1 STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS Online ...

1

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS

Online Supplementary Material for:

Student Characteristics and Behaviors at Age 12 Predict Occupational Success 40 Years

Later Over and Above Childhood IQ and Parental SES

2 THE REPONSIBLE STUDENT

Study 1 (Validation Study)

Study 1 addressed the structure, construct validity, and the internal consistency of the

MPS (MAGRIP Personality Scales). To investigate the MPS’s factor structure, we conducted

an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the underlying structure. To cross-validate

the structure, we conducted a factor analysis on the data stemming from an MPS

administration in a second independent sample recruited specifically for Study 1. In this new

sample, we further investigated the relation between the MPS and a well-established

personality inventory, the NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993) to investigate its content

and its relation to a well-established personality framework.

Method

Participants. Sample 1 capitalized on the first wave of the longitudinal MAGRIP

study (Brunner & Martin, 2011), which used a prospective epidemiological cohort design

spanning 40 years from 1968 (Wave 1) to 2008 (Wave 2). In 1968, data on student

characteristics, cognitive ability, and family background were collected from about half of the

Luxembourgish student population at the end of primary school when most children were in

Grade 6 (N = 2,824; M = 11.9 years of age, SD = 0.6; 49.9% female).

Sample 2 was a sample of 12-year-old students in Grade 6 in Luxembourg assessed in

2013. They were comparable to the original sample in 1968 in terms of age and sex (M =

11.31 years, SD = 1.75; 44.1% female). To this end, the University of Luxembourg (supported

by the Ministry of Education) asked teachers and their classes for their participation. Schools

and students were free to choose whether they would participate or not. They had to bring in a

written consent form signed by their parents. Finally, 10 classes with a total of 152 students

agreed to participate. The testing was administered in a group setting in the classroom by

trained interviewers. The students completed the MPS as well as a German version of the

NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993). Bilingual education in French and German is a key


characteristic of today’s Luxembourgish educational system, and all students are proficient in

both languages. Therefore, students in Sample 2 were free to choose whether they wanted to

fill out the questionnaire in German or French. Most of the students choose the German

version (n = 150).

Measures. MPS. Children in both samples completed a questionnaire that included a

large set of items concerning their feelings, thoughts, and habits with regard to their school

and everyday lives. The exact rationale behind the construction of the questionnaire is not

well documented. The items cover either school-related (e.g., “If I get interrupted while doing

my homework, I still try hard to do it properly”) or nonschool-related contexts (e.g., “Life is

usually hard; only sometimes is it nice”). The questionnaire consists of 108 items (see Table

S4) with a dichotomous answer format for which students have to decide whether the item is

true for them or not.

NEO-FFI. Students in Sample 2 also completed the German version of the NEO-FFI

(Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993), which assesses the five broad personality dimensions

Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The self-report

form consists of 60 items that assess the five dimensions on a 5-point scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Analyses. As the measurement framework for the MPS was not known to the present

authors, we applied methods of integrative data analysis (Curran & Hussong, 2009) by

drawing on data from two independent samples to identify the number of factors in the MPS.

As the items covered two broad domains, we divided the item pool and factor analyzed the

school-related and the nonschool-related items separately to define scales for school-related

and nonschool-related behaviors and attitudes. The item pools were analyzed by applying an

EFA with an oblique rotation. As the item format was dichotomous, we used a robust

weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV-estimator) for categorical items in Mplus; this


estimator is based on tetrachoric correlations (Flora & Curran, 2004). The extraction of

factors was based on the well-established bass-ackwards method developed by Goldberg

(2006). We choose this content-based approach over the classical indicators (e.g., Kaiser-

Guttman, scree test) because those indicators often lead to an over-identification of factors

(see Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Further, we were interested in

exploring the different facets in student behavior rather than in identifying the single best-

fitting factor structure (Goldberg, 2006). The bass-ackwards method is a top-down approach

by which we extracted one factor, then two factors, then three, then four, and so on. We

extracted and subsequently rotated the factors until the factors could no longer be

meaningfully interpreted (see Jackson, Wood, Bogg, Walton, Harms, & Roberts, 2010). We

used the same approach in Sample 2 to cross-validate the factor structure. The final selection

of items was based on a comparison of the factor structures of the two samples. Factors

representing school-related and nonschool-related scales were based on those items that

empirically demonstrated a unique loading (i.e., no cross-loadings) in Sample 1 and a

meaningful loading (> .20) on the same factor in Sample 2.

