How Personality and Motivational Variables Develop Over Time and Why They Predict Academic Outcomes

• In Event: Interest Development, Expectancies, and Values: Insights, Challenges, and Prospects

Abstract

In recent years, motivational psychology has started to deal intensively with variables that are prominent or even originate in personality psychology. Examples include “grit”, “conscientiousness”, and “self-regulation”. This development necessitates a clearer analysis of what constitutes a personality variable vs. a motivational variable and calls for studies that examine the unique and shared impact of personality/motivational variables on academic outcomes. In this presentation, I will describe the Conscientiousness x Interest Compensation model (CONIC; Trautwein, Roberts, Nagengast & Lüdtke, 2019) that argues that both conscientiousness (a personality variable) and interest (a motivational variable; see Eccles et al., 1983; Renninger & Hidi, 2019) predict academic outcomes and that they (partly) compensate for each other. As reported by Trautwein et al. (2015), initial support for the model was found in four separate data sets. Furthermore, as shown by recent research (Song, Gaspard, Nagengast & Trautwein, in press), empirical support for the CONIC model is also found when interest is replaced by utility beliefs as defined in the Eccles expectancy-value model (Eccles et al., 1983).

In this presentation, I will clarify the theoretical background of the model and its relation with interest theory (e.g., Renninger & Hidi, 2019) as well as expectancy-value model (Eccles et al., 1983). Furthermore, I will describe how conscientiousness and interest develop over the high school years and to what extent they are amenable to educational interventions (also see Harackiewicz, Canning, Tibbetts, Priniski, & Hyde, 2016.) The presentation will be based on quantitative analyses of several large data sets. To examine the predictions of the CONIC model and to describe development over time, a large longitudinal data set (N > 4,000 participants) with four measurement points that span three school years will be used (Rieger et al., 2019). Furthermore, data from a randomized field study will be used to gauge the plasticity of personality and motivational variables. Overall, the results confirmed that both conscientiousness and interest predict academic outcomes and, thus, are in line with the CONIC model. Interestingly, the difference in the stability (interindividual stability) of interest and conscientiousness over the school years was quite small and did not fully conform to the belief that motivational constructs are amenable to environmental impact, whereas personality variables are not. Finally, results from the intervention study attested to a moderately positive impact of an educational intervention on motivational variables.

Overall, the pattern of findings indicates the need to use a broad conceptualization of what should be considered a “motivational variable” or, at least, a variable that is relevant for motivational research. It also begs the question of whether motivational theory needs to be expanded to include “personality” variables or if these variables have already been present in motivational theory, albeit under a different label. Similarly, in terms of relevance for real-world classrooms, the findings call for a broader understanding of what constitutes “motivation” and “motivated behavior” in the classroom and how teachers can assist students in developing an adaptive motivational profile.

Authors

• Ulrich Trautwein, University of Tubingen

• Sven Rieger, University of Tübingen

• Hanna Gaspard, TU Dortmund University

• Richard Goellner, Tuebingen University

• Marion Spengler, University of Tuebingen

• Benjamin Nagengast, University of Tübingen

• Brent W. Roberts, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign