Learning and Individual Differences 40 (2015) 156162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Able, ready, and willing: Examining the additive and interactive effects of
intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation on
undergraduate academic performance
Stefano I. Di Domenico , Marc A. Fournier
University of Toronto Scarborough, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation are well-established predictors of academic perfor-
Received 10 January 2014 mance. However, research has yet to examine how these variables combine and interact in the prediction of
Received in revised form 22 January 2015 academic success. We therefore examined intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation in the
Accepted 29 March 2015
concurrent prediction of students' grade point average (GPA) among university undergraduates. Conscientious-
ness was a stronger predictor of GPA at higher levels of intelligence, suggesting that an industrious disposition
Keywords:
Intelligence
serves a catalytic function among those students who are the most intellectually able. Conscientiousness was a
Conscientiousness stronger predictor of GPA at lower levels of autonomous motivation, suggesting that an industrious disposition
Autonomous motivation also serves a compensatory function among those students who are the least intrinsically interested. These
Self-determination theory ndings call for further research on Intelligence Conscientiousness and Conscientiousness Autonomous
Academic performance Motivation interactions in the prediction of academic performance.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction = .23 for conscientiousness, and = .16 for autonomous motivation

Academic success can play a dramatic role in shaping the life course
of university students. Apart from being an important admission re-
quirement for graduate and professional schools, excellent performance
in undergraduate courses also promises better job opportunities after
university (Plant, Ericsson, Hill, & Asberg, 2005; Strenze, 2007). A natu-
ral turn of interest for education researchers is thus to identify what
individual difference characteristics, either alone or in combination,
are most predictive of academic success.
Findings from three separate and largely independent lines of
research have identied three sources of individual differences
that contribute to the prediction of academic performance. Under-
graduate students differ in terms of (a) their ability to do academic
work (i.e., intelligence), (b) their readiness to do academic work
(i.e., conscientiousness), and (c) their willingness to do academic
work (i.e., autonomous motivation). Meta-analytic effect sizes for
these predictors have been estimated to be = .21 for intelligence,
Author Note: As both authors contributed equally to the preparation of this article,
names are listed in alphabetical order. Portions of these ndings were presented at the
2013 biennial meeting of the Association for Research in Personality (ARP) in Charlotte,
North Carolina. We express our appreciation to Zhouran (Crystal) Li, Aubrey Gibson, and
Mesaaba Correia for their contributions to the collection of these data.
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada.
E-mail addresses: s.didomenico@utoronto.ca (S.I. Di Domenico),
marc.fournier@utoronto.ca (M.A. Fournier).
(corrected for measurement error; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond,
2012). However, as these individual difference characteristics have
been studied in relative isolation, very little is still known about how
these variables combine and interact in the prediction of academic
performance in university settings. The purpose of the present re-
search was thus to examine the additive and potentially interactive
(i.e., synergistic or compensatory) effects of intelligence, conscientious-
ness, and autonomous motivation on grade point average (GPA) among
a sample of university undergraduates.
1.1. A closer look at intelligence: the ability to do academic work
Intelligence refers to the general mental capability that subsumes
a broad range of more specic cognitive abilities, including abstract
reasoning, planning, problem-solving, and learning from experience
(Gottfredson, 1997). Spearman (1904, 1927) was the rst to posit that
a single common factor could be responsible for producing the positive
manifold of correlations among tests of specic mental abilities, a posi-
tion that has garnered continued support in subsequent investigations
(Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998). The heritability of general intelligence
increases with age, from about 30% in childhood to about 80% in adult-
hood (Deary, Penke, & Johnson, 2010). Individual differences in general
intelligence are very stable over time; for example, Deary, Whalley,
Lemmon, Crawford, and Starr (2000) tested participants at age 11 and
then again at age 79 and found that general intelligence had a rank-
order stability coefcient of .63.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.016
1041-6080/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 S.I. Di Domenico, M.A. Fournier / Learning and Individual Differences 40 (2015) 156162
Although intelligence is thought to reect a capability for learning
and comprehension that is broader and deeper than mere book-
learning or test-taking abilities (Gottfredson, 1997), academic perfor-
mance has traditionally been used an important criterion to validate
psychometric tests of intelligence. Indeed, Simon and Binet developed
the rst intelligence tests over 100 years ago specically to help identify
children that would have difculties learning in a regular classroom
environment. The distinct cognitive abilities subsumed under the gen-
eral intelligence factor may each account for additional variance on
tests restricted to specic academic subjects (e.g., processing speed
and spatial ability in the domain of mathematics; Lubinski, Webb,
Morelock, & Benbow, 2001; Rohde & Thompson, 2007). However,
researchers have mostly focused on the role of general intelligence in
the prediction of academic performance as broadly dened by course
grades or GPA, a convention followed in the present investigation.
1.2 . A closer look at conscientiousness: the readiness to do academic work
Conscientiousness is an individual difference construct in the ve-
factor model of personality, a taxonomy of personality traits that also
includes neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, and agree-
ableness (Goldberg, 1993; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008; McCrae &
Costa, 2008). Roberts, Jackson, Fayard, Edmonds, and Meints (2009,
p. 369) described conscientiousness as the propensity to follow socially
prescribed norms for impulse control, to be goal directed, to plan, and to
be able to delay gratication and follow norms and rules. Conscien-
tiousness was discovered in factor-analytic studies of personality-
descriptive terms in natural languages. Like the other ve-factor traits,
