Analysis of Individual Differences in PSY391 Assignment

This assignment analyzes individual differences based on the results of a 120-item IPIP personality assessment. The student calculates Z-scores for five personality domains (Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism) to compare their scores to peers. The analysis includes interpreting the traits based on the scores and discussing the implications of the findings, particularly in relation to academic performance and career choices. The assignment also reviews research findings that correlate personality traits with academic success, such as the link between conscientiousness and academic achievement, and the influence of self-esteem and other factors on student outcomes. Finally, the student reflects on how their IPIP results align with these research findings and discusses the factors influencing their own academic performance.

Running head: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
Individual Differences
Student’s Name
Institution
Date

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 2
Part 1
Z-score determination
In order to determine the z-score for the different domains, the first thing is to determine
the mean and the standard deviation. With agreeableness of 103, I obtained a z-score of
1.352620602. With conscientiousness of 90, I obtained a z-score of -2.5. With openness of 69, I
obtained a z-score of -1.324285082. With extraversion of 82, I obtained a z-score of
0.184230665. With neuroticism of 70, I obtained a z-score of -0.076982386. With social
desirability of 9, I obtained a z-score of 6.543504501.
Part 1 (a): Interpretation of the traits
Based on the scores, it is clear that I score more than average on conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness and social desirability. On the other hand, I scored below average on
neuroticism and openness.
Part 1 (b): Implications of the findings
The fact that scored high in conscientiousness, extraversion, social desirability mean that
I am a person who can easily fit into any new environment and get along with people. I also
scored highly in agreeableness. High agreeableness has a number of implications. Before stating
the implications, it is important to state that people with low agreeableness are intractable,
distrustful, they do not know how to sympathize, do not like to be in a team and rude. A low
degree of resilience can be useful in professions that require a person to be intractable, such as a
tax collector or sergeant for a drill company. With livable people in general, it’s easy to get
along, they are “team players”. High agreeableness can be a valuable quality in areas where you
need to build good relationships with people. My score also implies that I can do well in courses

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 3
that are related to management, sociology, communication. I should focus on the humanities
subjects or do jobs related to management and business..
Part 2
Part 2 (a)
For a successful career and for academic achievement in obtaining education, personal
qualities are more important than IQ (intelligence). This conclusion was made by researchers
from the University of Griffith, who analyzed the basic human qualities (integrity, openness,
pliability, emotional stability and extraversion) and correlated them with academic performance.
Psychologists have proved that after short observations of the psycho-emotional development of
the “first-grader”, an integral picture is formed about the future life in the general educational
institution. However, no one canceled the correction of behavior! Everything can be fixed if a
professional approach to solving this issue. A hopeless pamperer is really instructed on the "true
path." In this case, you can not do without the help of a psychologist. The likelihood that the
“little robber” in the future himself will express a desire to go to law college or become a doctor
is quite high!.
O’Connor & Paunonen (2007) demonstrated that low self-esteem can lead to a person
losing self-confidence. In this case, the person’s desire to achieve the set goal may gradually fade
away, and the planned one will never be fulfilled. When a person overestimates himself and his
abilities, it is customary to talk about excessive self-esteem, which does not allow to adequately
coordinate and adjust their actions towards achieving the goal. As a result, the ability to achieve
the planned is much more complicated, and most often previously conceived is not fully realized
in practice. Accordingly, adequate self-esteem is optimal for effective learning. Thus, strong-

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 4
willed personality traits are one of the significant determinants that ensure the formation of an
initial level of competence and affect the student's academic performance. Along with this, the
volitional sphere of the personality through individual personality qualities is associated with
value orientations and the motivational sphere.
As revealed by Rosander & Bäckström (2012) students with conscience spend more time
on homework, less delay, and use all three types of learning strategies than fewer students with
conscience. Suitability a similar pattern was observed, although its relationship with delays far
less intense. In addition, the use of key strategic pleasant and nothing to do. Third, as expected,
extraverted personnel than introverted greater use of surface-type personnel policy and not so
important strategy. However, during homework, extroverts and introverts are no different, and
they delay less than introverts. Fourth, emotionally stable students spend less time on homework
than neurotic students and delay However, they use their time more effectively than neurotic
students because their strategies use revelation. Finally, autonomous students delay more and use
all strategies, rather than less autonomous students, the most obvious It is the key strategy that
can be expected.
Study by Neppl et al. (2010) established that among linguistic students in the
psychological structures of perseverance and curiosity, the severity of personally significant
goals prevails over socially significant goals, egocentric motivation over sociocentric. The most
pronounced of the Big Five factors in this group is conscientiousness, the least pronounced is
neuroticism.
McCabe et al (2013) established that openness to new experience and good faith are most
closely related to curiosity and perseverance, respectively; extraversion acts as a feature that
characterizes the continuum of personal activity in both volitional and cognitive spheres;

