Here, associations between achieving learning and Extraversion and Openness were negative (−.67, and −.20, respectively), while Conscientiousness was positively related (.24). The exogenous variables accounted for 24.5%, 48.4% and 30.4% in surface, deep, and achieving learning, respectively. The current study tested the associations of the Big Five, TIE and intelligence with learning approaches. Confirming some of our hypotheses (cf. Arteche et al., 2009 and Furnham et al., 2009), TIE

was positively associated with deep and achieving learning and negatively with surface learning. It accounted for about 6% of the variance in achieving and for 22% of the variance in surface learning respectively, while it explained 48% – that is, almost all of its currently explained variance – in deep learning. Conversely, the associations of intelligence GPCR Compound Library and the Big Five with learning approaches were not completely in line with previous findings (Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2008 and Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2009). Thus, Extraversion, Openness and Neuroticism were not associated with surface and deep learning, which had a small, negative

relation with intelligence. Achieving learning was the only learning approach that was associated MK-1775 clinical trial with personality traits other than TIE (i.e. Extraversion, Openness and Conscientiousness), and they accounted for 26% of its variance. It appears that an achieving learning relates to a more diverse personality profile than deep and surface learning approaches do. In line with our hypothesis, Agreeableness was not meaningfully associated with any learning approach. Overall, the current results support TIE as a close relative of learning approaches,

suggesting that associations of the Big Five with learning approaches are attenuated by TIE, at least for deep and surface learning. Indeed, TIE is correlated with Openness and Conscientiousness (von Stumm et al., 2011) that were previously found to be related to learning approaches but not here (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2009). Our study is limited by its single-wave nature and the lack of a concrete outcome Farnesyltransferase variable (e.g. exam grades). Also, the Wonderlic test may not be an ideal measure of intelligence. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that learning approaches share much of variance with the Big Five and TIE but not enough to dismiss the construct as redundant. Furthermore, learning approaches differ in the extent of variance that was accounted for by personality and intelligence. Specifically, only 25% of the variance in surface learning were accounted for, suggesting that additional variables cause students to invest minimally in their studies, for example the necessity of part-time employment. Finally, this study emphasized the conceptual and empirical overlap of TIE and deep learning, which appear to constitute important determinants of academic achievement (cf. von Stumm et al., 2011).