THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BIG FIVE PERSONALITY TRAITS, LEARNING MOTIVATIONS AND LEARNING PERFORMANCE OF THE HOSPITALITY STUDENTS

IN TAIWAN Meng-Lei Hu Department of Human Development & Family Studies National Taiwan Normal University Department of Food and Beverage Jin-Wen Institute of Technology ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to investigate the relation between the Big Five personality traits, learning motivations and learning performance. Samples used in this study included 379 students of hospitality education institutes who completed the Mini-Maker (1994) and the learning motivation Questionnaire. Empirical results indicate that the different dimensions of Big-five personality traitsneuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are positively related to different dimensions of learning motivation. Moreover, the influence of openness is greater than other dimensions. As for personality, learning motivation and personal variables, we discover that only conscientiousness, openness, knowledge-skill, social-communication, learning-promotion, age, and sex are predictive of learning performance. Implications on teaching, learning motivation and creating learning environment are subsequently discussed. Key Words: Hospitality education; Big Five personality traits; Learning motivation; Learning performance INTRODUCTION Students ability to sustain or increase their own willingness to engage in and complete academic activities is thought to be important for understanding learning and performance because students motivation to complete academic tasks can change the time it takes to finish those tasks. Do personality test and learning motivation predict performance? Many studies already found that personality can be a predictor of work performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett et al., 1991; Salgado, 1997; Mount & Barrick, 1998; Wright, 2003) or career success (Judge et al., 1999). Because of its obvious applied significance in educational psychology there has been a vast amount of research into the relationship between them (Eysenck, 1967; Kline, 1977; Wilson et al., 1972, Eysenck, 1992). There has also been a recent resurgence of interest in the testing of personality and learning motivation in the work and school place (Furnham, 1995; Furnham, 1997). Such interest is due to three major reasons: first, the need for predictors in high job turnover areas to help select and retain good workers; second, a general consensus exists in the area of personality measurement; and third, learning organization will be more important in the future competitive environment. There is also a growing body of evidence that personality measures are significantly related to successful job and school performance, both logically and statistically (Day & Silverman, 1989; Hogan & Hogan, 1989; Eysenck, 1967; Kline, 1977). The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships among hospitality students variables (age, gender, school, major), personality traits, learning motivation and learning performance. LITERATURE REVIEW Norman (1963, 1967) attempted to find adequate taxonomy of personality attributes to explain personality traits. According to Big Five, it was said that rapid progress has been made toward a consensus on personality structure (Costa & McCrae, 1992; John, 1990; Digman, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992). Personality psychologists were asked to accept the specifics of the Big Five orthogonal factors and to use these factor dimensions as the conceptual structure for descriptively representing different personalities. As a result, the five1

