Final Paper Alex

8/3/2019 Final Paper Alex

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/final-paper-alex 1/25

Personality and College Success – 1

Running Head: PERSONALITY AND COLLEGE SUCCESS

Personality and College Success:

The Big Five as Predictors of Success in College

Laura Carr, Lauren Cupp, Felicia Kiefer, Shijie Mao, Kelsey Rideout, Alex Silvey

Virginia Tech




Abstract

This study examined the predictive effectiveness of cognitive (critical thinking ability) and personality

traits (overall Big Five scales) as predictors of academic success in college. Success was

operationalized in terms of grades, as well as 3 criterion dimensions measured using self report ratings

on behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS). Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that

cognitive ability, as well as conscientiousness, would be positively correlated with measures of success.

Using a sample of N = 157 undergraduates in a large southeastern university, results indicated that

course grades and the Focused BARS criterion were strongly predicted by both cognitive ability and

some personality traits; however, the socializing, studying, career prep, time management, and seeking

help BARS criteria were not significantly predicable. These findings confirm and extend past findings,

showing that both ability and personality dimensions offer unique predictive power with respect to both

grade- and non-grade-based criteria of academic success. However, they question past meta-analytic

claims to the effect that Conscientiousness and Agreeableness effectively demonstrate universal

predictive validity.




Predicting Success in College:

Does Personality Predict Beyond Cognitive Ability?

This study examined the effectiveness of big-five and cognitive ability as predictors of success

as a college student. In particular, we sought to assess the degree to which past claims derived from

research in academic-based settings that Conscientiousness is an effectively universally valid predictor

of performance (e.g., Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic,T., & McDougall, F, 2002).

Studies Predicting Success Using Big-Five Personality Traits

This section briefly reviews the literature relevant to the use of cognitive and personality-based

psychological traits as predictors of task performance (see Table 1 for details). Emphasis is placed on

results obtained using measures of academic success as criteria.

Conscientiousness as a Predictor

Also consistent with the meta-analytic claim that conscientiousness is universally valid as a predictor of

job performance, a number of studies have found that this personality trait correlates positively with

academic performance (e.g., Rothstein, 1994;Furham, 2002; Raynor, 1970; Lounsbury, 2009). Criteria

found to be predictable in these studies included GPA, satisfaction, academic performance, and self

development.

Extraversion as a Predictor

Openness as a Predictor

Agreeableness as a Predictor

As summarized in Table 1, consistent with the meta-analytic claim that Agreeableness is a universally

valid predictor of job performance, a number of studies have found that this personality trait correlates

positively with academic performance (e.g., Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Scholmerich, F., & Buhner, M.,




2010; Lounsbury, J.W., Fisher, L.A., Levy, J.J., & Welsh, D.P., 2009). However, although the direction

of the correlation was positive for some criteria (e.g., Graduation Rate), negative correlations have been

reported (e.g., with GPA).

Neuroticism as a Predictor

Finally, Neuroticism has been found to correlate significantly with college success (e.g.,

Harris, 1940; O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007; Svanum & Zody, 2001). As with Agreeableness, consistent

results with respect to the direction of the correlation have been seen; however, Neuroticism tends to be

negatively correlated with GPA.

Method

Participants

A sample of N = 157 undergraduates in a large southeastern university participated as

part of a class project. Demographic information was not available.

Instruments

Based on a critical-incidents job analysis process, a pool of 131 behaviorally anchored rating scale

(BARS) items were developed to measure various aspects of “success” in college. Figure 1 presents an

example BARS item. Based on rational grouping of BARS scales to form clusters, five criterion

dimensions were identified (i.e., Studying, Relaxing and Socializing, Counterproductive Behavior, and

Decision Making ) and scores for each BARS criterion scale were obtained by summing the ratings

across the BARS items in each cluster.

Procedure

Self-rating methods were used to collect data on the Big Five dimensions using the

Goldberg (1992) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) items; to measure cognitive ability, a

shortened version of the Wagner Assessment Test (WAT; e.g., Wagner & Harvey, 2006) was

used. In addition to computing Pearson correlations between the predictor and criterion scales,




multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine the unique predictive power of each of

the predictor scales when used as a test battery.




References

Allen, J., & Robbins, S. (2010). Effects of interest–major congruence, motivation, and academic

performance on timely degree attainment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57 , 23-35.