In order to understand the nature/meaning of the scales and to map them within the

well-known nomological network of the five broad personality factors, we correlated the MPS

scales with the NEO-FFI scales (in Sample 2).

Results and Discussion

In a first step, a series of EFAs of increasing differentiation were run for the school-

related and nonschool-related items in Sample 1. The resulting solutions for each set of items

were interpretable up to four factors (see Tables S1a and S1b). To replicate the factor

structure, we reran the analyses in Sample 2. Again, a four-factor solution showed the clearest

differentiation of factors within the school-related and the nonschool-related items,

respectively. We created scales based on the respective four-factor structures for both


domains. This procedure resulted in three to 12 items per scale. Specifically, we identified

four scales that described school-related behaviors and attitudes: inattentiveness (eight items),

school entitlement (11 items), responsible student (12 items), and sense of inferiority (seven

items). Further, we identified four scales that described nonschool-related behaviors and

attitudes of a more general nature: impatience (three items), pessimism (nine items),

traditional beliefs (four items), and rule breaking and defiance of parental authority (four

items). To create scale scores, we computed the average score for the items of each same

scale, reverse scoring items where necessary as indicated in Table S4. Due to low reliability

(according to the Kuder-Richardson formula; reliability = .32), we excluded the traditional

beliefs scale from all further analyses. All other scales showed good internal consistencies.

The reliabilities for these scales are presented in Table 2. Correlations between the seven

factors ranged from r = -.22 to r = .65 (see Table S2). To evaluate their relations with the five

broad personality factors, we examined the correlations of the MPS with the NEO-FFI scales

(see Table S3).

Inattentiveness encompasses items such as “Sometimes I do not pay attention in

school” and describes a lack of attention and to some extent, an unwillingness to take school

seriously. It was strongly correlated with impatience and rule breaking and defiance of

parental authority. With regard to the Five Factors, students with high inattentiveness also

showed high levels of Neuroticism (r = .40).

School entitlement describes the demands students make of their teachers or the

expectations they have of school in general (e.g., “Students’ wishes should always be

fulfilled”). This scale has a rather negative meaning as students high on school entitlement

also showed higher levels of pessimism (r = .54). It was also negatively associated with

Agreeableness (r = -.39). Thus, students who score high on school entitlement tend to have a

negative attitude toward school and feel offended by their teachers.


The responsible student can be described as industrious and achievement-striving

(e.g., “I usually try hard to do my homework very accurately and carefully”). Interestingly,

this scale was most strongly related to Conscientiousness (r = .41), Agreeableness (r = .31),

and Openness (r = .23) from the Five Factor Model.

The sense of inferiority scale includes items such as “If an exercise is very difficult, I

give up more easily than my classmates” and depicts the students’ (mainly upward) social

comparisons in school contexts. It describes students’ comparisons with their classmates in

terms of ability and working hard. It reflects their feeling of inferiority in comparison with

their classmates. Sense of inferiority was positively related to Neuroticism (r = .44) and

negatively related to Openness (r = -.29), Conscientiousness (r = -.35), and Agreeableness (r

= -.28).

Impatience covers behaviors related to impatience (e.g., “I quickly run out of

patience”). It was related to inattentiveness. Moreover, its overlap with Neuroticism was high

(r = .50).

Pessimism includes items that describe students’ negative and depressed view of the

world (e.g., “I am usually sad; only sometimes am I happy”). The pessimism scale showed the

highest correlation with sense of inferiority. Both describe a negative evaluation of either

school-related tasks and abilities (sense of inferiority) or of general contents outside school

(pessimism). Students who scored high on pessimism also showed higher levels of

Neuroticism (r = .42).

Traditional beliefs include principles and beliefs that may have been current in the 60s

but appear outdated today (e.g., “Skillful and practical people are usually well respected

among others”). As noted above, this scale was not used in subsequent analyses because of its

low level of reliability.


Rule breaking and defiance of parental authority encompasses items that demonstrate

a low level of rule orientation (e.g., “I have talked back to my mother before”). It is similar to

the school-based scale of inattentiveness (and they are also highly correlated). Students who

scored high on this scale did not respect their parents’ authority. Rule breaking and defiance

of parental authority was positively correlated with Neuroticism (r = .31) and negatively

correlated with Conscientiousness (r = -.30).