factor approach (FFA) has achieved appreciable popularity. Consensus is emerging that a five-factor model of personality, often termed the Big Five (Goldberg, 1990), can be used to describe the many salient aspects of personality. The Big Five can be found in virtually any measure of personality (e.g., McCrae & John, 1992), including the analysis of trait adjectives in many languages, and decisions made by expert judges based on existing measures (Mount & Barrick, 1995). Evidence indicated that the Big Five is fairly heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman, 1989), although the environment undoubtedly plays a role. McCrae & John (1992) claimed that we believe its long history, cross-cultural replication, and empirical validation across many methods and instruments make the five-factor model a basic discovery of personality psychology- core knowledge upon which other findings can be built The dimensions composing the five-factor model are detailed as follows: neuroticism represents the tendency to exhibit poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affect such as anxiety, insecurity, and hostility. Extraversion represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, and experience positive affect such as energy, zeal, and excitement. Openness is the disposition to be imaginative, unconventional, and autonomous. Agreeableness is the tendency to be trusting, compliant, caring, and gentle. Conscientiousness comprises of two related facets achievement and dependability and has been found to be the major component of integrity (Hogan & Ones, 1997). Learning motivation can be defined as the specific desire of a learner to learn the content of a training program (Noe, 1986; Noe & Schmitt, 1986). Noe (1986) suggested that, when there is no motivation, individuals, who may have the ability to master the training content, may fail to do so. Clark et al. (1993) further stated that training motivation is crucial for the most sophisticated training program to be effective. Some studies have indicated that learning motivation is related to program completion (Hicks & Klimoski, 1987; Quinones, 1995; Ryman & Biersner, 1975), training performance (Baldwin et al., 1991; Facteau et al., 1995; Mathieu et al., 1992; Noe & Schmitt, 1986; Tannenbaum et al., 1991) and task performance (Quinones, 1995). In general, past studies revealed that higher levels of motivation to learn result in improved performance in learning (Quinones, 1995). Svensson (1977) reported that students, who adopt a deep approach, tend to spend longer studying and are likely to find the material more interesting and easier to understand. Long hours of work are then no hardship (Entwistle, 1981). This is a clear example of how motivation and cognition are intertwined. This study is directed towards such an integration of personality, learning motivation, demographic variables and learning performance. We hypothesize that the Big Five personality traits are directly related to learning motivation.H1. Big Five personality traits are significantly related to learning motivation. According to Harris (1940), one of the most essential factors in academic achievement in the 30s was drive or degree of motivation. For educational settings, drive or degree of motivation has been refined to achievement motivation, which is also known to be an important predictor for cognitive performances (Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Since that time, motivation has been playing a role in academic success (Boekaerts, 1996). Consistent with literature, it is expected that learning motivation will be a positive predictor of academic performance. It will be interesting to find out in real, ecologically valid situation what cognitive and motivational variables, or combination of variables, are important in learning performance for hospitality students in Taiwan. H2. Learning motivations are positive related to learning performance. There has been a vast amount of research into the relationship between personality and academic performance (Cattell & Butcher, 1968; Eysenck, 1967; Kline, 1977). Furnham (1993) found that personality factors predict some academically related variables. According to De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), the Big Five factors of extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience are educationally relevant (Blickle, 1996; Busato, et al., 1999). So we hypothesize that the Big Five personality traits are directly related to learning performance.H3. Big Five personality traits are significant related to learning performance.
2

According to Busato et al. (1999), the Big Five personality traits and learning styles are predictors of achieve motivation in higher education.H4. Personality traits and learning motivation are predictors of learning performance. METHODOLOGY Figure 1 exhibits the proposed model, which hypothesizes that personality and learning motivation will positively affect learning performance. Personality Traits Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness H1 Learning Motivation H2 Learning Performance

H3 Figure 1 Hypothesized model of learning performance Three hundred and seventy-nine students took part in the study, of which 243 (65%) were female and 136 (35%) were male. 94.2% of the respondents were in the 19-25 age group (n=357), and few were under 18 years old (n=16) and above 26 (n=6). Average age of respondents was 20.88 years (S.D. = 9.23 years). Respondents were hospitality major in four Taiwan schools. 67 respondents studied in National Kaohsiung Hospitality College, 181 in Jin-Wen Institute of Technology, 68 in Ching-Kao Institute of Management and Health, and 63 in Ta-Jen Institute of Technology. Moreover, 70 (18.5%) respondents majored in Hotel Management, 182 (48%) in Food and Beverage Management, 20 (5.3%) in Chinese Culinary Arts, 15 (4%) in Western Culinary Arts, 61 (16.1%) in Hotel and Restaurant Management, and 31 (8.2%) in Baking Technology and Management. Each respondent was asked to complete the questionnaires on personality, learning motivation and demographic variables. Details are as follows: The Vijf Persoonlijkheids-Factoren test, 5PFT, developed by Elshout and Akkerman (1975), is the first ever published personality questionnaire specially designed to measure the personality factors now known as the Big Five, which was first discovered by Tupes and Christal (1992). During the last decade, the Big Five approach has begun to loom large in the field of personality psychology. The Mini-Maker, adopted from NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) contains five domain scales: Neuroticism (N), Openness to experience (O), Conscientiousness (C), Agreeableness (A), and Extraversion (E). The Mini-Maker adopted a 5-point Likert scale format, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, to assess participants level of agreement with each of the 40 self-report items founded on the test (Saucier, 1994; Mooradian & Nezlek, 1996). The alphas detected by this study were 0.85 for Neuroticism, 0.80 for Openness to experience, 0.81 for Conscientiousness, 0.82 for Agreeableness and 0.61 for Extraversion. Therefore, there is considerable evidence of the scales reliability and validity except for Extraversion. In this study, we used the learning motivation questionnaire, which contains six aspects that are identified by Chinese educators as visible and important indicators for motivation (Huang, 1985): job promotion, cognition interest, social communication, society service, evasion stimulus, external expectation. After a panel discussion with students, some items were included, such as, I learn only for the degree and I choose to study hospitality because I like to practice the skills. This study used academic average score to denote learning performance. Also age, sex, name of school, and different areas of academic concentration were measured. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
3

The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and stepwise regression. Descriptive statistics for each variable are presented below. Demographic data of students (N=379)
indicated that over one-half (243 female, 65%) of the respondents were female, which also reflected the gender distribution of the student body in the hospitality major during the data collection period (Hsu, 1999). Most of the participants (94%) were between 19 to 25 years of age. All participated on a voluntary basis and no fees were paid for their participation. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed with the SPSS program to assess the degree to which the data meet the expected Big Five structure. Table 1 contains the results of the reduction of five dimensions (Neuroticism (N), Openness to experience (O), Conscientiousness (C), Agreeableness (A), and Extraversion (E)) and cumulative percentage of variance. The results accounted for 57.92% of the total variance. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed with the SPSS 10.0 program (Chinese version) to reduce the learning motivation structure. Table 2 contains the six dimensions (Social-communication (SC), Learning- promotion (LP), Society-expectation (SE), Knowledge-skill (KS), Jobs needlicenses (JL), Degree-fashion (DF)), item and each cumulative percentage of variance. Total accounted for 62.72 % of the total variance. Table 1 Factor loadings pattern matrix for the actual Big Five personality Big Five Personality Factor Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 1

Table 2 Factor loadings pattern matrix for learning motivation

4

learning motivation

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

Table 3 contains the means (based on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 to 5), standard deviations, and the correlations among the Big Five, learning motivation and significant demographic variables. The correlation coefficients between the Big Five personalities are not significantly related, implying that the discrimination of the Big Five dimensions is high. Among the Big Five personality traits, extraversion was the least related to learning performance, social communication and society-expectation; and conscientiousness was the most related to the learning performance. H1 is partly supported. Openness was the most related to learning motivation (society-expectation, knowledge-skill, job need-licenses, degree-fashion). As to the dimensions of learning motivations, social communication, knowledge-skill and degree-fashion exhibited low but positively correlations with learning performance. Higher scores on the conscientiousness and lower scores on the openness were associated with higher scores on learning performance. Also, higher scores on the social communication, knowledge-skill and degree-fashion of learning motivations were associated with higher score on learning performance. H2 is partly supported. Only conscientiousness and openness were significantly related to learning performance, while openness was correlated negatively. H3 is partly supported.

Table 3 Correlations between variables.

Variables Mean 1. N 2.77 2. O 3.64 3. C 3.55 4. A 3.43 5. E 3.74 6. SC 3.75 7. LP 3.68 8. SE 3.51 9. KS 3.52 10. JL 3.64 11. DF 3.72 12.Age 2.98 13.Sex 1.64 14.LP 73.98 S.D. 0.64 0.53 0.48 0.46 0.52 0.52 0.67 0.68 0.78 0.65 0.66 0.77 0.59 8.39 1 0.020 0.001 0.026 -0.005 -0.065 -0.002 -0.031 0.073 -0.035
0.223**

2 -0.018 0.016 -0.059 0.061 -0.061 0.203** 0.267** 0.139* -0.113*

-0.165**

3 0.032 -0.027 0.041 0.052 0.098

-0.162**

10

11

12

13

-0.007
-0.185**

-0.041 0.132*
-0.166**

0.120* -0.029 0.022

0.131* 0.145* 0.123* 0.127* 0.132*

0.042 0.128* -0.011 0.115 0.008

0.172** 0.096 0.146* 0.097 0.039 0.093 0.021 0.048 0.001

0.083 0.010 0.063 0.028 0.029 0.088 0.082

0.128*

0.020 0.073 0.023 0.011 0.064 0.073

-0.019

-0.022 0.020 0.030 0.057 -0.091 -0.078

0.043 -0.034 0.069 0.091 0.145*

0.042 0.060 0.056 0.092

0.057 0.076
0.134*

0.178** 0.199** -0.130*

0.165** -0.131*

* p0.05, **p0.01 Neuroticism (N), Openness to experience (O), Conscientiousness (C), Agreeableness (A), and Extraversion (E); Social-communication (SC), Learning- promotion (LP), Society-expectation (SE), Knowledge-skill (KS), Jobs need-licenses (JL), Degree-fashion (DF); Learning Performance: AP