Bohn-Gettler, C., & Rapp, D. (2011). Depending on my mood: Mood-driven influences on text

comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 562-577.

De Soto , C. B., Coleman, E. B., & Putnam, P. L. (1960). Predictions of sequences of

successes and failures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(1),

Donnellan, B. Oswald, F., Baird, B. & Lucas, R. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-Yet-

Effective Measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2),

192–203.

Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic,T., & McDougall, F. (2002). Personality, cognitive ability, and

beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and Individual

Differences, 14, 47-64.

Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big Five

personality traits, approaches to learning and cognitive ability predictors of academic

performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 769-782.

Greengross, G., Miller, G., & Martin , R. A. (2011). Personality traits, intelligence, humor

styles, and humor production ability of professional stand-up comedians compared to

college students. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,

Hanson, G. R., & Taylor, R. G. (1970). Interaction of ability and personality: Another look at the drop-

out problem in an institute of technology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17 (6), 540-545.

Retrieved October 23, 2011, from the PsycARTICLES database.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=GatewayURL&_method=citationSearch&_eidkey=1-s2.0-S1041608003000359&_origin=SDEMFRHTML&_version=1&md5=7faffe9c1c1491ed04b5821d5647d9a7







Lievens, F., & Sackett, R. (2011). The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational

judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology.

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,

52-69.

Lynch, D. (2010). Motivational Beliefs and Learning Strategies as Predictors of

Academic Performance in College Physics. College Student Journal. 44(4), 920-927.

Morgan, H. H. (1952). A psychometric comparison of achieving and nonachieving college students of

high ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16 (4), 292-298. Retrieved October 23, 2011,

from the PsycARTICLES database.

Museus, S. (2011). Generating Ethnic Minority Student Success (GEMS): A qualitative analysis

of high-performing institutions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4,147-162.

Payne, R., Davidson, P., & Sloane, R. (1966). The prediction of academic success in university

students: A pilot study. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 52-63. Retrieved October 23,

2011, from the PsycARTICLES database.

Phan, H. (2009). Exploring students’ reflective thinking practice, deep processing strategies,

effort, and achievement goal orientation. Educational Psychology. 29(3), 297–313.

Raynor, J. O. (1970). Relationships between achievement-related motives, future orientation,

and academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(1), 28-33.

Ridgell, S. D. & Lounsbury, J. W. (2004). PREDICTING ACADEMIC SUCCESS: GENERAL

INTELLIGENCE, "BIG FIVE" PERSONALITY TRAITS, AND WORK DRIVE. College

Student Journal, 38, 607-619.




Rothstein, M. G., Paunonen, S. V., Rush, J. C., & King, G. A. (1994). Personality and cognitive ability

predictors of performance in graduate business school.. Journal of Educational Psychology,

86 (4), 516-530. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from the PsycARTICLES database.

Szalma, J. L., & Taylor, G. S. (2011). Individual differences in response to automation: the

five factor model of personality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied , 17 (2),

71-96.

Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Scholmerich, F., & Buhner, M. (2010). Predicting Academic Success with

the Big 5 Rated from Different Points of View: Self-Rated, Other Rated and Faked.

European Journal of Personality. 24, 341–355.




Table 1

Summary of Studies Success Criteria for “Big Five” Personality Traits

Criterion Cognitive Agreeableness Conscientiousness Extraversion Openness Neuroticsim

Motives Raynor (1970) + Raynor (1970) + De Soto (1970) -

Humor Greengross (2011) + Greengross (2011) + Greengross (2011) +

Raynor (1970) + Raynor (1970) +

Satisfaction Raynor (1970) + Lounsbury (2009) + Lounsbury (2009) + Lounsbury (2009) +

Bohn-Gettler (2011) + Bohn-Gettler (2011) +

Lievens (2011) + Lievens (2011) +

Graduation Rate Museus (2011) +

GPA

Furnham (2002) + Furnham (2002) +

Written Work Rothstein (1994) - Rothstein (1994) + Rothstein (1994) - Rothstein (1994) + Rothstein (1994) -

Rothstein (1994) - Rothstein (1994) + Rothstein (1994) + Rothstein (1994) + Rothstein (1994) -