Taken together, we applied methods of integrative data analysis (Curran & Hussong,

2009) by drawing on data from two independent samples. In doing so, our goal was to make

the most of the information provided by the MPS instrument (for which no measurement

framework was available). Specifically, we developed new scales that describe individual

differences in student characteristics. The results obtained for two samples showed that the

factor structure could be replicated across samples and that these factors could be interpreted

as scales that cover students’ school-related and nonschool-related behaviors and attitudes.

These scales represent (childhood) characteristics that show some overlap with the five broad

personality traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and

Conscientiousness. This well-accepted framework can therefore help us better understand the

meaning of the newly created scales. That said, the correlations between the newly developed

scales and the Big Five do not support the argument that these dimensions are proxies for the

Big Five. They are, however, clearly linked to the Big Five domains, and thus any

correlations with external criteria could be informed by which family of traits each dimension

is most strongly related to.


References

Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (Eds.) (2011). Die MAGRIP-Studie (1968-2009). Wie beeinflussen

sozio-kognitive Merkmale von Kindern im Grundschulalter und ihre Bildungswege ihr

späteres Leben als Erwachsene in Luxemburg? [The MAGRIP-study (1968-2009).

How do socio-cognitive characteristics of children at primary school age and their

educational careers influence their later lives as adults in Luxembourg?]. Luxemburg:

Universität Luxemburg, Forschungseinheit EMACS.

Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) [NEO five-

factor inventory]. Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.

Curran, P.J., & Hussong, A.M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: the simultaneous analysis of

multiple data sets. Psychological methods, 14, 81-100. doi: 10.1037/a0015914

Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use

of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4,

272-299.

Flora, D.B., & Curran, P.J. (2004). An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Methods of

Estimation for Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Ordinal Data. Psychological

Methods, 9, 466-491.

Goldberg L.R. (2006). Doing it all bass-ackwards: The development of hierarchical factor

structures from the top down. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 347–358.

Jackson, J.J., Wood, D., Bogg, T., Walton, K.E., Harms, P.D., & Roberts, B.W. (2010). What

do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators

of Conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of research in personality, 44, 501-511.


Table S1a

Factor Loadings in the Full MAGRIP Sample and the Validation Sample of 12-Year-Olds for

School-Related Items

Full sample (Sample 1) Validation sample (Sample 2)