A multiple regression was performed with the dimensions of learning performance as the dependent variable and the Big Five, learning motivations, sex, and age, as independent 2 variables (Table 4). For learning performance, F=2.906, P0.001; Radj =0.08. Among the Big Five, only conscientiousness (=0.126, t=2.420, P0.05) and openness (=-0.125, t=-2.277, P 0.05) were significant predictors in the equation, but openness exhibited a negative correlation; SC (=0.120, t=1.990, P 0.05), Knowledge-skill (=0.133, t=2.470, P 0.05) and Degree-fashion (=0.126, t=2.131, P 0.05) were also significant positive predictors; age (=0.191, t=3.709, P0.001) and sex (=0.198, t=3.817, P0.001) was the most significant positive predictors. Therefore, H4 of this study is supported. Controlling for the effects of other regressors, higher learning performance is reported by those that are more conscientiousness; more Social communication, Knowledge-skill, and Degreefashion; lower openness; as well as female and older hospitality students. Table 4. -weights of Big Five personality traits, learning motivation, age and sex as predictors of learning performance Variables t Neuroticism 0.004 -0.049 Openness to experience -0.125 -2.277* Conscientiousness 0.126 2.420* Agreeableness 0.002 0.0420 Extraversion -0.004 -0.074 Social communication 0.120 1.990* Learning Promotion -0.048 -0.956 Society -Expectation -0.074 -1.427 Knowledge-skill 0.133 2.470* Job need -Licenses -0.011 -0.213 Degree-fashion 0.124 2.131* Age 0.191 3.709*** Sex 0.198 3.817*** R2 0.120 2 Radj 0.08 F 2.906*** D-W 1.603
* p0.05, ***p0.001

Sig. .961 .023 .016 .966 .941 .046 .340 .154 .019 .831 .032 .000 .000 .001

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS This study was designed to understand the relationship between Big Five personality traits, learning motivations and learning performance and the predictor of learning performance in Taiwans hospitality education. Geisler-Brenstein et al. (1996) wrote It is possible that it is possible to create a taxonomy of person characteristics at a higher level of abstraction which does contribute to an understanding of learner motivations and behaviours. The present research, like other works (Furnham, 1992, 1996; Jackson & Lawty-Jones, 1996) can be seen as a similar contribution to further such an understanding. According to De Raad and Schouwenburg (1996), especially the Big Five factors of extraversion, conscientiousness and openness to experience, are educationally relevant. Also, the different Big Five personalities are related to different achievement motivation in higher education (Busato et al., 1999). The correlations found in this research might be seen as a confirmation of this notion. Among the Big Five personality, extraversion is less related to learning performance, only conscientiousness and openness to experience are significant related to learning performance, where conscientiousness is positively correlated and openness to experience demonstrates a negative correlation.