Exam Score Morgan (1952) +

Dropping Out Hanson (1970) +

Self

Development

Raynor (1970) +

Lounsbury (2009) +

Reading

Comprehension

Bohn-Gettler (2011) +

Museus (2011) +

Career

Museus (2011) + Allen

(2010) +

Museus (2011) +

Allen (2010) +

Allen (2010) + (Zeigler,

2010) + Ridgell (2004)

+ Furnham (2009) +

Morgan (1952) +

(Zeigler, 2010) +Lounsbury (2009) +Rothstein (1994) -

(Zeigler, 2010) +

Ridgell (2004) +

Furnham (2009) +

Rothstein (1994) +

(Zeigler, 2010) +

Rothstein (1994) +

Payne (1966) +

Allen (2010) +

(Zeigler, 2010) +

Furnham (2009) +

Rothstein (1994) +

(Zeigler, 2010) +

Ridgell (2004) +

Rothstein (1994) -

Academic

Performance

Classroom

Performance




Table 2

Correlations Among Items in Criterion Scale 1-Socializing

Bars1 _7 Bars1 _8 Bars1_78 Bars1_14 Bars1_63 Bars1_43 Bars1_22 Bars1_75 Bars1_61 Bars2_3 Bars2_31 Bars2_10

Bars1_7

1.00000.300

50.272

00.274

40.088

00.190

00.413

50.389

70.196

10.260

70.121

70.328

2

Bars

1_80.3005

1.000

0

0.539

0

0.505

3

0.106

6

0.435

4

0.383

2

0.253

9

0.472

1

0.393

0

0.248

4

0.417

2

Bars

1_780.2720

0.539

0

1.000

0

0.459

8

0.231

5

0.463

2

0.402

7

0.364

6

0.533

6

0.698

3

0.311

8

0.531

8

Bars

1_140.2744

0.505

3

0.459

8

1.000

0

0.399

7

0.603

1

0.635

9

0.460

9

0.501

2

0.650

4

0.613

5

0.648

7

Bars

1_630.0880

0.106

6

0.231

5

0.399

7

1.000

0

0.285

4

0.309

1

0.304

8

0.245

2

0.415

8

0.495

2

0.411

4Bars1_43

0.19000.435

40.463

20.603

10.285

41.000

00.669

10.505

50.581

90.678

60.501

90.691

1

Bars

1_220.4135

0.383

2

0.402

7

0.635

9

0.309

1

0.669

1

1.000

0

0.540

1

0.494

7

0.665

9

0.483

0

0.657

4

Bars

1_750.3897

0.253

9

0.364

6

0.460

9

0.304

8

0.505

5

0.540

1

1.000

0

0.414

7

0.463

4

0.292

3

0.529

7

Bars

1_610.1961

0.472

1

0.533

6

0.501

2

0.245

2

0.581

9

0.494

7

0.414

7

1.000

0

0.448

5

0.304

9

0.571

0

Bars2_3

0.26070.393

00.698

30.650

40.415

80.678

60.665

90.463

40.448

51.000

00.605

80.698

0

Bars2_31

0.12170.248

40.311

80.613

50.495

20.501

90.483

00.292

30.304

90.605

81.000

00.568

9

Bars

2_100.3282

0.417

2

0.531

8

0.648

7

0.411

4

0.691

1

0.657

4

0.529

7

0.571

0

0.698

0

0.568

91

There are 18 missing values. The correlations are estimated by REML method.

α - 0.9030

Distributions

Criterion Dimension 1




Quantiles

100.0% maximum 107

99.5% 107

97.5% 96.590.0% 85

75.0% quartile 75

50.0% median 69

25.0% quartile 61

10.0% 52

2.5% 38.7

0.5% 38

0.0% minimum 38

Moments

Mean 68.746269

Std Dev 12.69615

Std Err Mean 1.5510816

Upper 95% Mean 71.843103

Lower 95% Mean 65.649434

N 67




Table 3

Correlations Among Items in Criterion Scale 2-Career Prep

Bars1_39 Bars2_6 Bars2_9Bars1_39 1.0000 0.1827 0.3360

Bars2_6 0.1827 1.0000 0.6250

Bars2_9 0.3360 0.6250 1.0000

There are 16 missing values.The correlations are estimated by REML method.