conscientiousness has a strong genetic basis; a number of studies esti-
mate its heritability to be about 50% in adulthood (e.g., Jang, Livesley,
& Vemon, 1996; Jang, McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998;
Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998). Although people's levels of
conscientiousness tend to increase throughout the lifespan (Roberts,
Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006), individual differences in conscientious-
ness are stable during the typical university years; for example, Roberts,
Caspi, and Moft (2001) tested participants at age 18 and then again
at age 26 and found that conscientiousness had a rank-order stability
coefcient of .67.
Much like intelligence, conscientiousness represents a broad con-
struct that accounts for the variance shared by more narrow or specic
personality facets. Recently, researchers have identied ve principal
facets to the trait domain of conscientiousness (Roberts, Bogg, Walton,
Chernyshenko, & Stark, 2004; Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, &
Goldberg, 2005): industriousness (achievement vs. laziness), orderliness
(organization vs. sloppiness), impulse control (cautiousness vs. care-
lessness), reliability (dependability vs. unreliability), and formality
(traditionalism vs. nonconformity). Although researchers have mostly
focused on the broad trait domain dened by conscientiousness, emerg-
ing studies suggest that the facets of conscientiousness are differentially
associated with academic performance, with the achievement-oriented
facets (i.e., industriousness and reliability) being the strongest predictors
in university settings (e.g., Noftle & Robins, 2007; Paunonen & Ashton,
2013). In the present study, we examined both conscientiousness and
its constituent facets alongside general intelligence and autonomous
motivation in the prediction of academic performance.
1.3. A closer look at autonomous motivation: the willingness to do academic
work
Autonomous motivation is a key construct in a macro-theoretical
framework for the study of motivation and personality development
called self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2012; Ryan
& Deci, 2008). Autonomous motivation refers to the extent to which
people experience their goal-relevant behaviors as being choicefully ini-
tiated, volitionally enacted, and personally endorsed. Autonomously
motivated behaviors are thus experienced as emanating from one's
157
abiding sense of self or, stated in attributional terms, as having an inter-
nal perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Connell, 1989). SDT differenti-
ates behavioral regulations along a continuum of relative autonomy.
The most basic differentiation in this regard concerns the difference be-
tween intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation
refers to the impetus for behavior performed for the inherent satisfac-
tion associated with its enactment (i.e., for interest's sake). In contrast,
extrinsic motivation refers to the impetus for behavior aimed at the at-
tainment of instrumentally separable outcomes (i.e., for the attainment
of rewards or the avoidance of punishments). SDT further distinguishes
between three empirically distinct forms of extrinsic motivation.
Identied regulation is a relatively autonomous type of extrinsic motiva-
tion that is evidenced when one performs an activity because one
recognizes or accepts the activity's importance or underlying value.
Introjected regulation is a less autonomous type of extrinsic motivation
that is evidenced when one performs an activity to avoid feelings
of shame and guilt or to defensively maintain feelings of self-worth.
External regulation is the least autonomous type of extrinsic motivation
that is evidenced when one performs an activity to obtain rewards or
avoid punishments.
Unlike intelligence and conscientiousness, which are highly de-
contextualized and heritable attributes, autonomous motivation is a
context-specic characteristic that is believed to have its primary basis
in those environments in which the relevant goal-directed behaviors
are socialized and enacted (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2012; Ryan & Deci,
2008). In the language of the ve-factor theory of personality (McCrae
& Costa, 2008), autonomous motivation is considered a characteristic
adaptation, an individual difference characteristic that is jointly deter-
mined by one's foundational personality traits and by one's environ-
mental context, although the latter set of inuences is believed to
predominate in the case of autonomous motivation. This makes auton-
omous motivation a malleable characteristic. Indeed, a very large body
of applied work in SDT shows that socializing agents (e.g., parents,
educators, workplace supervisors, etc.) play a critical role in fostering
the development of autonomous motivation by encouraging people's
initiation, by providing them with meaningful choices, by offering
them structured and task-relevant feedback, and by making them feel
valued. The benets of such autonomy supportive practices have been
documented across a wide variety of life domains, including educational
settings (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2008).
The earliest applications of SDT in the educational domain focused
on primary and secondary school settings. These studies found that
the more autonomously motivated students tended to exhibit a variety
of positive outcomes, including better maintenance and transference of
academic activities, greater conceptual understanding, less procrastina-
tion, lower drop-out rates, and higher levels of achievement (see Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Although fewer studies have applied SDT to university
settings, researchers have found that more autonomous forms of moti-
vation are similarly benecial at higher levels of education (e.g., Black &
Deci, 2000; Komarraju, Karau, & Schmeck, 2009; Kusurkar, Ten Cate,
Vos, Westers, & Croiset, 2012; Miquelon, Vallerand, Grouzet, &
Cardinal, 2005; Ning & Downing, 2012; Vansteenkiste, Sierens,
Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009). However, researchers have yet to exam-
ine whether autonomous motivation has meaningful incremental utility
over intelligence and conscientiousness in the prediction of undergrad-
uate academic performance.
1.4 . Overview of the present research
In the present research, we examined the additive and potentially
interactive effects of intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous
motivation to the prediction of undergraduate academic performance.
Given that these constructs each represent a qualitatively distinct
class of individual differences, we expected the correlations among
their measures to range from minimal (intelligence and conscientious-
ness) to moderate (conscientiousness and autonomous motivation).
158 S.I. Di Domenico, M.A. Fournier / Learning and Individual Differences 40 (2015) 156162

