and distributing effort across a semester.

The 2009 Poropat review, 2022 Mammadov meta-analysis, 2025 university meta-analysis, and 2026 adjusted reanalysis converge on a comparatively strong positive average association. A 2014 systematic review of tertiary students reported a weighted GPA correlation of r = .26 for conscientiousness, while also finding variation by academic major.

This pattern is plausible because classroom grades accumulate over repeated opportunities to demonstrate knowledge and effort. Assignment completion and deadlines offer many chances for organizational tendencies to become visible. Yet even a correlation of .26 corresponds to approximately 6.8% shared variance in a simple two-variable linear description, not a reliable prediction of a particular student's GPA. That calculation is illustrative and cannot be transferred to an untested person or setting.

Conscientiousness is best interpreted as one correlate of sustained educational behavior. A lower relative score is not laziness, low intelligence, or an irreversible limitation. Organizational systems, teaching environments, financial pressures, and mental or physical health can all influence observable study behavior regardless of a trait score. The broader construct is developed in Conscientiousness in the Big Five.

Openness to Experience: Curiosity, Ideas, and Subject-Specific Outcomes

Openness to experience is associated with curiosity, receptivity to new ideas, imagination, and interest in complex or unfamiliar experiences. These tendencies may be relevant to exploration, discussion, conceptual learning, and subjects where interpretive flexibility is rewarded. The trait is related to some cognitive characteristics without being equivalent to measured intelligence.

Meta-analyses often find a positive but comparatively small overall association with academic achievement. The 2025 university synthesis reported a correlation of about .081, whereas the 2026 multivariate reanalysis reported a small positive adjusted coefficient. Neither finding establishes that open students achieve more in every discipline.

The 2023 Meyer and colleagues meta-analysis found that associations vary by language versus STEM subjects and by grades versus standardized scores. Openness may be reflected differently in verbal knowledge, creative inquiry, classroom participation, and the demands of a specific test. It would be inaccurate to say that openness invariably improves humanities performance or harms STEM performance.

An intellectually curious student may be fascinated by a subject while finding its assessment format unrewarding. The distinction between engagement with ideas and a course grade is essential. See Openness to Experience within the Big Five for the domain itself.

Agreeableness: Cooperation and Educational Relationships

Agreeableness describes tendencies involving cooperation, concern for others, trust, consideration, and navigating interpersonal conflict. In academic settings, some of these tendencies may be relevant to student–teacher interactions, group assignments, classroom conduct, and willingness to collaborate.

The Poropat meta-analysis identified a positive average relationship between agreeableness and academic performance, while the 2025 university meta-analysis estimated a weak correlation around .082. A small positive adjusted coefficient also appeared in the 2026 reanalysis. These statistical effects are modest and may partly reflect how educators assess work, behavior, and engagement.

Academic excellence does not require maximal agreeableness. Critical disagreement, questioning authorities, and defending unconventional interpretations may be integral to scholarship. A lower relative agreeableness score is not a measure of dishonesty or poor character. The trait's implications depend on the setting and the specific academic task. Read the domain guide at Agreeableness in the Big Five.

Extraversion: Why Results Differ Across Studies

Extraversion broadly concerns social engagement, activity, assertiveness, and tendencies toward positive affect. It may relate to participation, oral presentations, group learning, classroom visibility, and time allocated between solitary study and social activities.

The research does not support a universal claim that extroverted students outperform introverted students, or the reverse. A 2007 review of postsecondary predictors reported mixed results for extraversion, including some negative associations. The 2026 joint-trait reanalysis found a small negative unique association, β = −.062, among university samples. That coefficient is conditional on the simultaneous model and does not turn introversion into an academic advantage guaranteed for a particular person.

The direction and magnitude may change when achievement depends on discussion, laboratory teamwork, independent reading, sustained writing, or high-contact learning environments. Extraversion also contains lower-order components that can behave differently in particular outcomes. The domain is explained in Extraversion and the Big Five.

Neuroticism: Emotional Responses and Academic Context

Neuroticism concerns individual differences in tendencies to experience negative emotions, worry, and stress reactivity. In education, researchers examine possible associations involving test anxiety, pressure, coping, motivation, and how conditions surrounding assessment interact with emotion. These are context-sensitive pathways rather than inevitable outcomes of a trait score.