α

Entire set 0.6409

DistributionsCareer Prep

15

20

25

30

35




Quantiles

100.0% maximum 32

99.5% 3297.5% 3290.0% 30

75.0% quartile 27.5

50.0% median 24

25.0% quartile 22

10.0% 19

2.5% 15.25

0.5% 13

0.0% minimum 13

Moments

Mean 24.246377

Std Dev 3.971982


Upper 95% Mean 25.200551

Lower 95% Mean 23.292203

N 69

Figure Captions

Figure 3. Frequency distribution and summary statistics for BARS-item based criterion scale 2,

Career Prep.




Table 4

Correlations Among Items in Criterion Scale 3-Time Management

Bars1_12 Bars1_8 Bars1_42 Bars1_46 Bars2_24 Bars2_

Bars1_12 1.0000 0.4136 0.1547 0.4858 0.6020 0.50Bars1_8 0.4136 1.0000 0.4108 0.4125 0.3658 0.49

Bars1_42 0.1547 0.4108 1.0000 0.3179 0.3027 0.42

Bars1_46 0.4858 0.4125 0.3179 1.0000 0.5366 0.61

Bars2_24 0.6020 0.3658 0.3027 0.5366 1.0000 0.69

Bars2_41 0.5095 0.4986 0.4225 0.6145 0.6994 1.00

Bars2_47 0.3201 0.3491 0.3646 0.5718 0.4192 0.52

Bars2_4 0.3587 0.5608 0.4924 0.5324 0.5467 0.71

There are 18 missing values.

The correlations are estimated by REML method.

α

0.8680

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Quantiles




100.0% maximum 66

99.5% 66

97.5% 64.690.0% 55.8

75.0% quartile 52

50.0% median 47

25.0% quartile 43

10.0% 35

2.5% 28.4

0.5% 27

0.0% minimum 27

Moments

Mean 46.850746

Std Dev 8.1821197Std Err Mean 0.999605

Upper 95% Mean 48.846522Lower 95% Mean 44.85497

N 67

Figure : Frequency distribution and summary statistics for BARS-item based criterion scale 3,

Time managemet.

Table 5




Correlations Among Items in Criterion Scale 4-Seeking Help

Bars1_48 Bars1_9 Bars1_33 Bars2_40 Bars2_22 Bars1_82 Bars1_25

Bars1_48 1.0000 0.2048 0.1774 0.3136 0.3038 0.4644 0.2614Bars1_9 0.2048 1.0000 0.2449 0.2690 0.4830 0.3324 0.2988

Bars1_33 0.1774 0.2449 1.0000 0.4137 0.4769 0.0738 0.2602

Bars2_40 0.3136 0.2690 0.4137 1.0000 0.4956 0.4081 0.5249

Bars2_22 0.3038 0.4830 0.4769 0.4956 1.0000 0.4326 0.5109Bars1_82 0.4644 0.3324 0.0738 0.4081 0.4326 1.0000 0.5436

Bars1_25 0.2614 0.2988 0.2602 0.5249 0.5109 0.5436 1.0000

α

0.7964

Quantiles




100.0% maximum 61

99.5% 61

97.5% 57.375

90.0% 48.175.0% quartile 4550.0% median 38.5

25.0% quartile 34.2510.0% 31.8

2.5% 24.450.5% 23

0.0% minimum 23

Moments

Mean 39.647059Std Dev 7.2990793


Upper 95% Mean 41.413812

Lower 95% Mean 37.880305

N 68

Figure 1. Frequency distribution and summary statistics for BARS-item based criterion scale 1,

Seeking Help.

Table 6




Correlations Among Items in Criterion Scale 1-Studying

Correlations

Bars2_18 Bars2_5 Bars2_38

Bars2_18 1.0000 0.6037 0.5219Bars2_5 0.6037 1.0000 0.5509

Bars2_38 0.5219 0.5509 1.0000

α

0.7650

Criterion dimension 1

10

15

20

25

30

Quantiles

100.0% maximum 28

99.5% 28

97.5% 25.75

90.0% 22

75.0% quartile 1950.0% median 17

25.0% quartile 1510.0% 12

2.5% 90.5% 9

0.0% minimum 9

Moments




Mean 17.072464

Std Dev 3.7271612


Upper 95% Mean 17.967826

Lower 95% Mean 16.177102 N 69

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Frequency distribution and summary statistics for BARS-item based scale 1,Studying.