We accordingly hypothesized that each of these variables would con- to predict academic performance across a variety of educational con-
tribute incrementally to the prediction of undergraduate academic texts (Wonderlic, Inc., 2002). Respondents are presented 50 test items
performance. of increasing difculty and are instructed to answer as many of these
We also considered the possibility that intelligence, conscientious- items as possible within a 12-minute period with each correct answer
ness, and autonomous motivation could combine non-additively in counting for one point. Scores on the WPTTM converge with other
the prediction of academic performance. On the one hand, we imagined well-established measures of general intelligence such as full-scale IQ
that these variables could combine in a synergistic (i.e., more-than- as assessed by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition
additive) manner, wherein each variable would have its greatest effect (i.e., .75 b r b .96; Wonderlic, Inc., 2002, p. 39). The descriptive statistics
on academic performance at higher levels of the other variables. Follow- for the WPTTM are presented in Table 1.
ing Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), we call this a synergistic
interaction. On the other hand, we imagined that these variables could
2.2.2. Trait conscientiousness
also combine in a compensatory (i.e., less-than-additive) manner,
We administered 48 items from the Behavioral Indicators of
wherein each variable would have its greatest effect on academic
Conscientiousness (BIC; Jackson et al., 2010) that pertained to the ve
performance at lower levels of the other variables. Following Cohen
principal facets of conscientiousness (Roberts et al., 2005,). We thus
et al. (2003), we call this a compensatory interaction.
administered a 9-item subscale for industriousness, an 18-item subscale
Hypotheses concerning synergistic interactions between intelli-
for orderliness, a 9-item subscale for impulse control, a 6-item subscale
gence and constructs related to the personality trait domain of consci-
for reliability, and a 6-item subscale for formality (see the Appendix of
entiousness were popular for some time in the eld of industrial/
Jackson et al., 2010). Participants were asked to indicate how often
organizational psychology (Maier, 1955). Although research has
they perform specic conscientious behaviors on a scale ranging from
historically supported the more straightforward additive model
1 (Never) to 5 (Quite often). Sample items include Finish a set amount
(Sackett, Gruys, & Ellingson, 1998), recent studies have found syner-
of work before relaxing (industriousness), Set a timeline for getting
gistic interaction effects between intelligence and the achievement
a project done (orderliness), Cancel or switch plans at the last minute
(i.e., industriousness) facet of conscientiousness in the prediction of
(impulse control; reverse-scored), Oversleep for class or work
job performance (Perry, Hunter, Witt, & Harris, 2010). Perry et al.
(reliability; reverse-scored), and Call someone Ms., Mr., Mrs., Sir, etc.
(2010) suggested that individuals who value achievement may be
(formality). A conscientiousness total score on the BIC was computed
more motivated to deploy their cognitive abilities in the service of
by standardizing and summing participants' facet-level scores. The
job performance. Although intelligence and conscientiousness have
descriptive statistics for the BIC facet scales are presented in Table 1.
typically been considered independent predictors in the domain of aca-
Given the heterogeneity of item content across the facet measures, the
demic performance (e.g., DeYoung, 2011), we know of no investigation
internal consistency of this Conscientiousness composite was relatively
that has explicitly tested their interaction. Accordingly, we followed
lower than that of its constituent facet scales, = .60.
Perry et al. (2010) and hypothesized that intelligence and conscien-
tiousness would combine synergistically in the prediction of academic
performance. We further hypothesized that intelligence and the indus- 2.2.3. Autonomous motivation
triousness facet of conscientiousness would combine synergistically The Academic Self-Regulation Scale (ASRS; Vansteenkiste et al.,
in the prediction of academic performance. Given that we had neither 2009) presents students with a 16-item list of reasons for studying
theoretical nor empirical grounds on which to formally hypothesize university course materials. Four items each correspond to intrinsic
whether autonomous motivation would interact with either intelli- motivation, identied regulation, introjected regulation, and external
gence or conscientiousness, these two-way interactions were tested regulation. Sample items include I study because it's fun (intrinsic
on an exploratory basis. motivation), I study because I want to learn new things (identied
regulation), I study because I want others to think I'm a good student
2. Method (introjected regulation), and I study because that's what others
(e.g., parents, friends) expect me to do (external regulation). Partici-
2.1. Participants pants were instructed to rate the personal importance of each reason
on a scale ranging from 1 (Completely not important) to 7 (Very important).
A total of 271 undergraduate students (58% female) from the The descriptive statistics for the ASRS scales are presented in Table 1.
University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC) participated in a 1-hour lab-
oratory session, either for course credit in their introductory psychology Table 1
course or for monetary compensation of $15 CAN. Participants con- Descriptive statistics of measures.
vened for the current study either by themselves or in unacquainted
M SD Number of scale items
two-, three-, or four-person groups. The measures that were utilized
in the current study were administered in the same sequence that General intelligence
WPTTM 23.94 5.81
they are listed below. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 29 (M =
Facets of conscientiousness
20.83, SD = 1.67), although ve students did not report their age. The BIC-Industriousness 3.59 .69 .82 9
sample was academically diverse, including students in their rst BIC-Orderliness 3.14 .81 .90 18
(11%), second (39%), third (21%), fourth (21%), and fth or above (6%) BIC-Impulse control 3.04 .65 .76 9
year of studies. The vast majority of students (89%) had decided upon BIC-Reliability 4.20 .64 .77 6
BIC-Formality 3.24 .70 .68 6
a program of study. These students varied greatly in terms of their
Motivation to study
degree programs and their academic histories were mostly character- ASRS-Intrinsic motivation 4.45 1.47 .89 4
ized by an interdisciplinary prole of course combinations across the ASRS-Identied regulation 5.80 1.08 .77 4
sciences, social sciences, and humanities. ASRS-Introjected regulation 4.34 1.51 .78 4
ASRS-External regulation 4.13 1.56 .83 4
Academic performance
2.2. Measures Cumulative GPA 2.61 .82