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 5
neuroticism - as a universal “trait-inhibitor" that blocks the manifestation of personal properties
in these areas
Study by Matthews, Deary & Whiteman (2013) revealed that volitional and cognitive
personality traits demonstrate specificity in relation to students' academic success in mastering
different groups of disciplines: perseverance and conscientiousness are much more closely
related to success indicators compared to curiosity and openness to new experience,
instrumental-style features.
Inquisitiveness correlates with good faith through socially significant goals,
meaningfulness and personal difficulties, but the most specific connections exist with openness
to experience and are manifested in the existence of the “conscious” factor openness.
Persistence and curiosity are associated with neuroticism, primarily through extraversion
variables, which allows us to talk about neuroticism as a factor characterizing difficulties in
realizing personality traits in various fields.
According to Lounsbury et al. (2009) perseverance variables demonstrate the connection
with the success of mastering all groups of disciplines, however, the most connections were
obtained between result-oriented, personal difficulties and academic performance in specialized
courses (second foreign language, special and psychological and pedagogical disciplines.
The factors of the “Big Five” demonstrate specificity in relation to the academic
achievements of linguistic students depending on the group of disciplines studied, while
conscientiousness correlates with academic performance in all groups of disciplines, with the
exception of English (and acts as the most universal correlate of educational success);
extraversion - with the successful development of a second foreign language and special

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 6
disciplines; openness to experience - with progress in psychological and pedagogical disciplines;
neuroticism - with success in a second foreign language; Consent does not reveal links to
academic success. In general, academic performance in newer courses for students (second
foreign language, special and psychological-pedagogical disciplines) is more closely related to
strong-willed and cognitive personality traits.
However, there are many factors that affect students' academic performance, and
personality is only one of the important factors that affect academic performance. The university
environment is more complex than high school. Factors such as learning efficiency, learning
time, learning methods, external environment, and personal career planning all have a certain
impact on the academic performance of college students. The influence of factors on academic
performance needs further study. first, students with good academic performance are more
positive in their self-concept, believe in their abilities and efforts, have high levels of motivation
and ambition, and are recognized and encouraged by outsiders, and good personality traits are
more It is easy to form; students with poor academic performance are more negative, doubt their
ability, have low expectations for themselves, and hope to achieve success with the help of
external forces, it is easier to form bad characteristics in personality. This is the main reason for
their differences in stability and autonomy. Second, students with good academic performance
have more successful experiences, making them more likely to have a sense of accomplishment
and self-esteem. On the contrary, students with poor academic performance are more prone to
failure and inferiority. This is their skeptical and courageous factor. An important reason for the
difference. Third, the subjective social evaluation has different psychological feelings for top
students and students with poor academic performance. Students with poor grades are more
likely to be rejected by society, and they have a lower self-esteem than others, and dare not to

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 7
take action. It is to satisfy one's desire through fantasy. The rejection of students with poor
academics by the general concept of society has a great impact on them, which will not only hurt
their self-esteem and self-expectation, but also make them helpless and have a certain impact on
their physical and mental health. Therefore, the differences in personality traits between top-
ranked college students and students with poor academic performance are caused by their own
and social reasons. Schools and teachers should treat students equally, give equal opportunities
to top students and underachievers, and adopt targeted strategic guidance to underachievers to
help them analyze the reasons for success or failure. Only in this way can students at different
levels form good The personality traits make progress together
Other studies reveals that among successful students, the most significant are the values
of achievement, independence, stimulation, security (Komarraju, et al 2011). Among the
underperforming are universalism, hedonism, kindness and security. There are significant
statistical differences between the results of these groups of subjects, from which we can
conclude that the dominant value orientations of students with high and low performance are
different.
Highly-performing students are more responsible. They are consistent in choosing their
own priorities, because the differences between normative ideals and individual priorities are not
significant. Both boys and girls in this group of subjects are focused on themselves and their
main activity. Students with low academic performance are less consistent in the selection of
value priorities, less independent and more focused on others, communication, entertainment and
much less on activity.
Students with a high level of achievement, the severity of willpower is medium, or
strong, there is no weak level of severity. Among students with low academic performance, there

