Intelligence and Personality

doi:10.1017/9781108770422.043

42 - Intelligence and Personality

from Part VIII - Intelligence and Allied Constructs

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2019

Colin G. DeYoung

Edited by

Robert J. Sternberg

Show author details

Robert J. Sternberg: Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews conceptual and empirical work that attempts to establish the relation of intelligence to personality. It first offers a summary and critique of three dichotomies often used to distinguish intelligence from personality conceptually and then reviews empirical research on the relation of intelligence to a wide range of personality traits. Both conceptually and empirically, intelligence is most strongly related to the personality trait Intellect, which is measured in questionnaires through descriptions of intellectual engagement and perceived intellectual ability, and which is one of two major subfactors of the broad Openness/Intellect dimension of the Five Factor Model or Big Five. Nonetheless, various other personality traits are also related to intelligence, and the nature and implications of these associations are thoroughly discussed.

Keywords

intelligence personality Big Five intellect openness to experience

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence , pp. 1011 - 1047
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770422.043 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 229–259.Google Scholar

Ackerman, P. L. (2000). Domain-specific knowledge as the “dark matter” of adult intelligence: Gf/Gc, personality, and interest correlates. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55B, 69–84.Google Scholar

Ackerman, P. L. (2009). Personality and intelligence. In Corr, P. J. & Matthews, G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 162–174). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Bowen, K. R. (2002). What we really know about our abilities and our knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 587–605.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ackerman, P. L. & Goff, M. (1994). Typical intellectual engagement and personality: Reply to Rocklin (1994). Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 150–153.Google Scholar

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Allen, T. A., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Personality neuroscience and the Five Factor Model. In Widiger, T. A. (Ed.). Oxford handbook of the Five Factor Model (pp. 319–349). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, T. A., Rueter, A. R., Abram, S. V., Brown, J. S., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Personality and neural correlates of mentalizing ability. European Journal of Personality, 31, 599–613.Google Scholar

Alvidrez, J., & Weinstein, R. S. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 731–746.Google Scholar

Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2014). The default network and self-generated thought: Component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 29–52.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Blas, L. D., Boies, K., & De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366.Google Scholar

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Vernon, P. A., & Jang, K. L. (2000). Fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and the Openness/Intellect factor. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 197–207.Google Scholar

Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., & Gibson, G. J. (1997). Relationship between ability and personality: Three hypotheses tested. Intelligence, 25, 49–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

Austin, A. J., Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Fowkes, F. G. R., Padersen, N. L., Rabbitt, P., Bent, N., & McInnes, L. (2002). Relationships between ability and personality: Does intelligence contribute positively to personal and social adjustment? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1391–1411.Google Scholar

Baker, T. J., & Bichsel, J. (2006). Personality predictors of intelligence: Differences between young and cognitively healthy older adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 861–871.Google Scholar

Barchard, K. A. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic success? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 840–858.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bates, T. C., & Shieles, A. (2003). Crystallized intelligence as a product of speed and drive for experience: The relationship of inspection time and openness to g and Gc. Intelligence, 31, 275−287.Google Scholar

Beaty, R. E., Kaufman, S. B., Benedek, M., Jung, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Jauk, E., … Silvia, P. J. (2016). Personality and complex brain networks: The role of openness to experience in default network efficiency. Human Brain Mapping, 37(2), 773–779.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Beauducel, A., Liepmann, D., Felfe, J., & Nettelnstroth, W. (2007). The impact of different measurement models for fluid and crystallized intelligence on the correlation with personality traits. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 71–78.Google Scholar

Bergold, S., & Steinmayr, R. (2018). Personality and intelligence interact in the prediction of academic achievement. Journal of Intelligence, 6, 27.Google Scholar

Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later, Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 734–749.Google Scholar

Bouchard, T., Segal, N., Tellegen, A., McGue, M., Keyes, M., & Krueger, R. (2003). Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the Wilson–Patterson conservatism scale: A reared-apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 959–969.Google Scholar

