Talent self-concept and diligence self-concept do not predict academic performance beyond intelligence and conscientiousness

Authors:
Preprint
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Bauer et al. (2023) reported that first-generation college students hold a negatively biased talent self-concept, and argued that this bias partly explains their weaker academic performance. That account, however, omits two well-established predictors of academic achievement: general intelligence and conscientiousness. The current study (N = 468 undergraduates) re-examined talent and diligence self-concept alongside official SAT scores, cumulative GPA, conscientiousness (IPIP-NEO-60), and first-generation status. First- and continuing-generation students did not differ in talent self-concept, diligence self-concept, or conscientiousness, but continuing-generation students scored substantially higher on the SAT (d = .60) and modestly higher in GPA (d = .44). Talent self-concept was unrelated to GPA (r = .01); diligence self-concept predicted GPA only until conscientiousness was controlled (β = .05). In a mediation model, only SAT scores explained the difference in GPA between first- and continuing-generation college students. Talent self-concept thus shows little construct validity as a measure of ability, and diligence self-concept appears redundant with conscientiousness—a jangle fallacy. These self-concept constructs add no predictive ability for college academic performance beyond intelligence and conscientiousness.

This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit: