Social Cognitive Constructs Are Just as Stable as the Big Five Between Grades 5 and 8

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Cipher

Explores whether social cognitive constructs are as stable as the Big Five personality traits over time, using a large longitudinal design with four time points and 3,876 students across 136 classes in 99 schools. Compares the mutability of Big Five traits with socioemotional and motivational variables described as individual interest, self-concept, and academic effort in math, English, and German. Results show no marked differences across multiple indicators of stability or changeability, indicating comparable stability between both construct groups.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Keywords and research focus

Longitudinal design and measures

Comparison of stability and changeability

Background on noncognitive factors

AERA Open July-September 2017, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 1–9 DOI: 10. 1177/2332858417717691 © The Author(s) 2017. [http://ero.sagepub.com](http://ero.sagepub.com) Social Cognitive Constructs Are Just as Stable as the Big Five Between Grades 5 and 8 Sven Rieger Richard Göllner Marion Spengler Ulrich Trautwein Benjamin Nagengast University of Tübingen Brent W. Roberts University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and University of Tübingen Personality traits and social cognitive variables are central constructs in psychological research. It is often assumed that personality traits are less changeable than social cognitive variables, and thus interventions usually tend to focus on the latter. However, these assumptions about the mutability of personality and social cognitive variables have never been tested side-by-side in a longitudinal study. Using a large longitudinal study with four time points and N = 3,876 students in 136 classes (99 schools), we compared the mutability of the Big Five personality traits and social cognitive constructs more often described as socioemotional skills or motivational variables (individual interest, self-concept, and academic effort in the school subjects math, English, and German). The results indicated that there are no marked differences between personality traits and social cognitive constructs across multiple indicators of stability or changeability. Keywords: Big Five, social cognitive constructs, stability, latent-state-trait models Over the past decade there has been a groundswell ofattention brought to bear on “noncognitive” factors that contribute to school outcomes. Motivated in part by research emerging out of economics that showed that factors other than cognitive ability were important for human capital (Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua, 2006), researchers and policymakers from multiple fields, but especially education, have been investigating the importance of noncognitive factors. Multiple reviews have come to the same conclusion: Noncognitive factors are critical for success in both educational and occupational settings, and interventions should focus on these factors (Kautz, Heckman, Diris, ter Weel, & Borghans, 2014) . What are noncognitive factors? As the name would indicate, noncognitive factors are any constructs that are not considered traditional indicators of cognitive ability or intellectual functioning. From the viewpoint of psychology, this broad category inevitably includes a mix of many different constructs that go by many different names and that emerge out of disparate theoretical orientations. Common terms used to describe noncognitive factors are socioemotional skills, character, personality, and 21st-century skills. Prototypical constructs include factors such as self-concept of ability, self-efficacy, academic persistence, conscientiousness, stress tolerance, grit, and creativity (National Research Council, 2012) . The rather inclusive grouping of concepts belies the often stark theoretical and conceptual distinctions dividing these constructs when used in research. Some of these variables, represented best by conscientiousness, are considered traits and are often described as enduring, broad, and heritable (McCrae & Costa, 2008) . On the other side are social cognitive variables (e.g., self-efficacy), which are presumed to be narrow, relevant to very specific contexts, and derived almost exclusively from experience rather than genetics (Bandura, 2012) . The distinction between these two groups of variables is supported by many different theoretical models that conceptualize traits as core characteristics and social cognitive variables as surface characteristics (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003) . The fact that these conceptually distinct constructs are brought together into one group reflects, in part, the pragmatism of many educational researchers and economists who have discovered that all of these constructs appear to be useful for predicting imp

FAQs

What central question does the study address?

Whether social cognitive constructs are just as stable as the Big Five personality traits between grades 5 and 8.

How does the study measure change over time?

It uses a large longitudinal study with four time points and compares Big Five traits with socioemotional and motivational variables using stability and change indicators.

What do the results conclude about stability between the two groups of constructs?

There are no marked differences in stability or changeability between personality traits and social cognitive constructs across multiple indicators.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Cipher