Note: N = 271; aN = 266; WPTTM = Wonderlic Personnel TestTM; BIC = Behavioral

2.2.1. General intelligence Indicators of Conscientiousness; ASRS = Academic Self-Regulation Scale; GPA = grade
The Wonderlic Personnel TestTM (WPTTM) is a brief, reliable, and point average; Item responses on the BIC and ASRS were obtained on 5- and 7-point
valid measure of general intelligence that has been extensively utilized Likert-type scales, respectively. All statistics are rounded to the nearest hundredth.
 S.I. Di Domenico, M.A. Fournier / Learning and Individual Differences 40 (2015) 156162 159

Table 2 with cumulative GPA (although the correlation with autonomous

Correlations among the four subscales of the ASRS (below the diagonal) and 95% motivation was only marginally statistically signicant). Students' year
condence intervals (above the diagonal).
of study was not associated with intelligence, conscientiousness, or au-
1 2 3 4 tonomous motivation. However, students' year of study was positively
1. Intrinsic motivation [.52, .67] [.11, .13] [.30, .07] associated with cumulative GPA, suggesting the presence of grade ina-
2. Identied regulation .60 [.09, .32] [.27, .04] tion (Johnson, 2003) in higher years of undergraduate studies. We
3. Introjected regulation .01 .21 [.40, .58] accordingly statistically controlled for the effect of students' academic
4. External regulation .19 .16 .50
year of study in all subsequent analyses.
Note: N = 271; p b .001, p b .01, p b .05; ASRS = Academic Self-Regulation Scale;
the simplex-like pattern of correlations along the main diagonal is bolded. All statistics 3.2. Regression analyses
are rounded to the nearest hundredth.