Item number 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

41 .49 -.19 .12 .08 .20 -.27 .03 .25

Sen

se o

f inf

erio

rity

95 .50 -.10 -.29 .22 .31 -.34 .38 .09

59 .56 .02 .03 .23 .67 -.02 -.15 -.02

75 .50 .01 .10 .10 .44 .04 .09 .01

105 .54 .02 -.02 .24 .70 .10 .05 .07

36 .37 .28 .05 -.13 .37 .36 -.06 -.07

81 .38 .11 .18 .16 .82 .18 -.07 .01

71 .37 .09 -.02 .15

.31 .05 .14 .00

84 .22 .36 -.09 -.08 -.18 .50 .08 .07

Res

pons

ible

stu

dent

52 .09 .42 -.28 -.22 -.07 .47 -.08 -.42

38 -.02 .67 -.02 -.15 .12 .71 .15 .14

17 -.03 .39 .10 -.07 -.03 .41 -.11 .28

7 .04 .22 .01 .10 -.35 .33 .03 -.01

70 -.01 .43 .17 -.06 -.02 .36 -.10 .06

46 -.08 .43 .33 -.01 -.18 .23 .23 .17

57 -.04 .64 -.05 -.05 -.36 .43 .00 .07

61 -.11 .57 .11 -.06 -.29 .50 .01 .51

30 -.06 .43 .09 .07 -.01 .34 -.22 .50

68 -.21 .48 .33 -.04 -.64 .31 .38 .25

85 -.28 .43 -.05 .13

.16 .65 -.13 -.13

74 .34 -.06 .49 .03 .57 .05 .48 -.42

Inat

tent

iven

ess 55 .30 .04 .50 -.03 .32 .15 .25 -.12

26 .16 .38 -.58 .01 .04 .09 -.19 .01

11 .13 -.05 .75 .05 .34 -.01 .55 .03

9 .07 -.18 .51 .25 -.03 -.11 .67 -.10

92 .05 .13 .80 -.02 .01 .23 .60 -.32

99 .00 -.03 .60 .22 -.02 .39 .29 .19

39 -.02 .10 .89 .02

-.41 .52 .84 -.01

102 .14 .27 -.07 .38 .33 -.17 -.06 .40

Sch

ool e

ntitl

emen

t

45 .14 .09 -.01 .45 .39 .06 .02 .37

31 .09 .16 -.10 .48 -.02 -.33 .23 .30

44 .06 .07 -.11 .54 .24 .14 -.08 .23

79 .07 .02 -.23 .64 .29 -.16 .07 .25

63 .01 .10 .03 .55 .32 -.03 -.17 .22


21 .02 -.17 -.12 .58 .66 -.11 -.37 .02

90 .06 .29 -.01 .36 -.01 .07 .15 .12

19 .05 -.03 -.07 .61 .63 .32 .26 .31

106 -.05 -.07 .03 .70 .41 -.05 .36 .26

23 -.17 -.03 .22 .64

.30 .00 .18 .46

94 .33 -.25 .23 .27 .34 -.25 .60 -.03

Not

sel

ecte

d

66 .20 -.17 .31 .41 .33 -.18 .43 .04

21 .02 -.17 -.12 .58 .66 -.11 -.37 .02

4 .38 -.18 .25 .14 -.10 -.54 .39 -.01

101 .27 -.09 .33 .08 .23 .01 .47 .01

8 .21 .06 -.10 .34 .56 -.01 .00 .03

1 .17 -.11 -.04 .26 .35 -.09 .23 -.42

53 .05 .34 .02 .28 .12 -.06 .07 .38

67 .02 .30 .20 -.04 -.45 .18 -.21 .24

33 .08 .12 .14 .08 .13 .09 .20 -.28

10 .01 .32 -.26 -.26 .02 .31 -.33 -.20

20 -.02 .46 -.41 .07 -.27 .39 -.29 .08

51 -.03 .14 .30 .41 -.02 .01 .52 .54

64 -.06 .18 -.15 .14 .03 -.29 .04 -.12

88 -.33 .34 .08 .13 -.63 -.07 .12 -.38

86 -.37 .34 -.39 .26 -.56 .04 -.02 .22

96 -.03 .38 .10 .03 .01 .11 -.18 -.02

2 .24 .08 .37 .05 .57 .49 .10 -.03

50 .22 .32 .50 -.09 -.01 .83 .32 -.09

12 .03 .06 .71 .11 .34 .27 -.12 .13

16 .17 -.21 .10 .44 .40 -.13 .15 .02

91 .05 -.08 .24 .54 .18 -.07 .61 .05

49 .02 .02 -.06 .30 .22 -.11 -.05 .08

6 .01 -.13 .02 .44 -.01 -.30 .32 .12

58 -.03 -.11 .10 .61 .11 -.19 .36 .44

56 -.12 -.04 .11 .65 .34 -.13 .22 .11 Note. Loadings in italics represent the factors. The item numbers refer to the item numbers in

the questionnaire available the Online Supplementary Material.


Table S1b

Factor Loadings in the Full MAGRIP Sample and the Validation Sample of 12-

Year-Olds for Nonschool-Related Items

Full sample (Sample 1) Validation sample (Sample 2)