Averaged associations with academic performance have been smaller and less consistent than those for conscientiousness. The 2026 simultaneous-trait analysis estimated a near-zero, nonsignificant unique association. The 2025 university meta-analysis also found variation by year of study and other moderators, underscoring why a single favorable or unfavorable summary would misrepresent the evidence.

The English Hub maintains a dedicated Neuroticism Master Cluster for this domain's definition, measurement, facets, clinical relationships, and academic-performance-specific interpretation. For the detailed educational question, consult Neuroticism and Academic Performance: Personality, Stress, and Achievement. A higher neuroticism score is neither a diagnosis nor a forecast of school failure.

The Largest Reviews: How to Read Their Numbers

The widely cited reviews differ in samples, outcome measures, aggregation methods, and educational stages. Poropat's 2009 analysis drew on cumulative samples reaching more than 70,000 across individual syntheses, with particular attention to the transition from primary to tertiary education. Mammadov's 2022 review combined 267 independent samples totaling 413,074 individuals. Meyer and colleagues' 2023 review focused on schoolchildren and distinguished subject domains and achievement measurements. Chen and colleagues' 2025 review concentrated on university students. The 2026 meta-analytic structural equation model reanalyzed much of the 2025 evidence rather than adding a wholly separate population.

Consequently, the sample sizes from these papers must not be added together to claim a combined body of independent students. There is substantial conceptual and empirical overlap. The analyses are mutually informative, but each answers a different statistical question.

Mammadov reported that cognitive ability together with Big Five traits accounted for 27.8% of variance in academic performance in the analyzed combined model; cognitive ability represented about 64% of the explained variance and conscientiousness about 28% of the explained variance. Those relative-importance percentages are shares of modeled explained variance, not shares of students, not portions of a person's intelligence, and not causal percentages. The remaining variation reflects unmeasured factors, error, and differences across study contexts.

Why GPA and Standardized Tests Tell Different Stories

Grades usually summarize performance over an extended period. Depending on the institution, they may reflect homework, projects, classroom activities, attendance policies, examinations, and teacher judgments. A standardized test is designed for a more uniform assessment event, often with different demands on knowledge retrieval or cognitive performance.

In the 2023 analysis of approximately half a million school students, conscientiousness associations were generally stronger for grades than for standardized test scores. The pattern fits the possibility that regular task completion and persistence enter course grading more strongly than a single standardized assessment. Openness and other traits showed patterns that varied by subject domain and measure, including differences in direction.

Both grades and standardized tests provide useful information, but they sample distinct parts of achievement. Calling one intrinsically objective or universally superior to the other bypasses the measurement question. To assess a published claim, ask whether the dependent variable was GPA, course examination scores, standardized achievement, self-reported grades, or teachers' ratings.

Differences by School Level, Age, and University Context

Associations established among college students need not generalize directly to elementary school students, and vice versa. Development changes students' autonomy, educational routines, subject selection, and the contribution of parental or institutional structure to their behavior.

The 2009 Poropat analysis identified educational level and average age as moderators. The 2022 Mammadov synthesis likewise found education-level moderation and reported that openness carried relatively more predictive importance in younger educational groups than in later years, even though its overall relative importance was small.

The 2025 university-specific review examined moderation by year of study, major, gender, measurement type, and cultural context. University students are already a selected population: admissions, prior grades, socioeconomic opportunities, course choices, and persistence shape who appears in a sample. Findings from that sample should be transported to other populations cautiously.

Subject Domains, Course Demands, and Academic Major

A correlation between conscientiousness and overall GPA does not imply an identical effect in mathematics, writing, science, clinical practice, or studio-based assessment. Disciplines reward different combinations of preparation, collaboration, novelty, precision, performance under pressure, and independent practice.

The 2014 tertiary systematic review found academic major to be a moderator of conscientiousness–GPA relationships. The 2023 school meta-analysis also showed that language and STEM domains could differ in the patterns associated with individual traits.

These studies describe variation in association within educational settings. They do not justify assigning academic majors to adolescents from personality inventories. Interest, prior learning, available opportunities, personal values, and skills must be considered on their own terms.

Intelligence and Personality Contribute Different Information

Cognitive ability and personality are different research constructs. Tests of cognitive ability generally assess forms of reasoning or related performance under structured tasks, whereas Big Five instruments assess relatively enduring patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior. Neither is interchangeable with an academic grade.