Table 7




Pairwise Correlations

Variable by Variable Correlation Signif Prob

wat_total Calculated_Grade 0.3014 0.0009*

non_conscientious Calculated_Grade 0.0114 0.9027non_conscientious wat_total 0.0566 0.5428

agreeableness Calculated_Grade 0.0515 0.5800

agreeableness wat_total -0.1080 0.2444agreeableness non_conscientious -0.2840 0.0018*

neuroticism Calculated_Grade 0.0616 0.5079

neuroticism wat_total -0.1344 0.1467neuroticism non_conscientious 0.1419 0.1252

neuroticism agreeableness -0.0650 0.4845

openness Calculated_Grade -0.3042 0.0008*

openness wat_total -0.2083 0.0236*openness non_conscientious -0.1964 0.0331*

openness agreeableness 0.1541 0.0957

openness neuroticism -0.0080 0.9312extraversion Calculated_Grade -0.0259 0.7803

extraversion wat_total -0.1442 0.1192

extraversion non_conscientious -0.1537 0.0966extraversion agreeableness 0.0763 0.4115

extraversion neuroticism -0.0248 0.7896

extraversion openness 0.1649 0.0744

Socializing Calculated_Grade 0.0594 0.5227Socializing wat_total -0.0453 0.6260

Socializing non_conscientious -0.3181 0.0004*

Socializing agreeableness -0.0308 0.7409Socializing neuroticism 0.1002 0.2802

Socializing openness -0.1601 0.0834

Socializing extraversion 0.0378 0.6845Studying Calculated_Grade -0.0449 0.6310

Studying wat_total -0.0160 0.8643

Studying non_conscientious -0.2496 0.0067*Studying agreeableness 0.0229 0.8061

Studying neuroticism 0.1117 0.2303

Studying openness -0.0757 0.4175

Studying extraversion 0.0256 0.7839Studying Socializing 0.7314 <.0001*

Career Prep Calculated_Grade 0.1122 0.2264

Career Prep wat_total -0.0195 0.8338Career Prep non_conscientious -0.1748 0.0583

Career Prep agreeableness -0.0198 0.8314

Career Prep neuroticism 0.0860 0.3547Career Prep openness -0.0964 0.2992

Career Prep extraversion 0.0562 0.5458

Career Prep Socializing 0.7422 <.0001*




Career Prep Studying 0.5864 <.0001*

Time Management Calculated_Grade 0.0748 0.4208Time Management wat_total 0.0291 0.7547

Time Management non_conscientious -0.2525 0.0058*

Time Management agreeableness -0.0671 0.4704Time Management neuroticism 0.0887 0.3394

Time Management openness -0.1520 0.1004

Time Management extraversion 0.0259 0.7805Time Management Socializing 0.8292 <.0001*

Time Management Studying 0.6704 <.0001*

Time Management Career Prep 0.7696 <.0001*Seeking Help Calculated_Grade 0.0487 0.6005

Seeking Help wat_total 0.0394 0.6722

Seeking Help non_conscientious -0.2449 0.0075*

Seeking Help agreeableness 0.0618 0.5063Seeking Help neuroticism 0.1526 0.0991

Seeking Help openness -0.0811 0.3828

Seeking Help extraversion 0.0376 0.6863Seeking Help Socializing 0.7560 <.0001*

Seeking Help Studying 0.6811 <.0001*

Seeking Help Career Prep 0.6650 <.0001*Seeking Help Time Management 0.7000 <.0001*

Table 8




Summary of Fit-calculated grade

RSquare 0.212216

RSquare Adj 0.147907Root Mean Square Error 2.656363Mean of Response 93.5728

Observations (or Sum Wgts) 107

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Sum of

Squares

Mean Square F Ratio

Model 8 186.28192 23.2852 3.2999

Error 98 691.51384 7.0563 Prob > F

C. Total 106 877.79576 0.0022*

Parameter Estimates

Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t|

Intercept 90.317142 2.567644 35.18 <.0001*wat_total 6.0928977 1.875812 3.25 0.0016*

non_conscientious -0.2062 0.287535 -0.72 0.4750agreeableness 0.3581295 0.287825 1.24 0.2164

neuroticism 0.4091998 0.254592 1.61 0.1112openness -0.695909 0.265277 -2.62 0.0101*