We utilized a step-up regression procedure to examine the additive

Table 2 shows that the different types of motivation evidenced a
simplex-like pattern of associations, such that the largest correla-
tions appeared along the main diagonal of the matrix (Ryan & Connell,
1989). Following previous studies (e.g., Black & Deci, 2000; Weinstein
& Ryan, 2010), we accordingly operationalized autonomous motivation
by scores on a relative autonomy index (RAI), which were computed
by the following formula: RAI = intrinsic motivation + identied
regulation introjected regulation external regulation.
2.2.4. Academic performance
At the very end of the study, participants downloaded and printed
an unofcial copy of their transcript from the undergraduate Student
Web Services at the University of Toronto (www.rosi.utoronto.ca). All
personally identifying information was removed prior to analyses. We
utilized students' cumulative GPA as our criterion variable. Of the 271
students who participated in the study, ve were unable to provide
their transcripts because of difculties in accessing their online student
account.
2.3. Data analytic approach
We conducted two types of statistical analyses. We rst conducted
correlational analyses to examine if the well-established relationships
that intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation have
with academic performance would replicate in the current sample.
We then conducted a hierarchical or step-up multiple regression
procedure (Aiken & West, 1991) to examine the additive and interactive
effects of intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation
on GPA. Partial F-tests were utilized to examine whether progressively
complex models explained signicantly greater amounts of variance
in GPA. We conducted an analogous set of analyses to examine the
role of the conscientiousness facets in the prediction of academic perfor-
mance. The results and discussion of these analyses are detailed in the
Supplemental materials.
3. Results
3.1. Correlational analyses
Table 3 displays the correlations between all of the primary vari-
ables. In keeping with previous research, intelligence, conscientious-
ness, and autonomous motivation were each positively associated
and interactive effects of intelligence, conscientiousness, and autono-
mous motivation on academic performance. Step 1 featured the main
effects for intelligence, conscientiousness, and academic year of study.
Autonomous motivation was entered at Step 2 in order to test its incre-
mental predictive validity over intelligence and conscientiousness. Step
3 featured the two-way interaction effects between (a) intelligence and
conscientiousness, (b) intelligence and autonomous motivation, and
(c) conscientiousness and autonomous motivation. We standardized
each of our predictors but left GPA scores unstandardized so that the
lower-order terms in our models could more straightforwardly be
interpreted as GPA points per standard deviation unit.
As expected, the results at Step 1 of our hierarchical procedure were
consistent with the idea that intelligence and conscientiousness operate
as independent predictors of academic performance. Autonomous
motivation, entered at Step 2, did not evince incremental predictive util-
ity over and above intelligence and conscientiousness. A partial F-test
comparing the models at Steps 1 and 2 formally supported this conclu-
sion, R2 = .01, F(1, 261) = 1.58, and p = .210. The nal model at Step 3
indicated a signicant Intelligence Conscientiousness interaction and
a signicant Conscientiousness Autonomous Motivation interaction.
The Intelligence Autonomous Motivation interaction was not signi-
cant (Table 4). A partial F-test found that the model at Step 3 explained
signicantly more variance than the model at Step 2, R2 = .03,
F(3, 258) = 3.37, and p = .019.
We formally examined the signicant Intelligence Conscientiousness
interaction by plotting and testing the simple slopes of intelligence
at high (+ 1 SD) and low ( 1 SD) levels of conscientiousness
(Aiken & West, 1991). This interaction is illustrated in Fig. 1. The simple
effect of intelligence was greater at high levels of conscientiousness,
b = .40, SE = .06, t = 6.16, and p b .001, than at low levels of conscien-
tiousness, b = .17, SE = .07, t = 2.63, and p = .009. To further examine
the signicant Intelligence Conscientiousness interaction, we also
plotted and tested the simple slopes of conscientiousness at high
(+ 1 SD) and low ( 1 SD) levels of intelligence. The simple effect of
conscientiousness was greater at high levels of intelligence, b = .20,
SE = .07, t = 2.80, and p = .006, than at low levels of intelligence, for
which the simple effect was not signicantly different than zero,
b = .03, SE = .06, t = .49, and p = .623. The patterning of this
interaction is thus consistent with the synergistic model.
We similarly examined the signicant Conscientiousness
Autonomous Motivation interaction by plotting and testing the simple
slopes of autonomous motivation at low ( 1 SD) and high (+ 1 SD)

Table 3
Correlations among the primary variables (below the diagonal) and 95% condence intervals (above the diagonal).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Agea [.06, .30] [.63, .75] [.18, .06] [.18, .06] [.00, .24] [.15, .10]b
2. Sex .18 [.11, .13] [.04, .20] [.22, .01] [.10, .14] [.18, .06]
3. Year of study .70 .01 [.03, .20] [.12, .11] [.07, .17] [.02, .26]
4. Intelligence .06 .08 .09 [.05, .19] [.08, .16] [.28, .49]
5. Conscientiousness .06 .11 .01 .07 [.18, .40] [.02, .26]
6. Autonomous motivation .12 .02 .05 .04 .30 [.00, .23]
7. Cumulative GPAa .02b .06 .15 .39 .14 .12

Note: N = 271; aN = 266; bN = 261; p b .01, p b .05, p b .10, Sex: Female = 1, Male = 1; GPA = grade point average; all the listed correlations are rounded to the nearest hundredth.
160 S.I. Di Domenico, M.A. Fournier / Learning and Individual Differences 40 (2015) 156162

Table 4
Regression analyses for the prediction of cumulative GPA (N = 266).

Step Predictors b(SE) 95% CI p-value Model summary

Step 1 Year of study .09 (.05) [.00, .19] .042 R2 = .18, F(3, 262) = 18.84,
p b .001
Intelligence .30 (.05) [.21, .40] b .001
Conscientiousness .09 (.05) [.00, .18] .048
Step 2 Autonomous Motivation .06 (.05) [.03, .15] .210 R2 = .18, F(4, 261) = 14.55,
p b .001
Step 3 Intelligence Conscientiousness .11 (.05) [.02, .21] .020 R2 = .21, F(7, 258) = 9.99,
p b .001
Intelligence Autonomous Motivation .00 (.05) [.10, .10] .986
Conscientiousness Autonomous Motivation .09 (.04) [.17, .01] .037

Note: The effect size b(SE) is expressed in units of cumulative GPA per standard deviation along the predictor. The p-values are rounded to the nearest thousandth. All other statistics are
rounded to the nearest hundredth.
95% CI = 95% condence interval.