A key finding of the Poropat review was that conscientiousness contributed to predicting tertiary academic performance beyond measured intelligence in analyses where both were available. The much larger Mammadov synthesis similarly showed incremental contributions from conscientiousness while finding cognitive ability to be the largest component of modeled explained variance.

An incremental association means one statistical variable helps account for variance when another is already included. It does not establish that increasing conscientiousness experimentally would produce the same improvement. Nor does it mean intelligence and personality can be combined into a reliable “success score” for an individual. Education, health, resources, opportunity, and the quality of instruction remain essential explanatory factors.

Domains, Aspects, and Facets: When Narrower Scores Matter

Some research finds that more specific personality characteristics can relate more closely to a particular educational behavior than a broad domain average. A 2007 review of Big Five predictors in postsecondary education described evidence that narrower traits or facets may improve academic prediction relative to broad Big Five scores.

This requires precision about the instrument. The NEO family describes six facets per broad domain in its full inventory, the BFI-2 identifies three facets under each domain, and the Big Five Aspect Scales assess two aspects per domain. These are specific measurement architectures rather than interchangeable universal divisions of human personality.

A conscientiousness subscale emphasizing orderly behavior may correlate differently with assignment completion than one emphasizing effortful persistence. Such a finding should retain the exact scale name, outcome definition, population, and validation evidence. A student should not infer a comprehensive academic profile from an unvalidated online quiz. For how instruments differ, explore Big Five Inventory and BFI-2, NEO Personality Inventory, and Big Five test score interpretation.

What Might Explain the Associations?

Researchers have investigated several plausible processes through which personality tendencies and academic behavior may be linked: self-regulated learning, planning, task initiation, persistence, effort, academic self-efficacy, attendance, peer relationships, classroom participation, and the choice of learning environments.

An early study of Big Five traits and self-regulated learning strategies found relationships involving effort regulation and achievement in undergraduates. A 2018 meta-analytic path analysis examining five samples and 875 students found that academic self-efficacy was consistently positively related to performance, with some model-dependent associations linking personality to self-efficacy and performance.

These observations help organize hypotheses. They are not proof that the proposed pathways are the sole causes of academic outcomes. Self-report questionnaires may share response biases, academic engagement can influence later beliefs, and a third factor may affect both study habits and performance. Strong causal conclusions require designs capable of distinguishing the direction and source of influence.

Association, Statistical Prediction, and Causation

Correlation addresses whether two measured variables co-vary in a specified population. Prediction evaluates how well an identified model anticipates outcomes in data that meet its design assumptions, ideally including new individuals and settings. Causation asks what would change if a factor were actively altered while relevant alternative explanations were addressed.

For example, a conscientiousness–GPA correlation of r = .20 indicates a positive but modest linear relationship within the analyzed population. It does not mean that a student at a certain personality percentile will achieve a particular grade, or that changing a trait score by one unit will raise a grade by a known amount.

Adjusted regression coefficients, zero-order correlations, relative-importance estimates, and classification accuracy answer different questions. Models developed in universities may lose performance when applied in different countries, school systems, ages, languages, or subject domains. Predictions should be assessed for calibration, transportability, measurement quality, fairness, and incremental usefulness beyond information institutions already possess.

Can Students Change Their Academic Outcomes?

Yes. Personality traits reflect tendencies and leave considerable room for different choices, strategies, environments, and development. The academic literature identifies statistical relationships between measured trait differences and outcomes, while the effectiveness of particular teaching or study interventions is a separate question requiring intervention research.

Practical supports such as clear deadlines, accessible materials, study schedules, retrieval practice, constructive feedback, tutoring, and disability accommodations should be assessed for their own educational benefits. These supports can be useful across personality levels; they should not be reserved for students labeled “low conscientiousness” or “high neuroticism.”

A trait inventory is therefore better understood as one possible descriptive input than as an educational destiny. The broader evidence on personality change and the difference between trait change and temporary behavior belongs in Big Five stability and change and Big Five trait change, when their English pages are available.

Measurement Quality and Interpretation

Many studies use self-report instruments because they are scalable, but self-report is sensitive to item interpretation, social desirability, language, respondent attention, and reference-group differences. Observer ratings can provide another perspective; they are subject to their own visibility and observer biases.