Brickenkamp, R. (1975). Handbuch psychologischer und padagogischer Tests [Handbook of Psychological and Educational Tests]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Brody, N. (2004). What cognitive intelligence is and what emotional intelligence is not. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 234–238.Google Scholar

Brugger, P. (2001). From haunted brain to haunted science. A cognitive neuroscience view of paranormal and pseudoscientific thought. In Houran, J. & Lange, R (Eds.), Hauntings and poltergeists: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 195–215). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.Google Scholar

Bunge, S. A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2006). A brain-based account of the development of rule use in childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 118–121.Google Scholar

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals differing in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.Google Scholar

Carney, D., Jost, J., Gosling, S., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Cattell, R. B. (1978). Scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Cattell, R. B., & Birkett, H. (1980). The known personality factors found aligned between first order T-data and second order Q-data factors, with new evidence on the inhibitory control, independence and regression traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 229–238.Google Scholar

Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, F. W. (1967). Objective personality and motivation tests: A theoretical introduction and practical compendium. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Moutafi, J., & Furnham, A. (2005). The relationship between personality traits, subjectively-assessed and fluid intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1517–1528.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chapman, B., Duberstein, P., Tindle, H. A., Sink, K. M., Robbins, J., Tancredi, D. J., & Franks, P. (2012). Personality predicts cognitive function over 7 years in older persons. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 612–621.Google Scholar

Collis, J. M., & Messick, S. (Eds.) (2001). Intelligence and personality: Bridging the gap in theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665.Google Scholar

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). NEO PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar

Costa, P. T. Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.Google Scholar

Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

De Pauw, S. S. W., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. G. (2009). How are traits related to problem behavior in preschoolers? Similarities and contrasts between temperament and personality. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 309–325.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Deary, I. J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 453–82Google Scholar

Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., & Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological Science, 19, 1–6.Google Scholar

Deary, I. J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(3), 201–211.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In Sternberg, R. J. & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 711–737). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G. (2015a). Cybernetic Big Five Theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G. (2015b). Openness/Intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In Cooper, M. L. & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.), The APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Personality processes and individual differences, Vol. 4 (pp. 369–399). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Carey, B. E., Krueger, B. F., & Ross, S. R. (2016). Ten aspects of the Big Five in the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 113–123.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 63–78.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources of Openness/Intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality, 73, 825–858.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., Séguin, J. R., Pihl, R. O., & Tremblay, R. E. (2008). Externalizing behavior and the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 947–953.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Openness to Experience, Intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 46–52.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., & Rueter, A. R. (2016). Impulsivity as a personality trait. In Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (3rd ed., pp. 345–363). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from Openness: Differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883–892.Google Scholar

Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.Google Scholar

Doerfler, T., & Hornke, L. F. (2010). Working style and extraversion: New insights into the nature of item response latencies in computer-based intelligence testing. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 159–162.Google Scholar

Duckworth, A. L. (2009). (Over and) beyond high-stakes testing. American Psychologist, 64, 279–280.Google Scholar

Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251.Google Scholar

Espejo, J., Day, E. A., & Scott, G. (2005). Performance evaluations, need for cognition, and the acquisition of a complex skill: An attribute–treatment interaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(8), 1867–1877.Google Scholar

Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality and intelligence: Psychometric and experimental approaches. In Sternberg, R. J. & Ruzgis, P. (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 3–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fales, C. L., Barch, D. M., Burgess, G. C., Schaefer, A., Mennin, D. S., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2008). Anxiety and cognitive efficiency: Differential modulation of transient and sustained neural activity during a working memory task. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 239–253.Google Scholar

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.Google Scholar

Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351–401.Google Scholar

Freund, P. A., & Kasten, N. (2012). How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 296–331.Google Scholar