levels of conscientiousness (Aiken & West, 1991). This interaction is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The simple effect of autonomous motivation was
greater at low levels of conscientiousness, b = .17, SE = .06, t = 2.65,
and p = .008, than at high levels of conscientiousness, for which
the simple effect was not signicantly different than zero, b = .00,
SE = .06, t = .07, and p = .950. To further examine the signicant
Conscientiousness Autonomous Motivation interaction, we also plot-
ted and tested the simple slopes of conscientiousness at low (1 SD)
and high (+1 SD) levels of autonomous motivation. The simple effect
of conscientiousness was greater at low levels of autonomous motiva-
tion, b = .17, SE = .06, t = 2.79, and p = .006, than at high levels of
autonomous motivation, for which the simple effect was not signicant-
ly different than zero, b = .00, SE = .07, t = .07, and p = .950. The pat-
terning of this interaction is thus consistent with the compensatory
model.
4. Discussion
The present research examined the additive and interactive effects
of intelligence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation in the
prediction of undergraduate academic performance. Data from an aca-
demically diverse sample of university students revealed a synergistic
interaction between intelligence and conscientiousness and a compen-
satory interaction between conscientiousness and autonomous motiva-
tion. That is, conscientiousness performed a catalytic function among
students with higher levels of intelligence and a compensatory function
among students with lower levels of autonomous motivation. We
discuss each of these ndings in greater detail below.
4.1. General Intelligence and Trait Conscientiousness
The results of the present study indicated that intelligence and
conscientiousness are not independent predictors of academic perfor-
mance. Rather, these variables proved to synergistically operate with
each other in the prediction of academic performance. Specically, we
found that the contributions of intelligence to academic performance
were amplied by conscientiousness. It thus appears that conscien-
tiousness facilitates or catalyzes some or all of the processes through
which intelligence inuences academic performance. One possibility is
that brighter students are able to better understand their learning mate-
rial, and brighter students who bring their intellectual talent to bear on
their studies through hard work (i.e., those higher in conscientiousness)
stand to obtain the highest levels of academic performance.
Another possibility concerns the underlying neurophysiological sys-
tems, particularly those of the prefrontal cortex, through which intelli-
gence enhances people's capacity for self-regulation (e.g., Shamosh
et al., 2008) and the role of conscientiousness in promoting the deploy-
ment of those systems (e.g., Pailing & Segalowitz, 2004). In a recent
study (Di Domenico, Rodrigo, Ayaz, Fournier, & Ruocco, in press), we
found that brighter individuals evidenced neural efciency (i.e., lower
levels of neural activation and faster reaction times) in a region of the
prefrontal cortex called the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG) during a
decision-making task that had previously implicated activity in the an-
terior cingulate cortex (ACC) as reecting the degree of choice difculty
(Nakao et al., 2010). While the ACC is characterized as an evaluative
system, signaling the need for greater attentional resources (Yeung,
Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004), the rIFG is characterized as playing an exec-
utive role, overseeing the wilful selection and control of behavior