Questionnaires do not all operationalize the Big Five identically. Scores and percentiles require an identified instrument, scoring procedure, and relevant normative reference group. There are no universal Big Five thresholds for being “high” or “low” across every population and instrument, and there is no single universal facet inventory.

Research conclusions also depend on how academic outcomes were measured. Self-reported GPA may introduce recall or reporting error; grades from different courses or institutions may not be strictly comparable. A defensible study specifies timing, measurement reliability, controls, missing-data handling, population selection, and the statistical model. See Big Five personality assessment and self-report versus observer ratings for Big Five-specific instrument interpretation.

Cultural, Linguistic, and Equity Considerations

Big Five research has substantial evidence across languages and settings, but the structure, meanings, norms, and predictive associations cannot be assumed identical in every population. Differences in item translation, language proficiency, local grading systems, educational selection, expectations around classroom conduct, and access to resources can change observed results.

The 2025 university meta-analysis explicitly examined cultural context and personality measurement among the potential moderators. This warrants testing a measure's suitability and a model's predictive performance locally instead of importing assumptions from a single US college sample.

Educational organizations should also distinguish statistical fairness from moral judgment. A trait score may correlate with grades while reflecting differences in opportunity, context, or response styles. Neither educational support nor access to learning should be rationed according to a personality profile.

Should Schools or Universities Use Big Five Tests to Predict Grades?

The evidence supports a cautious answer: Big Five scores may contribute statistical information in research, but using them to make consequential judgments about individuals requires much more evidence than a meta-analytic correlation.

A legitimate applied proposal would need a validated instrument for the target population; clearly defined educational decisions; demonstrated out-of-sample accuracy and calibration; evidence of additional value over less intrusive predictors; testing across relevant groups; strong safeguards for privacy and consent; and a transparent, contestable decision process. Collection of sensitive student information can also produce harms unrelated to prediction error.

The Mammadov meta-analysis reports incremental statistical prediction, not a validation of admission, grading, disciplinary, or tracking systems built around personality. Broad personality dimensions should never be treated as clinical screening results or proxies for disability, motivation, intellectual capacity, or personal worth.

Advice for Students

Students who recognize patterns associated with conscientiousness can use that information as a prompt for reflection about routines, deadlines, and manageable study plans. Students who identify with openness may benefit from connecting required material to genuine questions and interests. Students who prefer social learning or solitary work can experiment with conditions that support effective concentration and feedback.

The useful questions are concrete: Which kinds of tasks are easy to begin? Where does procrastination appear? Which assessments are difficult? Is the problem understanding the material, finding protected study time, managing stress, or having suitable learning accommodations? Answers to those questions are more actionable than a broad personality label.

Difficulty in school does not establish a personality problem. Educational support should begin with the student's actual learning situation and goals.

Advice for Parents and Educators

Parents and teachers can use personality research to appreciate variation in how students approach learning, while resisting the temptation to rank students as naturally successful or unsuccessful. A quiet learner may be deeply engaged; a sociable student may thrive when discussion is central; an organized student may still need explanations and support.

Provide clear expectations, feedback, equitable access to assistance, and multiple ways to demonstrate learning wherever educationally appropriate. Evaluate individual progress using actual work and circumstances. A personality score cannot substitute for evidence of what a student knows, which support they need, or how a course could be improved.

For intervention selection, consult educational research directed at the intervention itself rather than assuming that a trait correlation demonstrates treatment or teaching efficacy.

Advice for Researchers and Journalists

When reporting Big Five–achievement findings, identify the population and educational stage, the exact personality inventory, whether scores are self- or observer-reported, the outcome measure, and the statistical adjustment model. Separate broad domain effects from facets; report uncertainty and heterogeneity rather than a single coefficient without context.

Pay special attention to overlapping meta-analyses. The 2026 reanalysis was based on 84 studies compiled in prior work and should not be narrated as independent replication by an entirely fresh sample. Avoid presenting r, β, explained variance, and relative importance as interchangeable effect-size units.

Assess the strength of evidence at the level of the precise claim: association is well supported for conscientiousness, moderators are important across educational outcomes, specific psychological mediators require further causal study, and individual prediction for high-stakes decisions requires separate validation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which Big Five trait is most strongly linked to academic success?