Item number 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

73 -.80 .13 .08 .06 -.54 .32 -.03 -.07

Rul

e br

eaki

ng a

nd

defia

nce

24 .50 .07 .28 -.01 .43 .03 .05 .17

14 .71 .02 .04 .07 .73 -.22 -.07 .15

87 .67 -.01 .00 .18 .58 -.01 .32 .04

80 .10 .41 .08 .03 .06 .58 -.02 .26

Tra

ditio

nal

belie

fs

77 .03 .52 -.03 .00 .06 .21 -.05 -.10

28 .03 .43 .07 -.05 -.06 .39 .05 -.38

42 .11 .49 .24 -.06 .21 .35 .07 .24

65 .01 -.08 .75 .03 .13 -.04 .91 -.12

Impu

l-si

vity

35 .10 -.04 .62 .05 .20 .13 .75 .03

3 .05 -.01 .32 .16 .10 -.17 .37 .13

93 .05 -.06 -.03 .54 .26 -.01 -.35 .46

Pes

sim

ism

97 .05 .06 -.01 .51 .04 .26 .01 .52

47 -.14 -.11 .06 .49 .07 .34 -.09 .50

108 .01 .00 -.06 .59 .08 .01 .10 .47

100 .00 .06 .05 .62 -.13 -.20 .13 .45

15 -.19 -.10 .09 .44 -.13 .01 .14 .24

18 -.01 .17 -.07 .54 -.26 .04 .31 .60

62 -.08 -.17 .07 .62 -.25 -.04 .33 .81

72 .15 -.05 -.01 .51 .01 -.09 .38 .48

78 .28 .00 .44 .06 .38 .11 .30 .05

Not

sel

ecte

d

43 -.20 -.08 .52 -.04 -.10 .32 .30 .13

5 .03 .36 .02 -.01 -.30 -.02 .06 -.03

27 .04 .33 -.03 .12 .05 .06 .09 .16

89 .37 .11 .29 .06 .66 .63 .03 -.22 13 -.02 .57 .02 -.10 -.13 .07 .35 -.44

25 -.09 .58 .01 -.10 -.05 .27 .22 .02

29 .07 .41 -.13 -.06 -.05 -.09 -.04 -.21

83 .33 .13 .13 .27 -.12 .56 -.17 .09

76 -.01 .02 .19 .19 -.17 .20 .29 .32

34 -.06 .21 -.01 .28 .15 .30 -.18 .42

40 .22 .11 .08 .38 .03 -.26 .53 .31

54 -.03 .20 .23 .04 .22 .21 .00 -.13

104 .42 .04 .45 .01 .50 .06 .43 -.01


103 .37 -.08 .32 .14 .42 -.33 .14 -.01 48 .30 .10 .31 .06 .49 .01 -.01 .12

69 .01 .14 .40 -.07 .49 .32 -.07 -.02

107 .23 -.01 .31 .03 .51 .03 .11 -.19

37 -.27 .30 .11 -.08 -.22 .08 .09 -.06

82 -.50 .47 -.07 .07 -.03 .53 .02 -.43

60 .55 .19 .30 -.02 .18 .49 .30 -.24

98 -.44 .27 -.03 .04 -.31 .37 -.09 .00

32 -.59 .37 .00 .06 -.02 .43 .07 .33

22 -.36 .21 -.01 .10 -.09 .07 .19 .05 Note. Loadings in italics represent the factors. The item numbers refer to the item numbers

in the questionnaire available from Table S4 in the Online Supplementary Material.


Table S2

Internal Consistencies and Correlations between School and Nonschool-Related Scales in the MAGRIP (Sample 1)

and Validation Samples (Sample 2)

Internal

consistency (n of items)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Inattentiveness .76 (8) .26** -.22** .31** .51** .16** .26** .65**

2 School entitlement .72 (11) .24**

-.17** .40** .33** .54** .04 .12** 3 Responsible student .57 (12) -.04 -.18

-.18** -.16** -.03 .22** -.15**

4 Sense of inferiority .60 (7) .25** .47** -.17

.41** .49** .01 .19**

5 Impatience .51 (3) .34** .32** .10 .41**

.31** .16** .37** 6 Pessimism .65 (9) .20 .49** -.17 .56** .24**

.05 .06

7 Traditional beliefs .32 (4) .20 .06 .23** .01 .01 .04

.21** 8 Rule breaking and defiance .67 (4) .51** .07 -.25** .12 .19 .13 -.03

Note. Correlations in the upper triangle are based on the MAGRIP sample; correlations in the lower triangle are based

on the validation sample. Nonsignificant correlations are in italics. Internal consistencies refer to the MAGRIP

sample.

** p < .01.

14


Table S3

Correlations with the NEO Scales in the Validation Sample

(Sample 2)

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness 1 Inattentiveness .40* .10 -.06 -.05 -.15

2 School entitlement .26* -.14 -.28* -.39* -.28*

3 Responsible student -.01 .10 .23* .31* .41*

4 Sense of inferiority .44* -.17 -.29* -.28* -.35*

5 Impatience .50* .03 -.16 -.20* -.18

6 Pessimism .42* -.26* -.15 -.32* -.34* 7 Traditional beliefs .09 .24* .22* .22* .18* 8 Rule breaking and defiance .31* -.12 -.10 -.15 -.30* Notes. Nonsignificant correlations are in italics.