Fig. 1. Predicted cumulative GPA across levels of intelligence and conscientiousness. Error Fig. 2. Predicted cumulative GPA across levels of conscientiousness and autonomous
bars represent 90% condence intervals. motivation. Error bars represent 90% condence intervals.
 S.I. Di Domenico, M.A. Fournier / Learning and Individual Differences 40 (2015) 156162
through the inhibition of competing behavioral outputs (Aron, Robbins,
& Poldrack, 2004). Indeed, activity in the rIFG observed during con-
trolled laboratory studies is a predictor of successful self-control in
ecologically valid settings (Berkman, Falk, & Lieberman, 2011). Notably,
more conscientious individuals exhibit a consistently pronounced ACC
response (e.g., Pailing & Segalowitz, 2004), suggesting that they more
reliably engage the cognitive-control mechanisms of the rIFG when
the necessity strikes. Thus, one possibility is that the synergistic interac-
tion between intelligence and conscientiousness in the prediction of
academic performance has less to do with learning per se and more
to do with the reliable deployment and the efcient functioning of
people's self-regulatory systems. Research should continue to test for
synergistic interactions between intelligence and conscientiousness in
the prediction of academic and non-academic performance outcomes.
4.2. Autonomous motivation and trait conscientiousness
Because the interaction between conscientiousness and autono-
mous motivation was examined on an exploratory basis, the results of
the current study only offer preliminary support for a compensatory
interaction between these two constructs. Nevertheless, the current
results do suggest potentially fruitful avenues for future studies. Specif-
ically, the compensatory interaction may signify that the processes
through which autonomous motivation inuences academic perfor-
mance overlap with those of conscientiousness and that these processes
can operate to enhance performance outcomes only to a limited extent.
A natural step for future research is to therefore examine the basis of
this compensatory interaction by testing alternative models of mediat-
ed moderation with different candidate mediator variables. Indeed, a
variety of constructs have been associated with conscientiousness,
autonomous motivation, and academic performance. One such con-
struct is academic effort, which has been previously established as
both a mediator of the relationship between conscientiousness and
academic performance (e.g., Trautwein, Ldtke, Roberts, Schnyder, &
Niggli, 2009) and as a typical outcome of autonomous motivation
(e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000). Academic effort is a good candidate mediator
because there is likely to be a limit on the extent to which incremental
increases of effort will yield incremental increases of academic perfor-
mance and on the extent to which people can exert effort in the rst
place.
An alternative approach to search for mediators is to consider the
possible underlying and constituent neural mechanisms that are shared
by conscientiousness and autonomous motivation. One possible mech-
anism may be indexed by error-related negativity (ERN; Gehring, Goss,
Coles, Meyer, & Donchin, 1993), a response-locked event-related poten-
tial that occurs upon the commission of task-related errors. The ERN is
believed to reect the operation of a performance-monitoring system
in the ACC that engages the cognitive-control mechanisms of the
prefrontal cortex during response conict when the commission of
errors is likely (Yeung et al., 2004). The ERN is a good example of
what a neurophysiological mediator of the interaction effect in question
would resemble for three reasons. First, higher levels of autonomous
motivation predict larger ERN amplitudes (Legault & Inzlicht, 2013).
Second, larger ERN amplitudes predict higher levels of academic perfor-
mance among university students (Hirsh & Inzlicht, 2010). Finally,
although increasing the motivational importance of a task generally
produces larger ERN amplitudes, conscientiousness has been shown to
moderate this association, with motivational incentives being effective
only at the lower levels of conscientiousness but not at higher levels
of conscientiousness (Pailing & Segalowitz, 2004). This latter point is
congruent with the current nding in that autonomous motivation
was only predictive of academic performance at lower levels of consci-
entiousness. Future research should thus consider the ERN and related
neurophysiological processes as potential mediators of the presently
obtained compensatory interaction.
161
4.3. Limitations
The current study is not without its limitations. The rst limitation
concerns the relatively exploratory nature of the present study. Intelli-
gence, conscientiousness, and autonomous motivation are well-
established predictors of academic performance in university but
previous studies have not examined these constructs simultaneously
and we accordingly considered different possibilities for how these
variables could combine and interact in the prediction of academic suc-
cess. Although the presently documented interactions suggest interest-
ing avenues for future studies examining these constructs, a crucial step
for future research will be to replicate the present ndings using larger
samples. The second limitation concerns the delimited population from
which the present sample was drawn. Although the present sample was
academically diverse and involved students of various ages, all partici-
pants came from the same institution. Generalizations based on the cur-
rent nding should therefore be made with caution. The third limitation
concerns our global assessment of autonomous motivation. It is possible
that university students are more or less autonomously motivated for
each of the different courses in which they are enrolled. With our global
assessment of autonomous motivation, it is unclear how this possibility
may have played itself out in the current investigation. Future research
could address this issue by adopting a more idiographic approach in
predicting academic performance, for example, through the use of mul-
tilevel models (Snijders & Bosker, 2012) specied to examine possible
cross-level interactions between person-level trait conscientiousness
and course-level autonomous motivation. The fourth limitation con-
cerns the cross-sectional design of our study. Although the models
examined in the present investigation were based upon past research
ndings that have separately established intelligence, conscientious-
ness, and autonomous motivation to each be important predictors of
academic performance, the performance criterion that was utilized in
the present study was assessed concurrently with the predictors. Future
research should therefore attempt to recover the interaction effects
observed in the present study by utilizing longitudinal designs for the
prospective examination of academic performance.
4.4. Conclusion
Three separate and largely independent lines of research suggest
that students must be able (intelligent), ready (conscientious), and
willing (autonomously motivated) if they are to academically succeed.
In the present investigation, we examined the additive and interactive
contributions of these three individual difference variables to the pre-
diction of undergraduate academic performance. Conscientiousness
contributed more to academic performance at higher levels of intelli-
gence, suggesting that an industrious disposition may serve a catalytic
function among students with more intellectual ability. Conscientious-
ness contributed more to academic performance at lower levels of
autonomous motivation, suggesting that an industrious disposition
may serve a compensatory function among students with less intrinsic
interest. While students may need only to be ready or willing to limit
the probability of poor academic outcomes, students may need to be
both ready and able if they are to succeed.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.016.
References
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aron, A.R., Robbins, T.W., & Poldrack, R.A. (2004). Inhibition and the right inferior
frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 170177. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tics.2004.02.010.
162 S.I. Di Domenico, M.A. Fournier / Learning and Individual Differences 40 (2015) 156162
Berkman, E.T., Falk, E.B., & Lieberman, M.D. (2011). In the trenches of real-world self-
control: Neural correlates of breaking the link between craving and smoking.
Psychological Science, 22, 498506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400918.
Black, A.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students'
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective. Science Education, 84, 740756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-
237X(200011).
Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New Jersey, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Deary, I.J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differ-
ences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 201211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2793.
Deary, I.J., Whalley, L.J., Lemmon, H., Crawford, J.R., & Starr, J.M. (2000). The stability of in-
dividual differences in mental ability from childhood to old age: Follow-up of the
1932 Scottish Mental Survey. Intelligence, 28(1), 4955.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_0.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embed-
ded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), Ox-
ford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
DeYoung, C.G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In R.J. Sternberg, & S.B. Kaufman
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 711737). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Di Domenico, S.I., Rodrigo, A.H., Ayaz, H., Fournier, M.A., & Ruocco, A.C. (2015). Decision-
making conict and the neural efciency hypothesis of intelligence: A functional
