As you stare at the list of groups that you’ve made for the upcoming class presentations, you realise that they are still not right. Sean shouldn’t be in the same group as Natalie - he’s more of a Cersei Lannister, she’s clearly a Jon Snow. That’s a personality clash for sure. But where to put him?

There’s nothing for it. We’ll have to move him to group five, which consists of two Tyrion Lannisters, an Arya Stark, and now Sean. That ought to work.

When we identify different personality types, we tend to do so intuitively, perhaps informed by some experience of personality psychology. Maybe we can refer to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, or MBTI, or perhaps our experience is more limited to taking online quizzes to discover which Game of Thrones character we are. Either way, the existence of several different personality tests and theories does tend to muddy the waters.

However, the almost universal adoption of the Five-Factor Model of Personality (also known as “The Big Five”) has managed to elevate personality theory to one of the most reliable areas of psychology in terms of consistent and replicable findings. As a result, there is much that teachers can learn from current personality theory that could help them to teach more effectively.

Let’s start with the Big Five. This model consists of five personality traits: extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism (or emotional stability). It’s generally believed that these traits are heritable and remain pretty stable over time. This means that a child who scores high on conscientiousness at age 8 should still score highly at 80 (although some studies do cast doubt on this).

The Big Five also allows us to distinguish personality traits from character traits. Character traits, like kindness, tend to be learned from others, while personality traits are viewed as innate. Some characteristics, specifically resilience, are more problematic and can be seen as either a personality trait or a character trait. Because of these inconsistencies, it’s best to confine the discussion of personality to one overarching theory, such as The Big Five.

Are there certain Big Five traits that are more associated with success than others? The research is surprisingly consistent on this, even though we always have to remain mindful of the success criteria we’re setting.

For example, a report published in 2016 by the Sutton Trust linked extraversion with success in terms of higher earnings potential (De Vries and Rentfrow, 2016). The report suggested that schools should “help develop the personality characteristics that help students access the best jobs”. Nurses and teachers are more likely to score higher on traits such as openness and agreeableness, yet their potential earnings are much lower than those of lawyers and bankers, who are more likely to be extraverts. Indeed, extraversion doesn’t always appear to correlate particularly well with exam scores (O’Connor and Paunonen, 2007).

Conscientiousness is the trait that appears to have the biggest impact on academic success, partly because it’s linked to lower levels of procrastination and a heightened ability to cope with setbacks (or higher levels of academic buoyancy). Research suggests that high levels of conscientiousness may also compensate for low IQ.

Higher state of conscientiousness

What do we mean by conscientiousness? According to Michael Mount and Murray Barrick, it’s “a combination of a desire to be dependable and reliable, and a desire to be achievement-oriented and persevering” (Mount and Barrick, 1995). There are similarities with the “grit” model developed by psychologist Angela Duckworth and, indeed, there is a strong argument that they are identical traits.

Studies in the US consistently find that conscientious students have a higher grade point average, although openness is a good trait in relation to verbal SAT scores in American samples (Noftle and Robins, 2007).

There’s no doubt that conscientiousness is important to academic success, although the dependable and reliable component can lead to inflexibility. Conscientious students can have difficulty changing direction when things divert from the plan. It is, therefore, more likely that successful students possess a particular combination of traits rather than a single overriding one.

These combinations can help and hinder us. Introverts (those who score low on measures of extraversion) may be quieter and seem less confident than their extravert classmates, but their contemplative nature and careful deliberation can be beneficial, while extraverts often get things done in double-quick time to the detriment of accuracy and detail. The downside for introverts arises when they also score highly on measures of agreeableness, which tend to make it easy for people to take advantage of them.

Meanwhile, low emotional stability (or neuroticism) is perhaps the biggest hindrance to academic achievement, at least in terms of personality. Students who are prone to worry and anxiety encounter additional barriers to learning. Anxiety can impact not only confidence but also our ability to cope with setbacks, meaning that anxious students display lower levels of academic buoyancy. In addition, anxiety can increase the load (or pressure) on working memory, making it harder to concentrate on the task in hand.

So what practical implications does all of this have for the classroom? Teachers have neither the time nor the resources to adapt tasks for different personality types, yet classrooms remain a hive of individual differences. Furthermore, any practical solution would involve being able to identify personality types accurately. An added complication is that traits such as conscientiousness can have both positive and negative impacts.

There are, therefore, no preferred or “superior” traits, just those that are better suited to particular outcomes. If we attempt to encourage some traits at the expense of others, we could lose more than we gain.

Brian Little, a psychologist at the University of Cambridge, proposes an idea that might be helpful here. He suggests it is possible for us to make short-term targeted behavioural changes that are linked to our goals. He calls these “free traits” (Little, 2008).

Take me, for example. I’m a classic introvert - I score low on extraversion on measures of Big Five traits. I also score similarly using the MBTI and on another well-known scale called the EPQ (the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire). While encouraging introverts to be extraverts is unlikely to reap any benefits, Little suggests that we can temporarily suspend our overarching traits in order to fulfil short-term goals. For instance, I could feign extroversion to give a talk at an event.

Free traits aren’t an attempt to change our personality. Instead, they are tools that, when finished with, can be put away until they are required again.

So, we can help our students to make their traits work for them, or coach them to suspend traits in order to complete a specific task. They may not be able to change their tendencies, but we can help them to change their behaviour, even if it’s temporary. There are three main ways to accomplish this.

1. Identify a niche

All traits are useful, but it often depends on the circumstances. Students should always be encouraged to experience life beyond their normal limits, but sometimes it’s more practical for them to play to their strengths. For example, is it vital that the anxious introvert stands in front of the whole class to give a presentation? Sometimes we need to think about the utility of the task and if a particular student would benefit more from carrying out the activity in another way.

2. Use goals and free traits

Goals encourage us to pursue something we see as important or meaningful and often require us to act out of character. Goals also encourage commitment and planning, so setting and implementing goals can encourage us to behave in ways that are more conducive to success. Free traits allow students to act out of character for a limited time; they won’t turn an introvert into an extravert, but will encourage them to alter their behaviour in the pursuit of their goals. This is more effective when goals are broken down into smaller sub-goals.

3. Nurture curiosity

Curiosity is linked to the trait of openness. It has been found to increase motivation and performance, as well as reducing fear of failure (Sansone and Thoman, 2005). Recent research shows that the key to curiosity appears to be discovering that what we thought we knew isn’t accurate, suggesting that we can nurture it by interrogating current knowledge (Wade and Kidd, 2019).

Personality, therefore, may not be as restricting as was once believed. And it’s worth emphasising that behaviour is a combination of different traits - there are no pure extraverts, for example.

So, setting and pursuing goals can encourage us and our students to experiment with temporary personality hacks and free traits to push us beyond our normal limits and get things done.

Marc Smith is a chartered psychologist and teacher. He is the author of The Emotional Learner and Psychology in the Classroom (with Jonathan Firth). He tweets @marcxsmith

This article originally appeared in the 14 August 2020 issue