*p < .05.

15


Table S4

Items and Scales of the 1968 MPS (MAGRIP Personality Scales)

INATTENTIVENESS 74: I sometimes daydream instead of working 55: I have already copied a difficult word from my neighbor before 26: I always pick up the trash (paper pieces) in the schoolyard 11: Sometimes I do not pay attention in school 9: Sometimes I get bored by the exercises in school 92: I have argued with another student before 99: Most children dislike going to school 39: I have chatted with my neighbor during class

SCHOOL ENTITLEMENT 102: No student should have to repeat a class 45: I often have so much work to do, I cannot come to terms with it 31: If you have to repeat a class, your whole year’s work had no earthly use 44: School is the toughest time in life 79: Students' wishes should always be fulfilled 63: Teachers know more and work less than most other people 21: Teachers only want to annoy their students 90: Later in life nobody wants to know how you did in school; the only important thing is to find a way to get through life 19: Teachers usually give students tasks that are too difficult 106: Some teachers give their students a hard time on purpose in school 23: Many children often get punished in school for no reason

RESPONSIBLE STUDENT SCALE 84: You should always do more than the teacher expects you to do 52: When there is no homework for a couple of days, I want the teacher to give new homework assignments 38: If I get interrupted while doing my homework, I still try hard to do it properly 17: Students who cheat by copying answers on an exam should fail the exam 7: Good oral grades are as important as good written grades 70: What you learn during a school lesson is more important than what you feel during the lesson 46: It is better to know an answer yourself than to know where to find it 57: I usually try hard to do my homework very accurately and carefully 61: If an exercise is more difficult than the others, I make an effort to solve it 30: If I am tired at school, I try to conceal it from the teacher 68: Even when I have trouble with my homework, I still do it 85: I always start doing my homework immediately so that I can finish early enough

SENSE OF INFERIORITY 95: My fellow students like to go to school more than I do 59: If an exercise is very difficult, I give up more easily than my classmates


75: I give fewer answers during class than most of my peers 105: I just cannot work as much as most of my classmates 36: I admire my peers who work better than me 81: I often have bad luck on exams 71: I never work as hard in school as I can

IMPATIENCE 65: I quickly run out of patience 35: I quickly become impatient when I’m not succeeding 3: During my spare time, I often do not know what to do

PESSIMISM 15: There is nothing new in this world 18: Life is usually hard; only sometimes is it nice 47: It is useless to learn about people in foreign countries 62: I am usually sad; only sometimes am I happy 72: I am a jinx 93: People who dream a lot at night are probably a little crazy 97: I think that most people in this world feel lonely and abandoned 100: The present usually bears bad luck 108: Life is full of labor and worry

TRADITIONAL BELIEFS 80: Skillful and practical people are usually well respected among others 77: If you want to become a person who is recognized, you always have to act resolutely 28: It is better to gossip than to lie 42: Gentle people can often be very strict with themselves

RULE BREAKINGAND DEFIANCE OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY 73: I am at my mother’s beck and call 24: I have cheated in games before 14: I have talked back to my mother before 87: I have lied to my parents before Note. The item numbers refer to the item numbers in Table S1.


Figure S1. Flowchart of the multistage sampling procedure used in the current study

including information on childhood characteristics for each subsample. IQ = general

cognitive ability at age 12, pSES = parental socioeconomic status at age 12 measured on

the ISEI scale.

Description of the multistage sampling procedure. In Stage 1 (2008), all

available addresses of the former participants were identified via their social security

numbers. Therefore, official permission was obtained from the national commission of

data protection in Luxembourg (CNPD; Commission nationale pour la protection des

données). When the addresses were not available, this was most frequently because the

participants had either moved out of the country or died. In Stage 2, it was not possible to

contact all of the former participants for whom addresses were available due to the

budgetary constraints of the research project. Thus, a random sample was drawn from all

available addresses. This sample was stratified by gender and region of residence in 1968.

In Stage 3, participants were visited at home by trained interviewers as part of a household

study. Data were collected on educational and occupational paths, health, subjective well

being, and personality.

1 STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS Online ...

Documents

Transcript of 1 STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS Online ...