Conscientiousness is the most consistent positive correlate of academic achievement in major syntheses, including Mammadov's 2022 meta-analysis and Chen and colleagues' 2025 university meta-analysis. The association is moderate or smaller in typical studies, so it cannot determine an individual's grades.

Does a high conscientiousness score guarantee a high GPA?

No. GPA depends on knowledge, opportunity, instructional context, assessment practices, health, resources, and many other influences. A population-level trait association is compatible with a wide range of grades at every trait level.

Is openness better for school than extraversion?

There is no universal ranking. Openness has small positive average relationships with certain academic outcomes, while extraversion findings change with measurement and analytic approach. Class, discipline, and task demands matter.

Do introverted students get better grades?

A small negative adjusted coefficient for extraversion in a 2026 university reanalysis is not evidence that introverts universally earn higher grades. The result concerns an average association conditional on other measured traits.

Does neuroticism mean poor performance on exams?

No. Research findings are mixed and context-sensitive. The dedicated Neuroticism and Academic Performance article addresses this evidence in detail; emotional tendencies are not diagnoses or inevitable academic barriers.

Are personality traits as important as intelligence?

Both can contribute statistical information, but they measure different constructs. A large meta-analysis found cognitive ability to have a greater share of explained variance in the studied combined model, while conscientiousness contributed additional information.

Do Big Five traits predict standardized test scores or only grades?

Both types of outcomes have been studied, and correlations differ. The 2023 school-level meta-analysis shows that subject domain and achievement measure affect associations.

Can a personality test choose the best major for a student?

A Big Five inventory alone cannot establish the best academic major. Interests, abilities, goals, curricula, opportunity, and personal circumstances all matter, and a test would require specific validation for any proposed decision.

Are Big Five personality scores fixed?

Personality tendencies show stability and also change across development and life experience. Short-term behavior, measurement variation, and genuine longer-term trait change should be distinguished. A single score is never a permanent educational identity.

Is a low conscientiousness score a learning disorder or ADHD diagnosis?

No. A personality score is a descriptive assessment result. Diagnoses require condition-specific clinical evaluation using relevant criteria; Big Five scores do not substitute for that process.

Why do some studies report different effect sizes?

Studies differ in age, educational stage, measurement instrument, outcome, academic subject, sampling, culture, statistical adjustments, and quality. An unadjusted correlation and a multivariate coefficient also quantify different associations.

Is Big Five academic-performance research causal?

Much of the accumulated evidence is observational or correlational. Proposed pathways involving study effort, self-efficacy, or self-regulation are scientifically plausible and partly supported by model-based research, but causal effects of changing a personality trait require separate evidence.

Conclusions

The scientific literature supports a durable finding: among Big Five traits, conscientiousness has the clearest positive average relationship with academic performance. Openness and agreeableness often show smaller positive associations; extraversion and neuroticism are more sensitive to population, outcome, and statistical model. Modern reviews establish that educational stage, subject domain, and the distinction between grades and standardized achievement tests can materially change these relationships.

The right interpretation is probabilistic and measurement-specific. Personality traits can help researchers describe patterns across students while individual achievement remains the outcome of interacting abilities, knowledge, context, access, behavior, and educational environments. Good educational practice evaluates and supports the actual student rather than replacing them with a personality profile.

References

Bidjerano, T., & Dai, D. Y. (2007). The relationship between the big-five model of personality and self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001

Chen, S., Cheung, A. C. K., & Zeng, Z. (2025). Big Five personality traits and university students' academic performance: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 240, 113163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113163

Gul-E-Zahra, Dang, J., Cui, Y., Liu, J., Qi, M., & Wang, W. (2026). Revisiting the big five–academic performance association: A one-stage meta-analytic structural equation modeling reanalysis of 84 studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1769823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1769823

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

Meyer, J., Jansen, T., Hübner, N., & Lüdtke, O. (2023). Disentangling the association between the Big Five personality traits and student achievement: Meta-analytic evidence on the role of domain specificity and achievement measures. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09736-2

O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017

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

Stajkovic, A. D., Bandura, A., Locke, E. A., Lee, D., & Sergent, K. (2018). Test of three conceptual models of influence of the Big Five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.014

Vedel, A. (2014). The Big Five and tertiary academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.07.011

Psychological Encyclopedia