Frisell, T., Pawitan, Y., & Långström, N. (2012). Is the association between general cognitive ability and violent crime caused by family-level confounders? PLoS ONE, 7, e41783. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041783 Google Scholar

Furnham, A., Dissou, G., Sloan, P., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and intelligence in business people: A study of two personality and two intelligence measures. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 99–109.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62, 143–155.Google Scholar

Gläscher, J., Rudrauf, D., Colom, R., Paul, L. K., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Adolphs, R. (2010). Distributed neural system for general intelligence revealed by lesion mapping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(10), 4705–4709.Google Scholar

Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality–intelligence relations: Assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–552.Google Scholar

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.Google Scholar

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.Google Scholar

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde, I., Deary, I., De Fruyt, F., & Ostendorf, F. (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, L. R., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The big five factor structure as an integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s P-E-N model. In Halverson, C. F., Jr., Kohnstamm, G. A., & Martin, R. P. (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 7–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997a). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.Google Scholar

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997b). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79–132.Google Scholar

Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). The personality–intelligence interface: Insights from an ageing cohort. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 751–761.Google Scholar

Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78–80.Google Scholar

Hill, B. D., Foster, J. D., Elliott, E. M., Shelton, J. T., McCain, J., & Gouvier, W. D. (2013). Need for cognition is related to higher general intelligence, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence, but not working memory. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 22–25.Google Scholar

Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L., & Whitney, P. (2003). Impulsive decision making and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 298−306.Google Scholar

Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of Agreeableness with political ideology and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 655–664.Google Scholar

Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological Science, 23, 187–195.Google Scholar

Hofstee, W. K. B., Kiers, H. A., De Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1997). A comparison of Big Five structures of personality traits in Dutch, English, and German. European Journal of Personality, 11, 15–31.Google Scholar

Holland, D. C., Dollinger, S. J., Holland, C. J., & MacDonald, D. A. (1995). The relationship between psychometric intelligence and the five-factor model of personality in a rehabilitation sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 79–88.Google Scholar

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253–270.Google Scholar

Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., & Yarmel, P. W. (1987). Intellectual functioning and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 232–240.Google Scholar

Jang, K. L., Hu, S., Livesley, W. J., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Vernon, P. A. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on the covariance of facets defining the domains of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 83–101.Google Scholar

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History: measurement, and conceptual issue. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (Eds). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, J. A. (1994). Clarification of factor five with the help of the AB5C model. European Journal of Personality, 8, 311–334.Google Scholar

Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2005a). The structure of human intelligence: It’s verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid-crystallized. Intelligence, 33, 393–416.Google Scholar

Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2005b). Constructive replication of the visual–perceptual-image rotation model in Thurstone’s (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability, Intelligence, 33, 417–430.Google Scholar

Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2007). Sex differences in mental abilities: g masks the dimensions on which they lie. Intelligence, 35, 23–39.Google Scholar

Johnson, W., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., Tellegen, A., Keyes, M., & Gottesman, I. I. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on the Verbal-Perceptual-Image Rotation (VPR) model of the structure of mental abilities in the Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Intelligence, 35, 542–562.Google Scholar

Johnson, W., Nijenhuis, J., & Bouchard, T. J. (2007). Replication of the hierarchical visual–perceptual-image rotation model in de Wolff and Buiten’s (1963) battery of 46 tests of mental ability. Intelligence, 35, 69−81.Google Scholar

Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208.Google Scholar

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Self estimates of general, crystallized, and fluid intelligences in an ethnically diverse population. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 118–122.Google Scholar

Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116, 321–340.Google Scholar

Kaufman, S. B., Quilty, L. C., Grazioplene, R. G., Hirsh, J. B., Gray, J. R., Peterson, J. B., & DeYoung, C. G. (2016). Openness to Experience and Intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Personality, 84, 248–258.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Keightley, M. L., Seminowicz, D. A., Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., Fossati, P., & Mayberg, H. S. (2003). Personality influences limbic-cortical interactions during sad mood. NeuroImage, 20, 2031–2039.Google Scholar