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 8
is a weak degree of severity of willpower. The least pronounced in this group is a strong level. In
the group of students with high academic performance, high marks of their own perseverance
significantly prevail; students with a low degree of academic achievement most often have a low
level of persistence. Among the individual emotional and volitional characteristics of students
with high academic performance there is a high level of self-control, social normalized ty and
organization. The sample of students with low academic performance is characterized by
pronounced emotional stability and a high level of internal stress.
Part 2 (b)
My IPIP results support the findings from the studies that have been done. The findings
from the studies, for example, shows that students with conscience spend more time on
homework, less delay, and use all three types of learning strategies than fewer students with
conscience. Suitability a similar pattern was observed, although its relationship with delays far
less intense. I also want to stress the fact that the university environment is more complex than
high school. Factors such as learning efficiency, learning time, learning methods, external
environment, and personal career planning all have a certain impact on the academic
performance of college students. The influence of factors on academic performance needs further
study.
Part 3
First, I want to state that I usually score 7-8/10 in my academic performance. The validity
of the findings are influenced by many factors (McAbee & Oswald 2013). A positive impact on
academic performance can be exerted by the impact of society, forming a student's sense of duty,
which obliges him to get a professional education and become a full-fledged citizen, useful for
the country or, at least, for his family. I think the environment I was brought up in is partly

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 9
responsible for my high academic score. This means that although I am have personality
qualities such as high conscientiousness that correlate positively with academic performance, the
home and society environment also reinforce the positive effects of my personality. In other
words, unless some quantitative analysis is carried out to separate the role played by societal
environment, no definitive conclusion can be made on what degree my big five attributes is
responsible for my good academic performance. Similarly, although I scored high in variables
responsible for academic performance such as extraversion, social desirability and agreeableness,
it is important to consider other confounding variables that fosters academic performance.
Failure to consider such variables would compel us to conclude that the big five personality
variables are exclusively responsible for better academic performance yet in reality academic
performance is a multidimensional issue. As revealed by Rosander & Bäckström (2012)
academic performance of the university student is generally related to multiple factors: family,
academic, economic, social, cultural. And if these factors remain for a long period without being
resolved, they end up affecting the student's biopsychosocial integrity, which manifests itself
with deficits in attention, memory difficulties, attention and concentration, low academic
performance, and low student productivity. Students with very adverse socioeconomic status
have inadequate study conditions at home, are subject to all kinds of deprivation, and therefore
require a more suitable study environment, such as university libraries. This means that all these
factors should be considered. They influence the validity of the findings on the relationship
between your personality domain scores and their predictions about your academic performance.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 10
References
Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality
traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and individual differences,
51, 472-477.
Lounsbury, J. W., Fisher, L. A., Levy, J. J., & Welsh, D. P. (2009). An investigation of character
strengths in relation to the academic success of college students. Individual Differences
Research, 7, (1), 52−69.
Matthews, G., Deary, I. J., & Whiteman, M. C. (2013). Personality traits. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McAbee, S. T., & Oswald, L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for
predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25, (2),
532−544.
McCabe, K. O., Van Yperen, N. W., Elliot, A. J., & Verbraak, M. (2013). Big Five personality
profiles of context-specific achievement goals. Journal of Research in Personality, 47,
698-707.
Neppl, T. K. et al. (2010). Differential stability of temperament and personality from toddlerhood
to middle childhood. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 386-396.
O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of postsecondary
academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971−990
Rosander, P., & Bäckström, M. (2012). The unique contribution of learning approaches to
academic performance, after controlling for IQ and personality: Are there gender
differences? Learning and individual differences, 22, 820-826.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 11
Appendices
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Agreeableness
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
Conscientiousness

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Neuroticism
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Openness