858 vIII. EMERGING ISSuES AND NEW DIRECTIONS
Finland 1
United States 2
Chile 3
France 4
Slovenia 5
Canada 6
Turkey 7
Italy 8
Portugal 9
Greece 10
United Kingdom 11
Spain 12
Austria 13
Germany 14
Poland 15
Australia 16
Estonia 17
Mexico 18
Switzerland 19
New Zealand 20
Netherlands 21
Belgium 22
Czech Republic 23
Slovakia 24
South Korea 25
Japan 26Rank in Big Five Conscientiousness
(High to Low)
Annual Hours Worked1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500
FIGURE 42.3. National rank in Big Five conscientiousness and average annual hours worked. Source: 
The conscientiousness ranks come from Schmitt et al. (2007). These measures were taken in 2001 
(Schmitt, 2002). The hours worked estimates come from Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (2001). Note: Several countries are omitted due to lack of data.mary determinant of later-life outcomes. 
However, they used an achievement test 
(the AFQT) as their measure of intelligence. 
Therefore, as discussed earlier, their find-
ings implicitly showed the power of both 
cognitive and noncognitive skills in shaping 
life outcomes in the United States. Further-
more, recent studies have also demonstrated 
that other measures of noncognitive skills 
can add predictive power above and beyond 
achievement tests (see Kautz & Zanoni, 
2019; Heckman, Humphries, & Kautz, 
2014).
Reference Bias
Answers from self- reports can be misleading 
when comparing levels of personality skills 
across different groups of people. Most per-
sonality assessments do not anchor their 
measurements in any objective outcome.31
For example, the German Socio- Economic Panel (GSOEP) asks respondents to rate 
themselves on the following statement:“I see 
myself as someone who tends to be lazy” 
(Lang, John, Lüdtke, Schupp, & Wagner, 
2011). The scale ranges from strongly dis-
agree  to strongly agree.  In answering this 
question, people must interpret the defini-
tion of lazy,  which likely involves compar-
ing themselves to other people. If different 
groups have different standards or reference 
points, comparing skills across groups can 
be highly misleading. Laziness may mean 
different things to different groups of people.
This measurement problem— sometimes 
called reference bias —is empirically impor-
tant.32 Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, and Benet-
Martínez (2007) administered a Big Five 
personality questionnaire to groups of peo-
ple in a variety of different countries. Using 
their estimates, Figure 42.3  shows how 
OECD countries rank (from high to low) in 
conscientiousness— the tendency to be hard-