extraversion 0.1629812 0.260611 0.63 0.5332

totJames 0.1759541 0.149606 1.18 0.2424

tot4094 -0.247302 0.182906 -1.35 0.1795

Summary of Fit-socializing

RSquare 0.174685

RSquare Adj 0.107312

Root Mean Square Error 11.08797

Mean of Response 68.19353



Source DF Sum of

Squares

Mean Square F Ratio

Model 8 2550.151 318.769 2.5928Error 98 12048.431 122.943 Prob > F

C. Total 106 14598.582 0.0130*

Parameter Estimates


Intercept 77.676581 10.71765 7.25 <.0001*

wat_total -1.760241 7.829862 -0.22 0.8226





non_conscientious -4.887518 1.200206 -4.07 <.0001*

agreeableness -1.554535 1.201418 -1.29 0.1987

neuroticism 1.6692796 1.062696 1.57 0.1195

openness -2.298199 1.107298 -2.08 0.0406*extraversion 0.2865679 1.087821 0.26 0.7928totJames -0.200589 0.624473 -0.32 0.7487

tot4094 -0.687205 0.763472 -0.90 0.3703

Summary of Fit-studying

RSquare 0.106948


Root Mean Square Error 3.505924Mean of Response 17.09434



Source DF Sum of

Squares

Mean Square F Ratio


C. Total 105 1335.0566 0.1850

Parameter Estimates


Intercept 20.11108 3.429177 5.86 <.0001*

wat_total -0.343296 2.500797 -0.14 0.8911

non_conscientious -1.075167 0.379571 -2.83 0.0056*

agreeableness -0.243085 0.381166 -0.64 0.5251

neuroticism 0.5303931 0.33606 1.58 0.1178

openness -0.417927 0.350159 -1.19 0.2356

extraversion -0.029849 0.344531 -0.09 0.9311

totJames -0.189261 0.198374 -0.95 0.3424

tot4094 -0.070964 0.241701 -0.29 0.7697

Summary of Fit-career prep

RSquare 0.089637RSquare Adj 0.015322







Source DF Sum of

Squares

Mean Square F Ratio


C. Total 106 1257.1589 0.3034

Parameter Estimates


Intercept 21.551154 3.303214 6.52 <.0001*

wat_total 0.6847544 2.413188 0.28 0.7772


agreeableness -0.38476 0.370281 -1.04 0.3013neuroticism 0.4920191 0.327526 1.50 0.1363

openness -0.253543 0.341273 -0.74 0.4593extraversion 0.1372649 0.33527 0.41 0.6831

totJames -0.16003 0.192465 -0.83 0.4077

tot4094 -0.388329 0.235305 -1.65 0.1021

Summary of Fit-time management

RSquare 0.1274





Source DF Sum of

Squares

Mean Square F Ratio

Model 8 901.6755 112.709 1.7885

Error 98 6175.8509 63.019 Prob > F

C. Total 106 7077.5264 0.0883

Parameter Estimates


Intercept 51.183091 7.673311 6.67 <.0001*

wat_total 1.5101608 5.605796 0.27 0.7882


agreeableness -1.347959 0.860156 -1.57 0.1203

neuroticism 1.0755393 0.760838 1.41 0.1606openness -1.250898 0.792771 -1.58 0.1178

extraversion 0.185449 0.778827 0.24 0.8123totJames -0.359656 0.447092 -0.80 0.4231

tot4094 -0.319169 0.546609 -0.58 0.5606




Summary of Fit-seeking help

RSquare 0.117172RSquare Adj 0.045105

Root Mean Square Error 7.481987

Mean of Response 38.6413



Source DF Sum of

Squares

Mean Square F Ratio

Model 8 728.1311 91.0164 1.6259

Error 98 5486.0521 55.9801 Prob > F

C. Total 106 6214.1831 0.1271

Parameter Estimates


Intercept 44.816357 7.232099 6.20 <.0001*

wat_total 4.0331496 5.283465 0.76 0.4471


agreeableness -0.130221 0.810697 -0.16 0.8727

neuroticism 1.5847448 0.71709 2.21 0.0294*

openness -0.631445 0.747187 -0.85 0.4001

extraversion 0.1120369 0.734044 0.15 0.8790totJames -0.049631 0.421384 -0.12 0.9065

tot4094 -0.82583 0.515179 -1.60 0.1122

Documents

Final Paper Alex