Some dimensions of learning motivations are less related to personality except for openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness, whereas openness to experience is the most related factor. According to McCrae & Costa (1997), openness involves motivation, needs for variety, cognition, sentience and understanding, but a higher level of openness to experience can reduce learning performance. Therefore hospitality students should be modest. Only three learning motivations (social communication, knowledge-skill and degree-fashion) can predict learning performance. On the other hand, improving these learning motivations can help raise learning performance. Age and sex are the only demographic variables exhibiting significant relationship with personality, learning motivation and learning performance. Those hospitality students who are getting older have fewer openness, and more neuroticism and conscientious. Female students have more openness to experience and conscientiousness. Moreover, different schools and major hospitality departments are not significantly different among personality, learning motivation and learning performance by ANOVA. The results reveal that openness to experience, and conscientiousness of the Big Five personality; Social communication, Knowledge and skill, and Degree and fashion of learning motivation; age and sex of demographic are all valid predictors of learning performance and its components for the hospitality students in Taiwan. The result of the regression analysis indicated that conscientiousness and openness to experience of personality are the best predictors of learning performance, whereas conscientiousness is a more important predictor for learning performance than openness to experience. However, parallels can be drawn between this research and others (Furnham, et al., 1999; Witt, 2002), who claimed that conscientiousness and openness to experience of personality are likely to be high when students have high performance. The knowledge-skill, degree-fashion, and social communication of learning motivation are also good predictors of learning performance, in which knowledge-skill is more important than others. These findings are also consistent with personality, learning motivation and learning performance literatures (Furnham & Medhurst, 1995; Busato, et al., 1999; Wolters, 2000). The regression model reveals that age and sex are the best predictors, implying that Taiwans hospitality students are older and female have higher learning performance. CONCLUSIONS To summarize, the results of this study suggest that hospitality teachers should provide students with activities to promote conscientiousness, attenuate openness to experience of personality, and set optimal learning motivation tasks for a hospitality career. These suggestions include matching teaching to learning motivation (Anderson, 1998), offering students a learning environment that provides a variety of ways by which they can access course information (Ruodamo & Pohjolainen, 2000) and creating learning environments that integrate the best features of independent and group-based learning (Benson et al., 2001). McCrae & Costa (1982) noted that an individuals personality at age 30 is a good predictor of his or her personality at age 80. So hospitality teachers should create a better learning environment to enhance conscientiousness traits and learning motivations of students. It seems reasonable to propose that development of personality-interest-intelligence traits proceeds along mutually causal lines (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). That is, abilities, interests, and personality develop in tandem, such that ability level and personality dispositions determine the probability of success in a particular task domain, and interests determine the motivation to attempt the task. It will be interesting to study how to develop a structure model such as that of Minnaert and Janssen (1992), in which learning performance or even academic success is predicted by the Big Five personality traits, learning motivation, and other dimensions. LIMITATIONS One limitation of this study concerns the use of self-report measures to assess personality, learning motivation and learning performance. Although this study used reliable
9

measures that were not conceptually confounded, the fact that both the independent and dependent measures were assessed by self-report means that there are potential problems of common method variance. REFERENCES Ackerman, P. L., and Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality and interests: evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 12(2), 219-245. Anderson, J. K. (1998). Orientation with style: matching teaching/learning style. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 4(4), 192-197. Baldwin, T.T., Magjuka, R.J. and Loher, B.T. (1991). The perils of participation: effects of choice of training on trainee motivation and learning, Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 5165 Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. R. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 44(1), 1-26. Benson, A., Guy, T., & Tallman, J. ( 2001). Viewing online learning through the lens of perspective transformation. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3), 251-269. Blickle, H. J. (1996). The biological basis of personality. New York: Springfield. Boekaerts, M. (1996). The Motivational Aspects of Learning in Group (MALIG) questionnaire. The Netherlands: Leiden University. Instrument used in secondary vocational schools engaged in the implementation of the Interactive Learning group System. Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1999). The relation between learning styles, the Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 120-140. Catell, R., & Butcher, H. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Clark, C. S., Dobbins, G.. H., & Ladd, R. T. (1993). Exploratory field study of training motivation: influences of involvement, credibility, and transfer climate. Group & Organization Management, 18(3), 292-307. Costa, P.T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO-Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P.T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in Adulthood: A Six-Year Longitudinal Study of Self-Reports and Spouse Ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 853-863. Costa, P.T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional Manual for the NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.. Day, D. V., & Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and Job Performance: Evidence of Incremental Validity. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 25-36. De Radd, B., & Schouwenburg, H. C. (1996). Personality in learning and education: a review. European Journal of personality, 10(2), 303-336. Digman, J. M. (1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 195-214. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology. 41(3), 417-440. Elshout, J. J., & Akkerman, A. E. (1975). Vijf Persoonlijkheids-Factoren test, 5PFT. Nijmegen: Berkhout Nijmegen. Entwistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students approaches to learning. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press. 21-51. Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. New York: Springfield. Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Four Ways Five factors Are not Basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(5), 667-673. Facteau, J.D., Dobbins, G.H., Russell, J.E.A., Ladd, R.T. and Kudisch, J.D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21(1), 1-25.
10

Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and learning style: a study of three instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(3), 429-438. Furnham, A. (1993). Personality at work. London: Routledge. Furnham, A. (1995). The relationship of personality and intelligence to cognitive learning style and achievement. In Saklofske, D. & Zeidner, M. (Eds). Internaitonal Handbook of Personality and Intelligence. New York: Plenum. Furnham, A. (1996). The FIRO-B, the learning style questionnaire and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 11(2), 285-299. Furnham, A. (1997). The psychology of behaviour at work. Hove East Sussex: Psychology Press. Furnham, A., & Medhurst, S. (1995). Personality correlates of academic seminar behaviour: a study of four instruments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 197-208. Furnham, A., Jackson, C. J., & Miller, T. (1999). Personality, learning style and work performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(6), 1113-1122. Geisler-Brenstein, E., Cchmeck, R. R., & Hetherington, J. (1996). An individual difference perspective on student diversity. Higher Education, 31(1), 73-96. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative descryption of personality: The Big Five Factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(10), 1216-1229. Hicks, W.D. and Klimoski, R.J. (1987). Entry into training programs and its effects on training outcomes: a field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 542-552. Hogan, J., & Hogan, R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 273-279. Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. On R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds), Handbook of personality psychology (849-870). San Diego: academic Press. Hsu, C. H. C. (1999). Learning styles of hospitality students: Nature or nurture? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(1), 17-30. Huang, F. S. (1985). The study of the motivations for adults to participate in continue education. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Taiwan Normal University. Jackson, C. J., & Lawty-Jones, M. (1996). Explaining the overlap between personality and learning styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(2), 293-300. John, O. P. (1990). The Big Five Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Nature Language and in Questionnaires, in L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, New York: Guilford Press, 66-100. Judge. T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J. & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personal traits, general mental ability, and career success the life span. Personnel Psychology. 2(3), 621-652. Kline, P. (1977). Personality and learning. In Howe, M. (Ed.) Adult Learning. Chichester: Wiley. Mathieu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Salas, E. (1992), Influences of individual and situational characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (4), 828-47. McCrae, R. R. and Costa P. T. (1982). SelfConcept and the Stability of Personality: CrossSectional Comparisons of SelfReports and Ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(8), 1282-1292. McCrae, R. R. and Costa P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology, (825-847.) San Diego: Academic Press. McCrae, R. R. & John, O. P. (1992). An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and Its Application. Journal of Personality. 60(2), 175-215. Minnaert, A., & Janssen, P. J. (1992). Success and progress in higher education: a structural model of studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 184-192. Mooradian, T. A., & Nezlek, B. (1996). Comparing the NEO-FFI and saucier's mini-markers as measures of the big five. Personality and Individual Differences. 21(2), 213-215. Mount, M. K. & Barrick, M. R. (1995). Manual for the personal characteristics inventory.
11

Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic Personnel test, Inc. Mount, M. K. & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the big five article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51(8), 849-857. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward and adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66, 574-583. Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Noe, R.A. (1986), Trainees' attributes and attitudes: neglected influences on training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 736-49. Noe, R.A. and Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: test of a model, Personnel Psychology, 39(3), 497-523. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Quinones, M.A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 226-38. Ruodamo, H., & Pohjolainen, S. (2000). Distance learning in a multimedia networks project: main results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(2), 117-125. Ryman, D.H. and Biersner, R.J. (1975). Attitudes predictive of driving training success. Personnel Psychology, 28(2), 181-188. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The 5-Factor Model of Personality and Job-Performance in the European-Community. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82(1), 30-43. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers- A Brief Version of Goldberg Unipolar Big-5 Markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516. Svensson, L. (1977). On qualitative differences in learning: III. Study skills and learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47(2), 233-243. Tannenbaum, S.I., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1991). Meeting trainees' expectations: the influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 759-69. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N. & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality Measures as Predictors of Job Performance: A Meta Analytic Review. Personnel Psychology. 44(6), 703-742. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225-251. (Orginal work published in 1961). Wolters, C. A. (2000). The relationship between high school students motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 3(3), 281-299. Wilson, G., Tunstall, O., & Eysenck, H. (1972). Measurement of motivation in predicting industrial performance. Occupational Psychology, 46(1), 15-24. Witt L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on performance. Journal of Management, 28(6), 835-851. Wright, T. A. (2003). What Every Manager should Know: Does Personality Help Drive Employee Motivation? The Academy of Management Executive. 17(2). 131.

12