near-infrared spectroscopy investigation. NeuroImage (in press).
Gehring, W.J., Goss, B., Coles, M.G., Meyer, D.E., & Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for
error detection and compensation. Psychological Science, 4, 385390. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00586.x.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist,
48, 2634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.1.26.
Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signa-
tories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 1323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0160-2896(97)90011-8.
Hirsh, J.B., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Error-related negativity predicts academic performance.
Psychophysiology, 47, 192196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00877.x.
Jackson, J.J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K., Harms, P., & Roberts, B.W. (2010). What do
conscientious people do? Development and validation of the behavioral indicators
of conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 501511. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.005.
Jang, K.L., Livesley, W.J., & Vemon, P.A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five personality
dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality, 64, 577592.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x.
Jang, K.L., McCrae, R.R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W.J. (1998). Heritability
of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical
model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 15561565.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1556.
Jensen, A.R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C.J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-ve tax-
onomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114158) (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Johnson, V.E. (2003). Grade ination: A crisis in college education. New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag.
Komarraju, M., Karau, S.J., & Schmeck, R.R. (2009). Role of the big ve personality traits in
predicting college students' academic motivation and achievement. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 4752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001.
Kusurkar, R.A., Ten Cate, T.J., Vos, C.M.P., Westers, P., & Croiset, G. (2012). How motivation
affects academic performance: A structural equation modelling analysis. Advances in
Health Sciences Education, 18, 5769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3.
Legault, L., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Self-determination, self-regulation, and the brain:
Autonomy improves performance by enhancing neuroaffective responsiveness to
self-regulation failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 123138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030426.
Loehlin, J.C., McCrae, R.R., Costa, P.T., & John, O.P. (1998). Heritabilities of common and
measure-specic components of the Big Five personality factors. Journal of Research
in Personality, 32, 431453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2225.
Lubinski, D., Webb, R.M., Morelock, M.J., & Benbow, C.P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-
year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 718729.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718.
Maier, N.R.E. (1955). Psychology in industry. Boston: Houghton-Mifin.
McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (2008). The ve-factor theory of personality. In O.P. John,
R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(pp. 159181) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Miquelon, P., Vallerand, R.J., Grouzet, F.M.E., & Cardinal, G. (2005). Perfectionism, academic
motivation, and personal adjustment: An integrative model. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 913924. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167204272298.
Nakao, T., Mitsumoto, M., Nashiwa, H., Takamura, M., Tokunaga, S., Miyatani, M., et al.
(2010). Self-knowledge reduces conict by biasing one of plural possible answers.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 455469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167210363403.
Ning, H.K., & Downing, K. (2012). Inuence of student learning experience on academic
performance: The mediator and moderator effects of self-regulation and motivation.
British Educational Research Journal, 38, 219237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01411926.2010.538468.
Noftle, E.E., & Robins, R.W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big ve
correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
116130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116.
Pailing, P.E., & Segalowitz, S.J. (2004). The error-related negativity as a state and trait mea-
sure: Motivation, personality, and ERPs in response to errors. Psychophysiology, 41,
8495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.00124.
Paunonen, S.V., & Ashton, M.C. (2013). On the prediction of academic performance with
personality traits: A replication study. Journal of Research in Personality, 47,
778781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.003.
Perry, S.J., Hunter, E.M., Witt, L.A., & Harris, K.J. (2010). P = f (conscientiousness ability):
Examining the facets of conscientiousness. Human Performance, 23, 342360.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.501045.
Plant, E.A., Ericsson, K.A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict
grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for
academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 96116. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.06.001.
Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university
students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 138, 353387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026838.
Roberts, B.W., Bogg, T., Walton, K., Chernyshenko, O., & Stark, S. (2004). A lexical
approach to identifying the lower-order structure of conscientiousness.
Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 164178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-
6566(03)00065-5.
Roberts, B.W., Caspi, A., & Moft, T.E. (2001). The kids are alright: Growth and stability in
personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 670683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.670.
Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L.R. (2005). The structure of con-
scientiousness: An empirical investigation based on seven major personality ques-
tionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58, 103139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2005.00301.x.
Roberts, B.W., Jackson, J.J., Fayard, J.V., Edmonds, G.W., & Meints, J. (2009). Conscientious-
ness. In M.R. Leary, & R.H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social be-
havior (pp. 369381). New York: Guilford Press.
Roberts, B.W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-Level change in
personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 132, 125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1.
Rohde, T.E., & Thompson, L.A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive
ability. Intelligence, 35, 8392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016./j.intell.2006.05.004.
Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Exam-
ining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 749761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic
psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In O.P.
John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and
research (pp. 654678) (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Sackett, P.R., Gruys, M.L., & Ellingson, J.E. (1998). Abilitypersonality interactions when
predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 545556. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.545.
Shamosh, N.A., DeYoung, C.G., Green, A.E., Reis, D.L., Johnson, M.R., Conway, A.R.R., et al.
(2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: Relation to intelligence, working
memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 19, 904911. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02175.x.
Snijders, T.A.B., & Bosker, R.J. (2012). Multilevel analysis (2nd ed.). An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. London: SAGE.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured.
American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201292.
Spearman, C.S. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan.
Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of
longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, 401426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.
2006.09.004.
Trautwein, U., Ldtke, O., Roberts, B.W., Schnyder, I., & Niggli, A. (2009). Different forces,
same consequence: Conscientiousness and competence beliefs are independent
predictors of academic effort and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97, 11151128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017048.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational pro-
les from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101, 671688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015083.
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R.M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for
prosocial behavior and its inuence on well-being for the helper and recipient.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 222244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0016984.
Wonderlic, Inc. (2002). Wonderlic Personnel TestTM scholastic level exam user's manual.
Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic.
Yeung, N., Botvinick, M.M., & Cohen, J.D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection:
Conict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 111,
931959. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.931.