Kirby, K. N. (2009). One-year temporal stability of delay-discount rates. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 457–462.Google Scholar

Koenen, K. C., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Rijsdijk, F., & Taylor, A. (2006). Genetic influences on the overlap between low IQ and antisocial behavior in young children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 787–797.Google Scholar

Koenig, L. B., & Bouchard, T. J., Jr. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on the Traditional Moral Values Triad – Authoritarianism, Conservatism and Religiousness – as assessed by quantitative behavior genetic methods. In McNamara, P. (Ed.), Where god and science meet: How brain and evolutionary studies alter our understanding of religion, Vol. 1, Evolution, genes, and the religious brain. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar

Kovacs, K., & Conway, A. R. A. (2016). Process Overlap Theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelligence, Psychological Inquiry, 27, 151–177.Google Scholar

Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., & Kramer, M. D. (2007). Linking antisocial behavior, substance use, and personality: An integrative quantitative model of the adult externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 645–666.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuntsi, J., Eley, T.C., Taylor, A., Hughes, C., Asherson, P., Caspi, A., et al. (2004). Co-occurrence of ADHD and low IQ has genetic origins. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 124, 41–47.Google Scholar

Leikas, S., Mäkinen, S., Lönnqvist, J. E., & Verkasalo, M. (2009). Cognitive ability × emotional stability interactions on adjustment. European Journal of Personality, 23(4), 329–342.Google Scholar

Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.Google Scholar

Ludeke, S. G., Rasmussen, S. H. R., & DeYoung, C. G. (2017). Verbal ability drives the link between intelligence and ideology in two American community samples. Intelligence, 61, 1–6.Google Scholar

Lynam, D. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the relation between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test motivation, school failure, or self-control? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 187–196.Google Scholar

Mahalingam, V., Stillwell, D., Kosinski, M., Rust, J., & Kogan, A. (2014). Who can wait for the future? A personality perspective. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(5), 573–583.Google Scholar

Major, J. T., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2012). Comparing models of intelligence in Project TALENT: The VPR model fits better than the CHC and extended Gf–Gc models. Intelligence, 40, 543–559.Google Scholar

Major, J. T., Johnson, W., & Deary, I. J. (2014). Linear and nonlinear associations between general intelligence and personality in Project TALENT. Journal of personality and social psychology, 106(4), 638–654.Google Scholar

Malka, A., Lelkes, Y., & Soto, C. J. (2017). Are cultural and economic conservatism positively correlated? A large-scale cross-national test. British Journal of Political Science, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000072 Google Scholar

Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157.Google Scholar

Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.Google Scholar

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 60, 197–215.Google Scholar

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.Google Scholar

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.Google Scholar

McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to Experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 13, 39–55.Google Scholar

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of Openness to Experience. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J., & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Miller, G. F., & Tal, I. R. (2007). Schizotypy versus openness and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Schizophrenia Research, 93, 317–324.Google Scholar

Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765–798.Google Scholar

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEO Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79–94.Google Scholar

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2006). What facets of openness and conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 31–42.Google Scholar

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is Conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022.Google Scholar

Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (2006). Is the relationship between intelligence and trait neuroticism mediated by test anxiety? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 587–597.Google Scholar

Mussel, P. (2013). Intellect: A theoretical framework for personality traits related to intellectual achievements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 885–906.Google Scholar

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr, Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., … & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American psychologist, 51(2), 77.Google Scholar

Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631.Google Scholar

Nettle, D., & Liddle, B. (2008). Agreeableness is related to social-cognitive, but not social-perceptual, theory of mind. European Journal of Personality, 22, 323–335.Google Scholar

Nolan, S. A., Roberts, J. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1998). Neuroticism and ruminative response style as predictors of change in depressive symptomatology. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 445–455.Google Scholar

Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are openness and intellect distinct aspects of openness to experience? A test of the O/I model. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 571–574.Google Scholar

Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2016). Self-pathology, the five-factor model, and bloated specific factors: A cautionary tale. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125, 423–434.Google Scholar

Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Schittekatte, M., & De Pauw, S. (2015). The association of cognitive ability with right‐wing ideological attitudes and prejudice: A meta‐analytic review. European Journal of Personality, 29(6), 599–621.Google Scholar

Osborne, D., Wootton, L. W., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Are liberals agreeable or not? Politeness and Compassion differentially predict political conservatism via distinct ideologies. Social Psychology, 44, 354–360.Google Scholar

Ostaszewski, P. (1996). The relation between temperament and rate of temporal discounting. European Journal of Personality, 10, 161–172.Google Scholar

Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (1994). Reflections on different labels for Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 341–349.Google Scholar

Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025–1060.Google Scholar

Paulhus, D. L., Lysy, D. C., & Yik, M. S. M. (1998). Self-report measures of intelligence: Are they useful as proxy IQ tests? Journal of Personality, 66, 525–554.Google Scholar

Pedulla, J. J., Airasian, P. W., Madaus, G. F. (1980). Do teacher ratings and standardized test results of students yield the same information? American Educational Research Journal, 17, 303–307.Google Scholar

Perkins, A. M., & Corr, P. J. (2006). Cognitive ability as a buffer to neuroticism: Churchill’s secret weapon? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 39–51.Google Scholar

Peterson, J. B., & Flanders, J. L. (2002). Complexity management theory: Motivation for ideological rigidity and social conflict. Cortex, 38, 429–458.Google Scholar

Pickering, A. D. (2004). The neuropsychology of impulsive antisocial sensation seeking personality traits: From dopamine to hippocampal function? In Stelmack, R. M. (Ed.), On the psychobiology of personality: Essays in honor of Marvin Zuckerman (pp. 453–477). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Pietschnig, J., & Voracek, M. (2015). One century of global IQ gains: A formal meta-analysis of the Flynn effect (1909–2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 282–306.Google Scholar

Pytlik Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral and cognitive processes represented in the Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847–858.Google Scholar

Raine, A., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. (2005). Neurocognitive impairments in boys on the life-course persistent antisocial path. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1), 38–49.Google Scholar

Reeve, C. L., Meyer, R. D., & Bonaccio, S. (2006). Intelligence–personality associations reconsidered: The importance of distinguishing between general and narrow dimensions of intelligence. Intelligence, 34, 387–402.Google Scholar

Richards, J. B., Zhang, L., Mitchell, S., & de Wit, H. (1999). Delay and probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71, 121–143.Google Scholar

Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental influences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the self- and peer report NEO-FFI scales. Journal of Personality, 65, 449–476.Google Scholar

Roberts, B. W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R. F., Richards, J. M., & Hill, P. L. (2014). What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Developmental Psychology, 50, 1315–1330.Google Scholar

Roberts, R. D., Schulze, R., MacCann, C. (2008). The measurement of emotional intelligence: A decade of progress? In Boyle, G., Matthews, G., & Saklofske, D. H. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Rueter, A. R., Abram, S. V., MacDonald, A. W., Rustichini, A., & DeYoung, C. G. (2018). The goal priority network as a neural substrate of Conscientiousness. Human Brain Mapping, 39(9), 3574–3585.Google Scholar

Saklofske, D. H., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (1995). International handbook of personality and intelligence. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Santarnecchi, E., Emmendorfer, A., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2017). Dissecting the parieto-frontal correlates of fluid intelligence: A comprehensive ALE meta-analysis study. Intelligence, 63, 9–28.Google Scholar

Saucier, G. (1992). Openness versus intellect: Much ado about nothing? European Journal of Personality, 6, 381–386.Google Scholar

Saucier, G. (1994). Trapnell versus the lexical factor: More ado about nothing? European Journal of Personality, 8, 291–298.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schulte, M. J., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1059–1068.Google Scholar

