this is a snap shot from the article recommened by you . does this answer about hypotheses of the study

Why Should Personality Be Related to Academic Performance? At this juncture. it is important to consider why personality should be expected to be correlated with academic performance when most measures of personality, including the FFM, were not designed to predict academic performance (Ackerman Hegges- tad, 1997). This is in contrast with intelligence, as the carly empirical refinement of its measurement was based partly on analyses of academic performance (Spearman, 1904), and many intelligence tests were specifically constructed to predict academic success or failure (Brown French, 1979). There are. nonetheless, good reasons to expect that the FFM dimensions should predict academic performance, based on the theoretical position that guided initial development of the model. The theoretical basis for the FFM was provided by the lexical hypothesis (Allport Od- bert, 1936), the idea that there is an evolutionary advantage in being able to identify valuable differences between people and that natural languages will therefore have developed in ways that would aid this identification (Saucier Goldberg, 1996). A cor- ollary of the lexical hypothesis is that the more valued the feature of personality. the more descriptors for that feature will be found within natural languages. This in turn implies that it should be possible to determine which features of personality are most val- ued and important by finding the largest groups of personality descriptors that have similar meanings. The lexical hypothesis inspired factor analyses of comprehen sive sets of personality descriptors, first in English and subse- quently in other languages, that resulted in the development and validation of the FFM (Saucier Goldberg. 1996). The fact that the FFM has been obtained from analyses of varied item sets (c-g., Costa McCrae, 1988; Goldberg Rosolack, 1994; Goldberg, Sweeney, Merenda, Hughes, 1996) and has been confirmed within different cultures (e.g., Hendriks et al.. 2003) provides evidence not only for the FFM but also for the lexical hypothesis Admittedly, other models of personality have been developed on the basis of the lexical hypothesis (e.g., Ashton et al, 2004; Saucier, 2003). but these models do not contradict the FFM; rather, they add to and, in the case of Saucier (2003). reorient the FFM dimensions. The FFM remains by far the most widely researched personality model based on the lexical hypothesis and. hence, forms the basis for the meta-analysis reported here. If the lexical hypothesis is correct, dimensions of the FFM should be related to behaviors and outcomes that have been inde- pendently recognized as important. Performance at work, mortal- ity, and divorce are all socially important outcomes, so the findings