Séguin, J. R., Boulerice, B., Harden, P., Tremblay, R. E., & Pihl, R. O. (1999). Executive functions and physical aggression after controlling for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, general memory, and IQ. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1197–1208.Google Scholar

Shamosh, N. A., DeYoung, C. G., Green, A. E., Reis, D. L., Johnson, M. R., Conway, A. R. A. et al. (2008). Individual differences in delay discounting: Relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 19, 904–911.Google Scholar

Shamosh, N.A., & Gray, J.R. (2008). Delay discounting and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 38, 289–305.Google Scholar

Shiner, R. L., & DeYoung, C. G. (2013). The structure of temperament and personality traits: A developmental perspective. In Zelazo, P. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 113–141). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Silvia, P. J. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual differences, 44(4), 1012–1021.Google Scholar

Smillie, L. D., Varsavsky, V., Avery, R. E., & Perry, R. (2016). Trait intellect predicts cognitive engagement: Evidence from a resource allocation perspective. European Journal of Personality, 30(3), 215–226.Google Scholar

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143.Google Scholar

Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.Google Scholar

Stanek, K. C. (2014). Meta-analyses of personality and cognitive ability. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar

Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). What explains boys’ stronger confidence in their intelligence? Sex Roles, 61, 736–749.Google Scholar

Sternberg, R. J., & Ruzgis, P. (Eds.) (1994). Personality and intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Swann, A. C., Bjork, J. M., Moeller, F. G., & Dougherty, D. M. (2002). Two models of impulsivity: relationship to personality traits and psychopathology. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 988–994.Google Scholar

Syzmanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Gender differences in self-estimates of general, mathematical, spatial and verbal intelligence: Four meta analyses. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 493–504.Google Scholar

Vigil-Colet, A., & Morales-Vives, F. (2005). How impulsivity is related to intelligence and academic achievement. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8, 199–204.Google Scholar

Von Stumm, S., & Ackerman, P. L. (2013). Investment and intellect: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 841–869.Google Scholar

Wacker, J., & Smillie, L. D. (2015). Trait extraversion and dopamine function. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(6), 225–238.Google Scholar

Wainwright, M. A., Wright, M. J., Luciano, M., Geffen, G. M., & Martin, N. G. (2008). Genetic covariation among facets of openness to experience and general cognitive ability. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11, 275–286.Google Scholar

Wallace, J. (1966). An abilities conception of personality: Some implications for personality measurement. American Psychologist, 21, 132–138.Google Scholar

Waller, N. G., DeYoung, C. G., & Bouchard, T. J. (2016). The recaptured scale technique: A method for testing the structural robustness of personality scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 433–445.Google Scholar

Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, 2, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178 Google Scholar

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, R. W. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669–689.Google Scholar

Willerman, L., Turner, R. G., & Peterson, M. (1976). A comparison of the predictive validity of typical and maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 482–492.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilt, J., & Revelle, W. (2015). Affect, behaviour, cognition and desire in the Big Five: An analysis of item content and structure. European Journal of Personality, 29(4), 478–497.Google Scholar

Wolf, M. B., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 531–542.Google Scholar

Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Longley, A., Zhang, Z. X., Chiu, C. Y., & Stark, S. E. (2014). Openness to experience: Its lower level structure, measurement, and cross-cultural equivalence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 29–45.Google Scholar

Woo, S. E., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S. E., & Conz, G. (2014). Validity of six openness facets in predicting work behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 76–86.Google Scholar

Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K. et al. (2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 987–998.Google Scholar

Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581–610). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., & Ziegler, M. (2015). Interaction effects between openness and fluid intelligence predicting scholastic performance. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 91–110.Google Scholar

Ziegler, M., Danay, E., Heene, M., Asendorpf, J., & Bühner, M. (2012). Openness, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 173–183.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.